Re: [Foundation-l] Frustration with WMF = WP
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks mcdev...@gmail.com wrote: While I am impressed by everyone's ability to turn this into yet another discussion of the image filter, how about if we don't do that just this once? :-) Yes, this is a WMF-killing-the-other-projects conspiracy thread, not an image filter conspiracy thread :) -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ 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 4:35 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: (Australia, however, is still decidedly sweat based). Well, we recently confirmed that computers can't have sweat on their brows. So there's some progress! http://www.thenewlawyer.com.au/article/high-court-closes-book-on-telstra/531627.aspx -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: However, poll data suggests otherwise (taking the de.wikipedia sample). AFAIK it's a minority that want filters, with a majority that doesn't. The dewiki poll had 300 participants, the one on meta over 23,000. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: The survey was not a poll or referendum, and did not address the fundamental question of whether this feature is wanted. The only actual poll I am aware of which asked this question was on de.wikipedia. My point is that the dewiki poll being worded in a manner that is pleasing to people who have critiqued the Foundation-wide survey does not render it representative, when it was participated in by at most one eightieth of the members of the community whom we know to have an opinion on the matter. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A possible solution for the image filter
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 9:19 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: One of the objections is that we don't want a Flickr style system which involves images being deleted, accounts being suspended and the burden of filtering being put on the uploader. When have any of those things been part of the proposal? -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: It is not the job of Commons community to work on personal wishes of American right-wingers. Well, while we're tarring large groups of people with the same brush, it's not their job to bend to the desires of European anarcho-libertarians either. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:56 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: How much is mutilated? A scratch? Ten scratches? A hundred scratches? St Sebastian? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sebastia.jpg I'm struggling to recall an example in any of these threads that's not an artwork. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: We discussed this already and came to the conclusion, that you would need hundreds of these categories to filter out most of the objectionable content. And once again, the labelling doesn't need to be perfect (nothing on a wiki is) if an option to hide all images by default is implemented (which at present there seems to be broad support for, from most quarters). The accuracy of filtering can then be disclaimed, with a recommendation that people can hide all images if they want a guarantee. Coarse-grained labelling is then good enough, and we can even adopt the position that where there is no consensus, the image will not be filtered. On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:17 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: I'd estimate the chances as pretty high that we're going to get a thorough exploration of every possible axis that's measured for a filter. So you're thinking to apply this only to photos, then? No. And of course artworks are being used as examples because they're going to present the corner cases. But all of these discussions seem to be proceeding on the basis that there are nothing but corner cases, when really (I would imagine) pretty much everything that will be filtered will be either: * actual images of human genitals [1], * actual images of dead human bodies, or * imagery subject to religious restriction. Almost all will be in the first two categories, and most of those in the first one, and will primarily be photographs. On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Er, Egyptian mummies are real bodies that would need real photographs. For a wealth of horrific examples that need to be censored, please enjoy viewing http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mummies On the basis that the community, by and large, is not comprised wholly of idiots, I'm sure it will be capable of holding a sensible discussion as to whether images of mummies (not to forget bog bodies and Pompeii castings, as further examples) would be in or out of such a category. And again, perfection is not necessary. If someone has dead bodies filtered and sees the filtered image placeholder with the caption this is an Egyptian mummy, they can elect to show that particular image, or decide that they would like to turn off the filter. Or if such a dead bodies filter is described as not including Egyptian mummies, someone could decide to hide all images by default. This doesn't have to be difficult. -- [1] Which, naturally, includes actual images of people undertaking all sorts of activities involving human genitals. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 4:16 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Tobias Oelgarte described one key problem. Another lies in the labeling of some things and not others. Unless we were to create and apply a label for literally everything that someone finds objectionable, we'd be taking the non-neutral position that only certain objections (the ones for which filters exist) are reasonable. NPOV involves determining whether viewpoints are widely held, are held by substantial or significant minorities, or are held by an extremely small or vastly limited minority and therefore not suitable to be covered in articles. This is an editorial decision-making process that all editors perform all the time. Determining which filters to work on is entirely analogous to this process, which is inherently neutral. