Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
Hello, On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com wrote: What he is pointing out is that the chapter set up the whole process, thus making them culpable. The French chapter didn't set up anything. The chapter merely agreed to accept the donations that the printer chooses to make (and I say merely because I'm not even sure they could refuse the donations anyway) and to send a press release, as for any other relevant news about Wikimedia projects. -- Guillaume Paumier [[m:User:guillom]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
Sam Johnston wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: Just how much control do you expect from the Central Committee? Sure, it's a given that some will-intentioned initiatives will go dreadfully awry. Bad things have happened in the past, and bad things will happen in the future; None of it will be prevented by imposing strict central control. Wikimedia is a resilient organisation, and it didn't get that way through paranoid musings about a tarnished reputation. It's not that fragile. My primary concern is that all the potential ramifications of such actions be properly considered - the income is irrelevant in the context of the WMF budget and yet the risk could be extreme. For example, deriving revenue directly from the content could cause problems for fair use[1], let alone the prospect of users uploading copyrighted or otherwise restricted (eg trademarked) content. Material in the public domain or under a fully free licence does not require any kind of fair use consideration. The WMF already takes a stricter position in fair use in its contents than I would ever consider necessary, by insisting that fair use material must be able to remain so when used by a downstream consumer. An important element of WMF's risk management is to *not* have general editorial participation in its contents. If it takes an official hand in such things it endangers the safe harbors it has as an ISP. It must respond to legal demands, but it cannot be faulted if it fails to notice an irregularity, or if it fails to accept the word of an uninterested third party that some content is a copyright violation. Of course, we must use common sense about such things, even when failing to do that would be technically legal. Another liability to consider relates to problems with delivery. Normally such convenience services include strong disclaimers of warranty and liability but checking one of my contributions[2] shows offers to 'Choisissez un imprimeur *accrédité*'. By referring to these vendors as 'accredited' we are stating that they are officially approved and raising many questions about the accreditation process itself. I wouldn't take such a narrow reading of accredité. French Wikitionary, under accrediter shows Rendre crédible http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/cr%C3%A9dible, vraisemblable http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/vraisemblable, donner cours http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/cours. There's a lot of wiggle room with that word, and if I encountered it in a legal context the first thing I would ask is, What do they mean by that?. In the absence of a specific definition any of several reasonably applicable definitions can be applied. If necessary it would be easy to amend the disclaimer. Suggéré would be an even less stringent term. Delivery problems are a matter of the contract between the printer and the consumer, and should not normally be a legal concern for WMF. If there is a reported history of bad service in multiple incidents we should not be recommending that printer, but even if there is such a history proving that kind of international complicity over the printing of a single book would be well beyond the capacity of a small-claims court. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Sam Johnston wrote: My primary concern is that all the potential ramifications of such actions be properly considered - the income is irrelevant in the context of the WMF budget and yet the risk could be extreme. For example, deriving revenue directly from the content could cause problems for fair use[1], let alone the prospect of users uploading copyrighted or otherwise restricted (eg trademarked) content. Material in the public domain or under a fully free licence does not require any kind of fair use consideration. I'm not talking about genuinely free material, I'm talking about protected (copyrighted/trademarked) material being uploaded by others - for example a periodic table of elements or medical charts which would normally be subject to deletion (except that they are currently immediately available for sale!). Furthermore, while WMF *may* be safe from attack on the grounds that *it* is both non-profit and at arms length from the transaction itself, things are certainly less clear for the commercial printer who could well find themselves in serious trouble. What contract(s) are in place to cover WMF its chapter(s) in the case that such a supplier (rightly?) seeks recourse because we have made such material available to them? The WMF already takes a stricter position in fair use in its contents than I would ever consider necessary, by insisting that fair use material must be able to remain so when used by a downstream consumer. Albeit interesting, I'm unsure of the relevance. An important element of WMF's risk management is to *not* have general editorial participation in its contents. If it takes an official hand in such things it endangers the safe harbors it has as an ISP. While also true, that is more pertinent in the Flagged Revisions debate (and I have already raised it there[1]). It must respond to legal demands, but it cannot be faulted if it fails to notice an irregularity, or if it fails to accept the word of an uninterested third party that some content is a copyright violation. Of course, we must use common sense about such things, even when failing to do that would be technically legal. Previously this may have been true, but with content going 'on sale' the second it is uploaded I'm not so sure it still holds (assuming it ever did). I wouldn't take such a narrow reading of accredité. French Wikitionary, under accrediter shows Rendre crédible http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/cr%C3%A9dible, vraisemblable http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/vraisemblable, donner cours http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/cours. There's a lot of wiggle room with that word, and if I encountered it in a legal context the first thing I would ask is, What do they mean by that?. In the absence of a specific definition any of several reasonably applicable definitions can be applied. If necessary it would be easy to amend the disclaimer. Suggéré would be an even less stringent term. I just confirmed with my partner (who happens to be French) that 'accredité' is definitely a formal term like accredited. The problem with undefined terms is that it's another thing to argue about and you could find the definition ending up being something completely different to what you had intended (especially if the plaintiff has their say about it). Delivery problems