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 6:21 AM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: Depending on the settings of the user some kind of Javascript will hide the images. This passed along labels could simply be used to exclude the image as the whole, making the show image button disappear. That would depend on the implementation, but even if the 'show image' button were not present, the caption (which includes a link to the image description page) would still be there, indicating that an image had been blocked. The provider itself isn't able to filter the image or the content, since this is a lot of working time and time costs money. But if we choose to label the content for no fee, we open a new field for partial censorship. Blocking of HTTP requests to images subject to any filters by an ISP or some other intermediary would be fairly trivially avoided by requesting the image from a mirror, or via a proxy etc. The community has plenty of talented javascript coders who could implement such a workaround. Moreover as above, the caption will still be present (and, depending on the implementation, the 'show image' button will be present but ineffective) and so the user will know that an image has been blocked. To avoid this, the ISP or intermediary would have to alter the HTML in transit to remove the caption to conceal the censorship. But if they have the capability and the desire to do that, then there are many more potent avenues for censorship they could already engage in, particularly avenues involving modification of the article text. The marginal risk presented here does not seem to be high. On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: What would someone living inside such a group think if the content is already labeled that way, that he should not look at it. Isn't it social pressure put on the free mind, especially if other members of the group are around? I find this 'social pressure to activate filters' line of argument quite flimsy. If a person would be under such social pressure, how are they not at present under enough pressure to avoid using Wikimedia projects (or at least articles where such pictures would be expected to be present) entirely? -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: I'd say, drop the idea that the filter is supposed to be perfect. A filter that is little-used can get a rough content first time around, preferably specified by the person asking for the filter, then people using the filter can suggest adding or removing images. Volunteers can go and work on the filters if they want, but if they don't, the filter will just be changed by such suggestions. Indeed. I think some of the problems some people are predicting have been drastically exaggerated. As long as the option to hide all images is also implemented, we can quite simply add a disclaimer when anyone goes to turn on a filter indicating that if complete exclusion is particularly important to them, they should choose the option to hide everything by default. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: We do realize that what we did was wrong, and this is clearly not a situation where we can go on with the 'your opinions have been duly noted' haughty attitude. We apologize for even going that route ever in the first place. The community rules, we serve, that is what we are being payed for. Let us now prostrate ourselves at the feet of that segment of the community which opposed this idea, who we realise are the just and righteous leaders of the Wikimedia movement due to having the loudest voices, and beg for their absolution. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Wikimedia project has forked
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:24 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Wikimedia has made its decision and the community has largely sat quiet on the issue. Wikimedia has made it clear in promotional materials, donation drives, and nearly anywhere else that its focus is the English Wikipedia. Wikinews never had the kind of substantial organic growth that many of the other projects had. According to Eric Zachte's stats, active contributors (five or more edits in a month) peaked in July 2005, nine months after the project was started, and before the Foundation really had any significant clout in determining the direction of the projects. And that peak was at just 110 users. New contributors (making at least 10 career edits) per month has averaged in the single digits for years. Certainly there are valid points to be made about the level of support over the last few years, but which is the chicken and which is the egg here? (With the caveat that I'm not now, and never have been, a Wikinews contributor:) Wikinews offers some outstanding original reporting and interviews, but that's an extraordinarily scarce resource. The rest is pieces synthesising news from elsewhere, and in that regard Wikipedia has needed no assistance in drawing attention and contributions away from Wikinews. What good is yesterday's synthesis today? -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Wikimedia project has forked
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: I would characterize WMF's prioritization as an A rising tide lifts all boats policy. Improvements are generally conceived to be widely usable, both in Wikimedia projects and even outside the Wikimedia environment, and to have the largest possible impact. Even if a first deployment is Wikipedia, they will generally benefit other projects as well. I believe the correct name for that is the trickle-down effect :) -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PG rating
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:24 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: Are there any encyclopedia which have been classified/banned/bowlderised by any country in the last 50 years? If Wikipedia is a quality encyclopedia, most rating agencies would decide that the content is appropriate for all ages. Britannica never had authors putting pictures of their own genitals throughout each volume because NOTCENSORED. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: If the poll had been done properly, we wouldn't have a problem. The only problem is the the poll was so poorly designed that it will need to be completely re-done to draw any useful conclusions. It provides a quite satisfactory 'yes' in answer to the question of whether it is worth the devs' time coding beginning development. We're merely talking about a proposed software feature here. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:59 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: I didn't see that question on the survey. The first question asked people how important they considered it to be that the projects offer the feature. The perceived importance of offering a new software feature indicates the level/quantity of dev resources that should be allocated to developing it. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: That's only true if there is general agreement that the feature would be nice to have and there is just a question of whether it is worth the effort. That it not the case here. The referendum was pretty clearly predicated on the basis that the feature was going forward: The Board of Trustees has directed the Wikimedia Foundation to develop and implement a personal image hiding feature. [The referendum was held] to gather more input in to the development and usage of an opt-in personal image hiding feature. And from the resolution: We ask the Executive Director, in consultation with the community, to develop and implement a personal image hiding feature... (not We ask the Executive Director, so long as the can't-recognise-the-irony-in-fighting-censorship-by-stopping-people-choosing-what-they-want-to-see crowd gives their blessing, to develop and implement...) The questions are all relating to the development of the feature, save for the 'culturally neutral' question: the first is about how to prioritise it, and the others are about setting out the specs for the feature. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced
On Sep 6, 2011 6:43 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: However, you initially claimed the referendum itself constituted support for the feature itself: It provides a quite satisfactory 'yes' in answer to the question of whether it is worth the devs' time coding beginning development. We're pointing out that it doesn't provide any such thing at all. It indicated importance. The mean response to the first question of 5.7 and the medium response of 6 points to the community considering it moderately important that the feature be offered, which suggests moderate dedication of dev resources to its development. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced
On Sep 6, 2011 7:11 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: The mean and median are statistical gibberish in a distribution that pathologically bimodal. You should know better than to make any claim that the numbers you quote are meaningful. 16% of respondents chose '0' and 20% chose '10'. Nearly 2/3 of respondents chose a response other than one of the two extremes. (There's also a third spike at '5', representing a typical/normal/no different than other features level of importance, with the remaining responses being weighted towards the upper end of the scale.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Harel Cain harel.c...@gmail.com wrote: The last elections saw a participation of a few thousand of voters, just a small proportion of all the people eligible to vote, I didn't vote last time. I ultimately didn't consider it worth my while researching the candidates and refreshing myself on issues that I'd missed given the steadily declining relevance of the community-elected board members on the operation of the Foundation. (This is not a comment on the members themselves - all of whom have been and continue to be excellent - but on the Board's composition, and the increasing dominance of the executive). -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:35 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think the point here is to increase voter turnout, though—rather, it's to prevent people who do quite a lot of off-wiki work to support Wikimedia, people who probably have more interest than most in the composition of the Board, from being unfairly disenfranchised as they (okay, we) have been in past elections. I would think there would be some developers contributing code to MediaWiki who are not also editors. Given the quasi-independence of MediaWiki development from everything else under the Wikimedia umbrella, would there still be enough connection to the Foundation's operations to render it desirable that they be enfranchised? (I would think so.) -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
2011/3/21 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com: I don't know why you think MediaWiki is quasi-independent from other Wikimedia endeavors. Sorry if I was unclear, I meant that the development community is somewhat separate: people making modifications for non-Wikimedia installs, non-Wikimedia extension devs, Wikia devs, etc. Not that I know how many of them there are. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] fundraiser suggestion
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote: It's kind of obvious, isn't it? It is not obvious how much money is urgent, more urgent than the need to read the article. It is not obvious how much money is so urgent that it needs to distract me from reading the article by blinking. It is not obvious how much money is urgent so we could entirely block people from reading the article until they donate. I think we can equate 'urgent' to 'keeping the sites operational'. With that in mind we can look at the 2010-11 plan [1] to see how much money is budgeted for doing that: $1.8 M (up from $1 M) is budgeted for hosting costs, ie keeping the servers operational and buying enough internets to feed them with. $3.3 M (up from $0.96 M) is budgeted for capital expenses, most of which (though an unspecified proportion) is to fit out a new datacentre and get more bandwidth for the existing ones. We can count this as urgent too (making sure the sites remain operational with growth over the 12 months). We don't know what proportion of the $9 M budgeted for salaries is for the tech staff. With projected hirings over 2010-11 (16 new tech staff for a total of 38), they will make up about 40% of staff (roughly the same as at present). Not all of these will strictly be necessary for keeping the sites operational though. Not all the new positions are specified, but the ones that are range from strongly connected to keeping the site operational (five new tech operations positions, a datacentre engineer), to moderately connected (a couple of new positions relating to MediaWiki development), to not connected at all (people to work on a database to track relationships with all stakeholders including readers, editors, donors, other volunteers, etc). Moreover, as much as we all love the current tech staff [2], not all of their positions are related to keeping the site operational; some are about expanding functionality. But let's be generous and say that all the tech staff can be put in the 'urgent' pile, and that tech salaries will be $3.7 M (41.7% of the budgeted amount for salaries, assuming here that tech salaries are no higher or lower than other salaries). Let's also assume that the whole of capital expenditure will be on tech essential for keeping the sites operational into the future. This puts a ceiling on 'urgent' costs at $8.8 M, or 43% of the budget of $20.4 M. [3] -- [1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/dd/2010-11_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf [2] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff#Technology [3] The fundraiser hit $8.8 M on Dec 16. But, subtracting the budgeted $4 M of non-fundraiser revenue, the fundraiser needed to meet $4.8 M to cover 'urgent' expenses, a mark it hit on Nov 25. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] fundraiser suggestion
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 January 2011 13:45, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote: This puts a ceiling on 'urgent' costs at $8.8 M, or 43% of the budget of $20.4 M. [3] This is a worthwhile analysis, but you have neglected the numerous expenses involved in supporting a large organisation. You can't have an organisation with an $8.8M budget without managers, fundraisers, HR, legal counsel, etc.. The WMF could trim its budget a lot without harming basic site function, but not as much as your method suggests. Sure, I don't attempt to estimate overheads. But that's probably balanced out by the generous assumptions made, particularly the one that all tech staff are essential for site operation, when as many as half of them are mostly about building functionality (eg, all the people employed in connection with the usability project). -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] fundraiser suggestion