are a matter of the contract between the printer and the consumer, and should not normally be a legal concern for WMF. If there is a reported history of bad service in multiple incidents we should not be recommending that printer, but even if there is such a history proving that kind of international complicity over the printing of a single book would be well beyond the capacity of a small-claims court. See now here is a significant difference between booksources and this initiative - BS if I understand well simply links our articles with the books they refer to. The books already exist and the content for them is sourced and vetted using existing processes and legal frameworks (author guarantees etc.). Here, on the other hand, we are delivering the actual content. Fortunately these issues are easily fixed via forming contracts (even clickthroughs) with the suppliers and the buyers. Questions about bias, quality, etc. can also be resolved by maintaining a transparent database of suppliers (including information about their contributions - average donation per print for example), ideally with user feedback and using techniques like random ordering, etc. This is arguably work that should be done once and made available for everyone. Sam 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection#Beware_increased_liability_.28Publisher_vs_Distributor.29 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net: Material in the public domain or under a fully free licence does not require any kind of fair use consideration. I'm not talking about genuinely free material, I'm talking about protected (copyrighted/trademarked) material being uploaded by others - for example a periodic table of elements or medical charts which would normally be subject to deletion (except that they are currently immediately available for sale!). I'm a little confused - surely we would delete this stuff whether or not there's a buy a print now clickthrough button? I can't see anyone arguing to keep it because they want to run off a poster... (and to a degree this is rendered moot by that helpful lowest useful resolution requirement of the unfree material rules) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.ukwrote: 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net: Material in the public domain or under a fully free licence does not require any kind of fair use consideration. I'm not talking about genuinely free material, I'm talking about protected (copyrighted/trademarked) material being uploaded by others - for example a periodic table of elements or medical charts which would normally be subject to deletion (except that they are currently immediately available for sale!). I'm a little confused - surely we would delete this stuff whether or not there's a buy a print now clickthrough button? I can't see anyone arguing to keep it because they want to run off a poster... (and to a degree this is rendered moot by that helpful lowest useful resolution requirement of the unfree material rules) 1. Upload high-resolution copyrighted image littered with trademarks as anonymous user. 2. Immediately order poster of said image. 3. File against WMF, its chapter(s) and the printer for good measure claiming [RI|MP]AA sized damages for copyright and trademark infringement, submitting said poster(s) and invoice(s) as evidence. 4. ??? 5. Profit! Note that these steps need not necessarily be completed by the same parties. I'm not sure that the courts would have much leeway here (as they might were the image not used commercially as was the case before this function was launched). Sam ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net 1. Upload high-resolution copyrighted image littered with trademarks as anonymous user. 2. Immediately order poster of said image. 3. File against WMF, its chapter(s) and the printer for good measure claiming [RI|MP]AA sized damages for copyright and trademark infringement, submitting said poster(s) and invoice(s) as evidence. 4. ??? 5. Profit! But this is not that different from an anonymous user writing something illegal on Wikipedia, make a screenshot of it, and then blaming Wikipedia for having illegal material, is it? Best wishes, Lennart -- Lennart Guldbrandsson, chair of Wikimedia Sverige and press contact for Swedish Wikipedia // ordförande för Wikimedia Sverige och presskontakt för svenskspråkiga Wikipedia ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
Gerard, I find your response (which fails to address the issues I have raised) abrasive bordering on offensive. I also note that this will not be the first time *today* that someone has requested that you tone it down. What is clear though is that we have a snowflake's chance in hell of convincing you there is a problem, so I'm going to add you to a large (and growing) list of trolls and ignore your 'contributions' from now on. Presumably WMF has lawyer(s) somewhere. What would be the process of getting them to take a look at this with a view to having the French chapter put into place the requisite disclaimers? Sam Lennart: Illegal content results in individuals being pursued, arrested and charged and snarky articles being written by old media, not outrageous (albeit largely unjustified) claims for damages (and leverage via commercial third parties): http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/01/statutory-damages-not-high-enough.ars On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, What WMF server allows anonymous uploads of images ? Do you know if this makes any difference any way ? Who do you think you get an invoice from? Not the WMF not its chapters. So please THINK Why bother us with such tripe that is irrelevant to the thread anyway ? Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net: Material in the public domain or under a fully free licence does not require any kind of fair use consideration. I'm not talking about genuinely free material, I'm talking about protected (copyrighted/trademarked) material being uploaded by others - for example a periodic table of elements or medical charts which would normally be subject to deletion (except that they are currently immediately available for sale!). I'm a little confused - surely we would delete this stuff whether or not there's a buy a print now clickthrough button? I can't see anyone arguing to keep it because they want to run off a poster... (and to a degree this is rendered moot by that helpful lowest useful resolution requirement of the unfree material rules) 1. Upload high-resolution copyrighted image littered with trademarks as anonymous user. 2. Immediately order poster of said image. 3. File against WMF, its chapter(s) and the printer for good measure claiming [RI|MP]AA sized damages for copyright and trademark infringement, submitting said poster(s) and invoice(s) as evidence. 4. ??? 5. Profit! Note that these steps need not necessarily be completed by the same parties. I'm not sure that the courts would have much leeway here (as they might were the image not used commercially as was the case before this function was launched). Sam ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
Hoi, In your post the crucial bit is that a liability results as a consequence of an invoice from either the Wikimedia Foundation or from a WMF chapter. This will not happen because you buy a print from a printer. Our terms of service explicitly state that we do our utmost to ensure that our products are free to use but that we do not guarantee this. As to convincing me that there is a problem, first make plain what the problem is and when a little bit of analysis shows that you did not make it plain, you indeed have no chance in hell of convincing me. If you know anything at all of the WMF you would know the number of lawyers it employs. He is a busy man and I am sure that he knows when to keep his powder dry. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net Gerard, I find your response (which fails to address the issues I have raised) abrasive bordering on offensive. I also note that this will not be the first time *today* that someone has requested that you tone it down. What is clear though is that we have a snowflake's chance in hell of convincing you there is a problem, so I'm going to add you to a large (and growing) list of trolls and ignore your 'contributions' from now on. Presumably WMF has lawyer(s) somewhere. What would be the process of getting them to take a look at this with a view to having the French chapter put into place the requisite disclaimers? Sam Lennart: Illegal content results in individuals being pursued, arrested and charged and snarky articles being written by old media, not outrageous (albeit largely unjustified) claims for damages (and leverage via commercial third parties): http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/01/statutory-damages-not-high-enough.ars On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, What WMF server allows anonymous uploads of images ? Do you know if this makes any difference any way ? Who do you think you get an invoice from? Not the WMF not its chapters. So please THINK Why bother us with such tripe that is irrelevant to the thread anyway ? Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net: Material in the public domain or under a fully free licence does not require any kind of fair use consideration. I'm not talking about genuinely free material, I'm talking about protected (copyrighted/trademarked) material being uploaded by others - for example a periodic table of elements or medical charts which would normally be subject to deletion (except that they are currently immediately available for sale!). I'm a little confused - surely we would delete this stuff whether or not there's a buy a print now clickthrough button? I can't see anyone arguing to keep it because they want to run off a poster... (and to a degree this is rendered moot by that helpful lowest useful resolution requirement of the unfree material rules) 1. Upload high-resolution copyrighted image littered with trademarks as anonymous user. 2. Immediately order poster of said image. 3. File against WMF, its chapter(s) and the printer for good measure claiming [RI|MP]AA sized damages for copyright and trademark infringement, submitting said poster(s) and invoice(s) as evidence. 4. ??? 5. Profit! Note that these steps need not necessarily be completed by the same parties. I'm not sure that the courts would have much leeway here (as they might were the image not used commercially as was the case before this function was launched). Sam ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, In your post the crucial bit is that a liability results as a consequence of an invoice from either the Wikimedia Foundation or from a WMF chapter. False. Furthermore, while WMF *may* be safe from attack on the grounds that *it* is both non-profit and at arms length from the transaction itself, things are certainly less clear for the commercial printer who could well find themselves in serious trouble. What contract(s) are in place to cover WMF its chapter(s) in the case that such a supplier (rightly?) seeks recourse because we have made such material available to them? Sam ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
Sam Johnston wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.ukwrote: 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net: Material in the public domain or under a fully free licence does not require any kind of fair use consideration. I'm not talking about genuinely free material, I'm talking about protected (copyrighted/trademarked) material being uploaded by others - for example a periodic table of elements or medical charts which would normally be subject to deletion (except that they are currently immediately available for sale!). I'm a little confused - surely we would delete this stuff whether or not there's a buy a print now clickthrough button? I can't see anyone arguing to keep it because they want to run off a poster... (and to a degree this is rendered moot by that helpful lowest useful resolution requirement of the unfree material rules) 1. Upload high-resolution copyrighted image littered with trademarks as anonymous user. 2. Immediately order poster of said image. 3. File against WMF, its chapter(s) and the printer for good measure claiming [RI|MP]AA sized damages for copyright and trademark infringement, submitting said poster(s) and invoice(s) as evidence. 4. ??? 5. Profit! Note that these steps need not necessarily be completed by the same parties. I'm not sure that the courts would have much leeway here (as they might were the image not used commercially as was the case before this function was launched). I find your scenario too conspiratorial to be believable. A person who attempted this kind of thing would be in contempt for trying to subvert the legal process by making the court complicit in an extortion scheme. The scheme, which depends on speculative profits from law suits, doesn't make economic sense. A plaintiff would need to make a considerable expense himself just to get the mater to court ... and that's without even considering jurisdictional issues. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
While I advised that a similar matter be dropped earlier, this has some fundamental differences that I believe may have merit. Whereas the Missing Manual is uploaded by a known mutual agreement, these photos are not necessarily uploaded by mutual agreement. In theory, we are supposed to have permission, but this is not always the case. Selling prints of these photos might violate copyrights. It would be irresponsible of us to to implement a poster sale without laying down guidelines to prevent boo boos. That being said, I would be surprised if Wikimedia France doesn't have a procedure and method set up, especially when EU copright laws are considered. From: Sam Johnston s...@samj.net To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 7:12:34 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: 1. Upload high-resolution copyrighted image littered with trademarks as anonymous user. 2. Immediately order poster of said image. 3. File against WMF, its chapter(s) and the printer for good measure claiming [RI|MP]AA sized damages for copyright and trademark infringement, submitting said poster(s) and invoice(s) as evidence. 4. ??? 5. Profit! I find your scenario too conspiratorial to be believable. The first two steps are likely already done (actually step #2 is optional anyway if the file sharing lawsuits are any metric). All we need now is for a copyright/trademark holder (like Hanks Pediatric Eye Charts[1], concurrently listed for sale[2] and as a copyright violation for speedy deletion[3]) to get their nose out of joint and we're at #3 without any conspiring whatsoever. I'll put it another way for you: Can anyone guarantee that the French chapter are not offering copyrighted and/or trademarked material for sale, (indirectly) for profit? It's amazing that people are carrying on about relicensing work that authors intended to be free while turning a blind eye to commercial use of protected IP. Sam 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanks_Paediatric_Eye_Charts 2. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Paed07_C7.jpg 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Copyright_violations_for_speedy_deletion ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