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: But to suggest that the choice of such shorthand is tantamount to lying to and misleading our donors is, indeed, irresponsible hyperbole. It's clear that the choice was, in fact, made to _reduce_ potential confusion of donors about who/what they're being asked to support. Hang on: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:20 AM, 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. So wait, why was the choice made? -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ 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 Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:20 AM, 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. Thanks for the explanation. It seems some people assumed bad faith before, when really we can see it was just a good-natured attempt to deceive these people as to where their money would go. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] excluding Wikipedia clones from searching
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote: For some time i used to fight this problem by adding -site:wikipedia.org-site: wapedia.mobi -site:miniwiki.org etc. to my search queries, but i hit a wall: Google limits the search string to 32 words, and today there are many more than 32 sites that clone Wikipedia, so this trick is also becoming useless. If you have Firefox there's an addon that will let you filter out mirrors (among other things). See: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mirror_filter -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office action
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:56 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Do we really want every contributor to be an expert in the copyright laws of any particular nation that might have a company exerting some obscure claim? We want every contributor who is going to be submitting non-original content (whether texts for Wikisource or images for Commons etc) to know about US copyright law, and where applicable, copyright law for what you might call the 'primary' country for the language of their local project. So your question rephrased for these circumstances is do we want French contributors to be expert in French copyright law when contesting copyright claims by French companies, and the answer is yes. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Along with Vector, a new look for changes to the Wikipedia identity
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Kalan kalan@gmail.com wrote: As demonstrated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VPT#New_logo, simply resizing and re-contrasting doesn’t help much: the shape is still poor. So this is what should be focused IMO; apparently making the logo as similar to older one as possible should be the goal. To make it similar to the old one, yes. At the moment it's similar to the old old one (the original puzzle globe was more contrasty than the version we had most recently). Given that we're working here with a 2D render of the 3D model of the logo, these are just teething issues with finding exactly the right parameters (lighting, amount of AA, other postprocessing, etc) for the render. Would the people working on the logo be able to make the 3D model available for people to play with? -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Another board member statement
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:05 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: Kat Walsh k...@wikimedia.org wrote: Commons should not be a host for media that has very little informational or educational value This is too broad. Confine the scope toward dealing with what does not belong, rather than trying to suggest that everything be purposed as stated above. Prurient and exhibitionist are terms which seem to adequately define what doesn't belong. It is not too broad; Commons has always distinguished itself in this way from general purpose photo/media hosting services like Flickr or YouTube. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] MMORPG and Wikimedia
On Friday, May 7, 2010, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: We're aiming in this mailing list to shape the futur of the human knowledge through the foundation, right? So it is right to talk about the future, it's not an arrogance. Of course, any affirmation about the future must be considered an hypothesis, however convinced may seem his bearer, but also however unconvinced we are. Listen and think. Then answer so that our interlocutor listens and thinks too. Well we're listening, we're just waiting for some arguments as to why the community should consider investing time and effort into this, instead of just assertions that VR is the future of the internets. There's certainly scope for content beyond text and embedded media in the projects. But it's going to start with things like 3D models incorporated into articles through canvas elements rather than fully immersive environments. To that end, does anyone know what happened to that project to embed 3D models of chemical compounds? -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia iPhone app goes v2.0
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 1:53 PM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote: Yea it is :) The source to which seems to be located here: http://github.com/wikimedia/wikipedia-iphone I fixed the link on the description page on MediaWiki.org (1), which was pointing to the wrong branch. It seems to be out of date in other ways too. Any reason why this isn't in SVN? -- (1) http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_iPhone_app -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to reply to a mailing list thread
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: This post below, I've pretty much ignored because it wasn't worth trying to sort through who said what. Yet instead of deleting it, you included the whole thing. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
On Wednesday, March 31, 2010, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote: Thank you for recognizing that there are no *known* scenarios in which the current use of Wikimedia-owned images would be a problem. I can't imagine any either. Consider a re-user displaying article contents including, for example, an interwiki link template with the destination project's logo, but displaying the text without hyperlinks. The original use case, linking to a Wikimedia project, would not apply. Some mirrors will strip some or all links, or replace them with their own links. Similarly offline-readable versions of Wikimedia content may strip or substitute links while retaining images (though you would hope they would strip most templates too). Stephen Bain, - managing to trim replies and avoid top-posting from his mobile device -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] FlaggedRevisions status (March 2010)
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: The answer is already given ... When it is done. You have been informed with the latest developments.. so you know the existing issues. That's normally the perfect answer, but the point of this discussion is that it's not unreasonable to expect something more concrete when there are people getting paid to do the work. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sue Gardner, Erik Möller , Wi lliam Pietri: Where is FlaggedRevisions?