What he is pointing out is that the chapter set up the whole process, thus making them culpable. From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 12:14:45 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture Hoi, In your post the crucial bit is that a liability results as a consequence of an invoice from either the Wikimedia Foundation or from a WMF chapter. This will not happen because you buy a print from a printer. Our terms of service explicitly state that we do our utmost to ensure that our products are free to use but that we do not guarantee this. As to convincing me that there is a problem, first make plain what the problem is and when a little bit of analysis shows that you did not make it plain, you indeed have no chance in hell of convincing me. If you know anything at all of the WMF you would know the number of lawyers it employs. He is a busy man and I am sure that he knows when to keep his powder dry. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net Gerard, I find your response (which fails to address the issues I have raised) abrasive bordering on offensive. I also note that this will not be the first time *today* that someone has requested that you tone it down. What is clear though is that we have a snowflake's chance in hell of convincing you there is a problem, so I'm going to add you to a large (and growing) list of trolls and ignore your 'contributions' from now on. Presumably WMF has lawyer(s) somewhere. What would be the process of getting them to take a look at this with a view to having the French chapter put into place the requisite disclaimers? Sam Lennart: Illegal content results in individuals being pursued, arrested and charged and snarky articles being written by old media, not outrageous (albeit largely unjustified) claims for damages (and leverage via commercial third parties): http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/01/statutory-damages-not-high-enough.ars On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, What WMF server allows anonymous uploads of images ? Do you know if this makes any difference any way ? Who do you think you get an invoice from? Not the WMF not its chapters. So please THINK Why bother us with such tripe that is irrelevant to the thread anyway ? Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net: Material in the public domain or under a fully free licence does not require any kind of fair use consideration. I'm not talking about genuinely free material, I'm talking about protected (copyrighted/trademarked) material being uploaded by others - for example a periodic table of elements or medical charts which would normally be subject to deletion (except that they are currently immediately available for sale!). I'm a little confused - surely we would delete this stuff whether or not there's a buy a print now clickthrough button? I can't see anyone arguing to keep it because they want to run off a poster... (and to a degree this is rendered moot by that helpful lowest useful resolution requirement of the unfree material rules) 1. Upload high-resolution copyrighted image littered with trademarks as anonymous user. 2. Immediately order poster of said image. 3. File against WMF, its chapter(s) and the printer for good measure claiming [RI|MP]AA sized damages for copyright and trademark infringement, submitting said poster(s) and invoice(s) as evidence. 4. ??? 5. Profit! Note that these steps need not necessarily be completed by the same parties. I'm not sure that the courts would have much leeway here (as they might were the image not used commercially as was the case before this function was launched). Sam ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
Sam Johnston wrote: Gerard Meijssen wrote: If you are of the opinion that things can be done differently, please explain how. A printer makes money, that is how he earns his crust. So how would non-profit printing work. Does it exist ? You are also under the impression that we are meeting our targets.. What do you know of the financial position of the French chapter and what do you know of its ambitions ? However you cut it this is advertising pure and simple. Yes it's buried behind a convenience function and I have no doubt the French chapter are doing all manner of interesting and constructive things, but who's to decide what is and what is not appropriate? If it's such a good idea, why is it not deployed centrally (with appropriate policies) so all chapters can take advantage of it (safely)? Obviously, it's up to the French chapter to make it's own decisions in accordance with French law. ExpectinSpecial:Booksourceswg some kind of central decision about this kind of thing is a good way to make sure that nothing ever gets done. If they make a little money while they're at it so much the better; there is no need for an ultra-ideological stance about advertising in this. Anyway how WMF interacts with its chapters is not the conversation I joined the list to contribute to so I'll leave it to you guys to nut it out between yourselves. Just bear in mind that the reputation of the organisation as a whole is easily tarnished by the wrong well-intended initiative and the proceeds are a drop in the ocean compared to what is raised by donation and that a fraction of what is theoretically possible. Just how much control do you expect from the Central Committee? Sure, it's a given that some will-intentioned initiatives will go dreadfully awry. Bad things have happened in the past, and bad things will happen in the future; None of it will be prevented by imposing strict central control. Wikimedia is a resilient organisation, and it didn't get that way through paranoid musings about a tarnished reputation. It's not that fragile. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Just how much control do you expect from the Central Committee? Sure, it's a given that some will-intentioned initiatives will go dreadfully awry. Bad things have happened in the past, and bad things will happen in the future; None of it will be prevented by imposing strict central control. Wikimedia is a resilient organisation, and it didn't get that way through paranoid musings about a tarnished reputation. It's not that fragile. My primary concern is that all the potential ramifications of such actions be properly considered - the income is irrelevant in the context of the WMF budget and yet the risk could be extreme. For example, deriving revenue directly from the content could cause problems for fair use[1], let alone the prospect of users uploading copyrighted or otherwise restricted (eg trademarked) content. Another liability to consider relates to problems with delivery. Normally such convenience services include strong disclaimers of warranty and liability but checking one of my contributions[2] shows offers to 'Choisissez un imprimeur *accrédité*'. By referring to these vendors as 'accredited' we are stating that they are officially approved and raising many questions about the accreditation process itself. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for this type of innovation and where better for it to come from than the chapters, but we also need to exercise caution. Sam 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_laws 2. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:CloudComputingStackLarge.svg 3. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/accredited ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: I am sorry to say, now I see quite an opposite attitude: You have put a picture under a free licence, now do not complain. This is fine of course but does not encourage the authors very much. I think this is one of the best advantages of the French image printing initiative (Wikiposter), that it makes it absolutely clear to everybody that images uploaded to Wikipedia (to the Wikimedia Commons) are allowed for commercial reuse. There is no better way to explain this, than to print and sell the images. This is indeed an innovation in education. My congratulations! Well, I definitely have to agree with this. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
Hoi, You forget that as the copyright holder of your picture, you are free to sell copies of your pictures as well. You are even allowed to provide your material under a different license. The only thing you are not allowed is to revoke the license you provided your material to Commons under. Consider, a person decides to buy a printed copy of any picture from Commons, the author can live all over our globe, there is an amount paid of 15 EURO including package and posting there is a margin of 1,50 EURO for the Wiki side of things. The cost of paying the author can be as high as 18 EURO just on banking fees. SO what is to be done? Posting a message,,, it takes 3 minutes to do this. I would consider this spam, I do not want this but you do... A volunteers is supposed to do this ? He does not feel like it... When a print is produced, a true value added service is provided. I do not have a printer that allows me to print poster sized. By providing a service like this, the value to our readers is enhanced. When money is going to the French chapter, they will be able to do more. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/23 Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru Did actually anybody ever considered paying some part of the profit to the authors of the pictures? Or at least, if this is such a tiny amount that it would not make sense, placing some acknowledgments at their pages? I am sorry to say, now I see quite an opposite attitude: You have put a picture under a free licence, now do not complain. This is fine of course but does not encourage the authors very much. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
Hoi, No it is not, and this should be obvious because I never mentioned amazon nor ebay. There is no comparison so do not be daft. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/23 Mark (Markie) newsmar...@googlemail.com so as long as money goes to a chapter your saying it would be fine to say: *Put an amazon or ebay link on every product related page *Use referrer ids on wikis to websites that allow it *and the dreaded advertising as long as the money goes to chapter/WMF is this really what your saying? mark On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, You forget that as the copyright holder of your picture, you are free to sell copies of your pictures as well. You are even allowed to provide your material under a different license. The only thing you are not allowed is to revoke the license you provided your material to Commons under. Consider, a person decides to buy a printed copy of any picture from Commons, the author can live all over our globe, there is an amount paid of 15 EURO including package and posting there is a margin of 1,50 EURO for the Wiki side of things. The cost of paying the author can be as high as 18 EURO just on banking fees. SO what is to be done? Posting a message,,, it takes 3 minutes to do this. I would consider this spam, I do not want this but you do... A volunteers is supposed to do this ? He does not feel like it... When a print is produced, a true value added service is provided. I do not have a printer that allows me to print poster sized. By providing a service like this, the value to our readers is enhanced. When money is going to the French chapter, they will be able to do more. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/23 Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru Did actually anybody ever considered paying some part of the profit to the authors of the pictures? Or at least, if this is such a tiny amount that it would not make sense, placing some acknowledgments at their pages? I am sorry to say, now I see quite an opposite attitude: You have put a picture under a free licence, now do not complain. This is fine of course but does not encourage the authors very much. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Mark (Markie) newsmar...@googlemail.comwrote: so as long as money goes to a chapter your saying it would be fine to say: *Put an amazon or ebay link on every product related page *Use referrer ids on wikis to websites that allow it *and the dreaded advertising as long as the money goes to chapter/WMF is this really what your saying? mark To be honest, that link is not that different from what [[Special:Booksources]] does, apart from the fact that for the moment there is only one company offering the service. Nothing prevents other companies to offer something comparable and feature in that link. Cruccone ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
*and the dreaded advertising as long as the money goes to chapter/WMF You somewhat lost me here... While I do not hope that there will ever be advertising on a Wikimedia wiki -- where else could money possibly go than either the chapter or the WMF? M. -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com wrote: *and the dreaded advertising as long as the money goes to chapter/WMF You somewhat lost me here... While I do not hope that there will ever be advertising on a Wikimedia wiki -- where else could money For money, read revenue from ads displayed on a Wikimedia wiki -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
2009/1/23 Marco Chiesa chiesa.ma...@gmail.com: To be honest, that link is not that different from what [[Special:Booksources]] does, apart from the fact that for the moment there is only one company offering the service. Nothing prevents other companies to offer something comparable and feature in that link. Yeah; I was writing something about this earlier but never got around to posting it. It's relatively easy to imagine some kind of similar thing for a dozen different image-printing suppliers; obviously you wouldn't be linking to a preexisting sales page, you'd need to create some kind of interface to send the file through, but the basic concept remains. Go to image page, press button, and bang, a list appears. The problem is, it could get massively unwieldy very fast - the frwp booksources list is tidy and clear and has thirty or forty entries, but the enwp list has ballooned to around six hundred! Especially for something like this, we might well have to exert editorial control sooner or later as to who gets listed - I'm all for doing it, of course, but I think we need to be aware from the start that the ideal everyone gets listed might break down in the long run. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
Well, after http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Impression this project has been started (see also discussion on meta forum, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Alleged Commercialisation of the French Wikipedia) I decided not to upload any images on Commons with resolution higher than 800x600 any more. (This resolution is perfectly fine to illustrate the articles but is substandard for any commercial use). One of the stewards, MaxSem, has left all Wikimedia projects because of this initiative. Therefore, I do not quite understand what we are talking about. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
Hoi, It has always been permitted to use the Commons work commercially. It has always been explicitly prohibited to disallow non commercial use. There are two options: either we only allow OTHERS to make money or we can make some money as well. I disagree that 800x600 is perfectly fine because, it may be fine for online content but it is not fine when printed. What is it that makes you oppose us to make money in order to support our activities ? I am surprised that you or MaxSem take this position. I do not quite understand why you did not realise earlier that allowing commercial use is what we have always done. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/22 Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru Well, after http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Impression this project has been started (see also discussion on meta forum, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Alleged Commercialisation of the French Wikipedia) I decided not to upload any images on Commons with resolution higher than 800x600 any more. (This resolution is perfectly fine to illustrate the articles but is substandard for any commercial use). One of the stewards, MaxSem, has left all Wikimedia projects because of this initiative. Therefore, I do not quite understand what we are talking about. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
Hoi, Sam I asked a question and you conveniently snipped that out. So you did not reply to my question and consequently your statement of not at all does not relate to what I wrote.. If you are of the opinion that things can be done differently, please explain how. A printer makes money, that is how he earns his crust. So how would non-profit printing work. Does it exist ? You are also under the impression that we are meeting our targets.. What do you know of the financial position of the French chapter and what do you know of its ambitions ? Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/22 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: It has always been permitted to use the Commons work commercially. It has always been explicitly prohibited to disallow non commercial use. snip I am surprised that you or MaxSem take this position. I do not quite understand why you did not realise earlier that allowing commercial use is what we have always done. That is not at all the point - this is a slippery slope indeed and a dangerous precedent to set, especially at the chapter level. There are potentially ways it could be done properly (eg open access to suppliers meeting a certain standard, non-profit printing, etc.) but so long as we're meeting our targets the potential cost does not seem to be at all worth the significant risk. I hope MaxSem returns once sanity prevails, Sam ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
Hoi, The French chapter is a non profit organisation and France is not confined to a single language or a single project. When the French chapter aims to support the Wiki community and does this in France by doing similar things to the Germans, I can only applaud them. By opening up the French cultural heritage to us, all our project will benefit. By running projects locally, the WMF organisation does not need to be involved the Germans brought us the Tool server, I will happy to learn how the French will make a difference. Consequently the notion that we will not all benefit from the work of the French chapter is hard to support. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/22 Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru i dont think the argument here is that people can make money from commons and the pictures etc, its the fact (as i see it) that a commercial site has a link from the french wikipedia side bar to their site to make a profit. what is the difference between this and link spamming and advertising. Well, this is one point. Another point is, as far as I know, Wikimedia.fr, which benefits from the commercial use, does not transfer money to support other projects. I would not object to commercial use of MY pictures if I knew that the profit is in a transparent (like donations) way invested in the infrastructure of the whole foundation. So far, I have not seen any evidence that this is the case. On the contrary, the main argument in the discussion was We have decided to do it in French Wikipedia, and Meta has nothing to say about this. I disagree that 800x600 is perfectly fine because, it may be fine for online content but it is not fine when printed. Not really, I can print it out and it works fine. But not as a poster of course. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