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:16 PM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote: Rob Halsell has recycled an old server for our use, and we are working to get it configured in a way that's enough like the production environment that we will have some confidence that a successful test there will mean a successful rollout on the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the production environment is complicated, and Rob has a lot on his plate, probably too much, so this is taking a while. So to clarify, what is currently holding the project up is this old server (presumably recycled from production usage), that is sitting around waiting to be configured like a production server for testing? -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Frequency of Seeing Bad Versions - now with traffic data
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Anthonywikim...@inbox.org wrote: It seems to me to be begging the question. You don't answer the question how bad is vandalism by assuming that vandalism is generally reverted. Can you suggest a better metric then? -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Raw data of 2009 Board election ballots
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: I'm inclined to agree. I just don't see any sufficient benefit to releasing the data to make it worth the risk. Why do people want this information? Is it just because they don't trust the vote count? Because they know in their hearts that the Schulze method is stupid, and their heads just want to make sure. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad
Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad ... 'To me the problem is the Wikipedia rule of public use,' says Jerry Avenaim, a celebrity photographer. 'If they truly wanted to elevate the image on the site, they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright.' We should definitely take advice from a professional photographer who doesn't understand what a licence is. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No default codec for video and audio in HTML5
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Hay (Husky)hus...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately OGG Theora didn't make it as the default codec for the HTML5 video element in the spec. Until one of the two major formats (Theora and H264) is clearly the major format the HTML5 spec will not specify a default codec for the video element. Theora supporters should be pleased with this. Theora is clearly better supported in browsers currently implementing the video element, but H.264 is way more common in the broader video environment, particularly in terms of hardware support and support outside the browser (in mobile devices, for example). It's much closer to being the de facto standard of the web than Theora is. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Parker Higginsparkerhigg...@gmail.com wrote: Except google isn't asserting any kind of copyright control over these books, they're just not making it convenient to download them in your preferred format. Maybe not The Right Thing, but not as boneheaded as suing a party who reprints public domain material, as was the case in Feist v. Rural (the supreme court case you mention.) They want people to use their service. Fair enough, given that the scanning and OCRing happened on their dime. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing update roll-out
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Erik Moellere...@wikimedia.org wrote: Because the GFDL is only of interest to a minority of re-users, ... If this is the Foundation's view, why did it opt to push for (hobbled) dual-licencing going forward, instead of transitioning completely to CC-BY-SA and retaining GFDL only for legacy content? -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 4:51 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: We should simply have told the FSF: At least when dealign with text, we regard all CC-BY licenses as compatible with each other and with GFDL, and therefore there's nothing that needs to be negotiated. Anyone who wants to use our content under any such license is welcome, and we will treat yours similarly, under the presumption that any court would regard the differences as insignificant. Please tell me you didn't vote on the licensing transition proposal. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wiktionary-l] Divergent Wiktionary logos
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com wrote: My own suggestion would be to use individual blocks but to have them be like type pieces from a printing press. Though actual proposals for new logos will be accepted later (once it is decided how things will work), you can leave a comment about how you feel here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary/logo/refresh#Begin_from_Scratch :-) I couldn't resist making a prototype: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/logo/refresh#Suggestion -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