Hello, On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Mark (Markie) newsmar...@googlemail.com wrote: i dont think the argument here is that people can make money from commons and the pictures etc, its the fact (as i see it) that a commercial site has a link from the french wikipedia side bar to their site to make a profit. what is the difference between this and link spamming and advertising. i have no objections to people making money, especially if it benefits WMF but i do have a problem with third parties using wikipedia to place links so they can make money How is this posters project any different from what we already do with PediaPress? -- Guillaume Paumier [[m:User:guillom]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: i dont think the argument here is that people can make money from commons and the pictures etc, its the fact (as i see it) that a commercial site has a link from the french wikipedia side bar to their site to make a profit. what is the difference between this and link spamming and advertising. Well, this is one point. Another point is, as far as I know, Wikimedia.fr, which benefits from the commercial use, does not transfer money to support other projects. I would not object to commercial use of MY pictures if I knew that the profit is in a transparent (like donations) way invested in the infrastructure of the whole foundation. So far, I have not seen any evidence that this is the case. On the contrary, the main argument in the discussion was We have decided to do it in French Wikipedia, and Meta has nothing to say about this. I disagree that 800x600 is perfectly fine because, it may be fine for online content but it is not fine when printed. Not really, I can print it out and it works fine. But not as a poster of course. Cheers Yaroslav --- and ... - this is a slippery slope indeed and a dangerous precedent to set, especially at the chapter level. There are potentially ways it could be done properly (eg open access to suppliers meeting a certain standard, non-profit printing, etc.) but so long as we're meeting our targets the potential cost does not seem to be at all worth the significant risk. I hope MaxSem returns once sanity prevails, Sam --- and Hoi, The French chapter is a non profit organisation and France is not confined to a single language or a single project. When the French chapter aims to support the Wiki community and does this in France by doing similar things to the Germans, I can only applaud them. By opening up the French cultural heritage to us, all our project will benefit. By running projects locally, the WMF organisation does not need to be involved the Germans brought us the Tool server, I will happy to learn how the French will make a difference. Consequently the notion that we will not all benefit from the work of the French chapter is hard to support. Thanks, GerardM Couple of quick clarifications/reminders 1. This project was not started and developped by the French chapter, but by a wikipedia participant, who happened to ask the support of the French Chapters. Which we agreed to offer. So, there is no slippery slope. 2. The French Wikipedia community has done an non-exclusive arrangement. Only one company has been involved for now because it was the only one interested and because it was interesting to first test the concept. If you look carefully at the interface, it is quite obvious it is planned to welcome other companies; as well as to welcome community feedback on quality of service provided. 3. There is very little difference between this project and the Pediapress one. Actually, the only serious difference is that one make a donation to Wikimedia France and the other to Wikimedia Foundation. The other serious difference is that one is ported by Wikimedia Foundation and the other one ported by the community. 4. Prior to starting the service, the company spontaneously made a 500 euros donation to Wikimedia Foundation. And was disappointed to learn afterward that it would not be tax deductible. Wikimedia France provides this deductibility, hence augmenting the chance of higher donation from the company. 5. I see comments as well claiming that the operations of the French chapter do not benefit the projects. Please find here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Supported_by_Wikimedia_France the list of all pictures that could be added to Wikimedia Commons and our common pool of knowledge only THANKS to Wikimedia France (through funding of the amateur photographs travel to various famous event, or through the accreditations provided by Wikimedia France to access press areas in order to take good quality pictures). That category, supported by Wikimedia France, already host 800 good quality freely-licenced images. 6. I also see comments claiming that the benefits of Wikimedia France is not transparently reinvested in the entire infrastructure. You will find the financial report of the association: - in 2005: http://wikimedia.fr/share/rapport_financier_WMFrance2005.pdf grand total: 2721 euros - in 2006: http://wikimedia.fr/share/Rapportfinancier_final2006.pdf see details of expenses in the document. - in 2007: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Rapport_d%27activité_2007 Regarding 2008, our year report is not yet published. But you will be happy to learn that we spent 2059,99 euros for the digitization of old documents (put in wikisource) But more than that In november 2007, the board approved the following resolution which I will translate for you Résolution Le CA autorise la dépense de 2228€ pour l'achat (software +
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
2009/1/22 Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com: 5. I see comments as well claiming that the operations of the French chapter do not benefit the projects. Please find here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Supported_by_Wikimedia_France the list of all pictures that could be added to Wikimedia Commons and our common pool of knowledge only THANKS to Wikimedia France (through funding of the amateur photographs travel to various famous event, or through the accreditations provided by Wikimedia France to access press areas in order to take good quality pictures). I love this idea - brilliant (both the funding of photographers, and the tracking through a dedicated category). -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
Did actually anybody ever considered paying some part of the profit to the authors of the pictures? Or at least, if this is such a tiny amount that it would not make sense, placing some acknowledgements at their pages? I am sorry to say, now I see quite an opposite attitude: You have put a picture under a free licence, now do not complain. This is fine of course but does not encourage the authors very much. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net wrote: I deal with this regularly in a professional capacity, this is what stock photography firms are built on, and I can assure you that there is no adequate freely licensed stock photography resource in the world. Commons is the best there is, and it is barely usable, and then only sporadically. Maybe some people imagine we have too many pictures of people's cats and dogs, since those are popular subjects, but I'll say we don't have nearly enough even of that - and in particular we don't have enough variety. Suppose I wanted a picture of a dog and a cat together, a fairly mundane subject, for which I did at least find a category with 27 files at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cats_and_dogs. I suppose that's a start, but at a glance there's no way that provides enough options for what I might want, especially if I was particular about how they're posed or what breed they are. I think this comes back to something I already talked about when Commons only just started - we don't need the umptieth picture of a dog, but we do want more pictures of specific dog breeds (although as things are now, we're pretty much over-stuffed with the more popular dog breeds too), of dogs doing specific things, of dogs in specific situations etcetera. However, this takes more than just getting more pictures. It's also important that they are described well (George W. Bush talking is just another Bush picture, but if you know where he is speaking at what occasion it becomes much more), and that they are findable. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
Hoi, How wonderful, the WIkimedia Foundation adopts the Swedish idea to dedicate 2009 as the year of the picture. There is a lot that we can achieve when we put our mind to it. So let me tell you about some of our needs and of our low hanging fruits. ==Diversity== Some people say that we only need one picture of a dog. One opposing view is that we have over 250 Wikipedias who all write about the dog, dog breeds etc. It would be boring if they all have to use the same illustration. When we started with Commons, the same picture was loaded on many projects and concentrating them in one location and annotating them once was one of the primary reasons for Commons. By having a rich collection of quality pictures we give children something to choose from when they illustrate their projects. ==Historical subjects and archives== For many historical subjects it is difficult to find appropriate illustrations. In 2008 the successful building of relations let to the opening up of the Bundesarchiv.. We got 100.000 images in a usable format. This is becoming a win-win situation because many of the annotations have been checked and feedback is provided to the Bundesarchiv. In the meantime, slowly but surely these images are working their way into our articles. This success story provides an argument that may convince other archives to open up their collection. ==Historical subjects and bias== We owe a debt of gratitude to archives like the Library of Congress. They prove great custodians of our cultural heritage. They are a primary source for illustrations for our historical subjects. The LoC even provides high resolution scans for download. This embarrassment of riches has one downside, their material is American and when we overly rely on American resources ourcollection of illustrations becomes inherently biased. The conclusion is obvious, we need more archives to cooperate with. The library of Alexandria is an obvious one, but we need to illustrate the historical persons, places and events from countries like Sudan, Bangladesh, South Africa as much and as well as the persons, places and events of the USA. ==Historical pictures and quality== Our aim is to provide high quality illustrations with our articles. When there is nothing available, almost any picture improves the quality of a picture. When better illustrations are found, the old pictures should be replaced. This does not mean that the original historical picture lost its value, it may mean that we only need a higher quality version of the same image. By keeping these pictures and by looking for a better scan or a restored version of the image we build on our portfolio of illustrative material. ==Restorations of illustrative material== A small group of our people spend much of their time restoring illustrative material, both images and sound. The quality of their work is recognised in the high number of featured pictures and sounds. There is a Wikibook on Image restoration. There is an open invitation to support anyone interested in this most important work. When 2009 is to be the year of the picture, I can only hope for a workshop on this subject in Argentina. I can also hope that the unfulfilled needs of this community get positive attention. ==Commons and language== Commons is only usable for people who speak English. A seven or eight year old is not likely to find a picture of a hynder. When our material is to be educational, we must be able to reach those people who are being educated. It has been proved that we can provide Commons with categories in multiple languages, with a category tree in multiple languages and with a search engine that allows a seven year to find this hynder. Half of the WMF traffic is in English. It is only half our public that we would do it for. ==Commons, tools and language II== Many software tools have sprung up around Commons. Commonist is one of the more prominent tools. After some discussion Commonist was included in Betawiki and it became practical to provide localisations to Commonist. In a couple of day more then twenty localisations were completed. We need more pictures from countries like the Philipines, Turkey, Slovenia and Macedonia and enabling people to contribute in their own language is a powerful tool. Commonist demonstrates that this can be do this if we put our mind and effort to this. ==Commons and usability== The other day I tried and failed to upload a crop from an historical picture. I asked someone well versed in the intricacies of the upload process to upload it for me. For me the upload process is broken. I am motivated about Commons but I fail at getting a picture in. Given that the Stanton project is about Wikipedia, we need a similar project for Commons. ==Commons== Commons is a great and important project. When we give more attention to it will prove to grow from an ugly duckling into a swan. Currently there are 3,8 million media files, what number are we aiming for at the end of the year
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
Hello, On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net wrote: The Swedish chapter had the idea to declare 2009 The Year of the Picture, to put a concerted effort into adding images to the Wikimedia Commons, along with using more illustrations in Wikipedia and elsewhere. I think this is absolutely a great idea. Making better use of visual material in our projects also fits in with the ongoing effort to improve quality. Let me say for the record that I wholeheartedly support this idea. On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Commons is only usable for people who speak English. A seven or eight year old is not likely to find a picture of a hynder. Indeed; although the Commons community has put a lot of energy in welcoming users from all origins, I know many regular Wikipedians who can't use Commons because they can't read English and they can't browse its content. Another issue is that Commons is not censored, and a seven-year-old child might as well fall upon the female genitals category. Imho the search engine of Commons should: * allow multilingual tags or categories (Gerard already suggested that, and Commons users have been waiting for such a feature for a very long time) * include a Safe mode for children. * allow some sort of rating to facilitate the search; as someone said elsewhere, Commons is a depository, and depositories are expected to host lots of junk. A rating feature would allow the best of Commons to be presented first during the search, and junk to be presented last. If we really want to make 2009 « the year of the picture », this initiative must imho be accompanied by a real development effort. There is currently one chapter employing a MediaWiki developer, and I know there are at least two other chapters considering sponsoring one. Perhaps a chapter-sponsored initiative could be devoted to some sort of search layer (in core or as an extension) that would implement these features. Perhaps this has already been considered as part of the Stanton usability initiative. -- Guillaume Paumier [[m:User:guillom]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
