Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
Sorry, I meant every audio recording of an article, not every sound file :) Ryan Kaldari On 9/9/10 10:23 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > So you're saying that the community is complicit in the agenda against > itself? I guess we should just go back to the days when you had to > record a half-hour recitation of the GFDL license text in every sound > file hosted on Commons. > > For the record, I was one of the community members on the License Update > Committee (which was mainly comprised of community members, not > Foundation employees). > > Ryan Kaldari > > On 9/8/10 10:19 PM, Teofilo wrote: > >> 2010/9/7, Teofilo: >> >> >>> 2010/9/7, Tim Starling: >>> >>> >>> Presumably this conspiracy would have to extend beyond the WMF to PediaPress and Purodha Blissenbach, the developers of Collection and mobile.wikipedia.org respectively. >>> The absence of a history tab in the mobile format is in my view an >>> exact measurement of the temperature of the warmth of the relations >>> between the WMF and its contributors. >>> >>> Let's not call this a conspiracy. Philosopher Pierre Bourdieu would >>> call it an unconcious strategy (1). >>> >>> >> The other reason why we can't call this a conspiracy is that a >> conspiracy is usually kept secret, while that agenda is known by a lot >> of people. They even managed to organise a vote and found a majority >> approving it at >> >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Result >> >> The result is the adding of "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is >> sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license" on every >> edit tab footer. >> >> The result is that it is thought that it is OK to distribute contents >> without the history tab, the author's names remaining in a format not >> readable on the device the user is using. So all these things are >> features of the new vastly known agenda. They are not bugs. >> >> ___ >> 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] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
So you're saying that the community is complicit in the agenda against itself? I guess we should just go back to the days when you had to record a half-hour recitation of the GFDL license text in every sound file hosted on Commons. For the record, I was one of the community members on the License Update Committee (which was mainly comprised of community members, not Foundation employees). Ryan Kaldari On 9/8/10 10:19 PM, Teofilo wrote: > 2010/9/7, Teofilo: > >> 2010/9/7, Tim Starling: >> >> >>> Presumably this conspiracy would have to extend beyond the WMF to >>> PediaPress and Purodha Blissenbach, the developers of Collection and >>> mobile.wikipedia.org respectively. >>> >> The absence of a history tab in the mobile format is in my view an >> exact measurement of the temperature of the warmth of the relations >> between the WMF and its contributors. >> >> Let's not call this a conspiracy. Philosopher Pierre Bourdieu would >> call it an unconcious strategy (1). >> > The other reason why we can't call this a conspiracy is that a > conspiracy is usually kept secret, while that agenda is known by a lot > of people. They even managed to organise a vote and found a majority > approving it at > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Result > > The result is the adding of "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is > sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license" on every > edit tab footer. > > The result is that it is thought that it is OK to distribute contents > without the history tab, the author's names remaining in a format not > readable on the device the user is using. So all these things are > features of the new vastly known agenda. They are not bugs. > > ___ > 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] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
OK, let me just ask you a few simple questions: * You complain that the accreditation with the no (visible?) history tab is not correct. Did you consult a lawyer or legal specialist (for example Creative Commons in your country) for their opinion about this? * The same question for the url when re-using the image * You complain that the "power structure" in your wiki is changing because of technical changes. Is there a clear opinion of your community that they do not wish such change? Of course we can always be conservative as you suggested: dont do anything until we know for sure that everybody agrees. That way nothing ever changes, and all improvements are halted. I will just end up having lots of people being frustrated and complaining everything is so bad. Things have to change, constantly, and sometimes they have to be reverted then too. And every now and then it is you who is sad because he disagrees, but next time you might be happy with it and it is your collegue who complains that the proper self made-up procedures are not followed. If you have serious arguments, like the answers to my questions above, then they should, imho, be taken seriously into consideration - independent of procedures. If you don't and there are only a few people complaining, sorry - but then at some point you just have to accept that things are not going to change your way. Best, Lodewijk ps: I found it highly confusing that you entered so many different complaints into one email thread - it keeps jumping from one topic to another. It would be helpful if you, next time, bring your arguments of course earlier, but also that you focus on the issue at hand. If that is finalized, and you have another topic: start a new thread. 2010/9/9 Teofilo > 2010/9/7, Teofilo : > > 2010/9/7, Tim Starling : > > > >> Presumably this conspiracy would have to extend beyond the WMF to > >> PediaPress and Purodha Blissenbach, the developers of Collection and > >> mobile.wikipedia.org respectively. > > > > The absence of a history tab in the mobile format is in my view an > > exact measurement of the temperature of the warmth of the relations > > between the WMF and its contributors. > > > > Let's not call this a conspiracy. Philosopher Pierre Bourdieu would > > call it an unconcious strategy (1). > > The other reason why we can't call this a conspiracy is that a > conspiracy is usually kept secret, while that agenda is known by a lot > of people. They even managed to organise a vote and found a majority > approving it at > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Result > > The result is the adding of "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is > sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license" on every > edit tab footer. > > The result is that it is thought that it is OK to distribute contents > without the history tab, the author's names remaining in a format not > readable on the device the user is using. So all these things are > features of the new vastly known agenda. They are not bugs. > > ___ > 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] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
2010/9/9 Teofilo > 2010/9/7, Teofilo : > > 2010/9/7, Tim Starling : > > > >> Presumably this conspiracy would have to extend beyond the WMF to > >> PediaPress and Purodha Blissenbach, the developers of Collection and > >> mobile.wikipedia.org respectively. > > > > The absence of a history tab in the mobile format is in my view an > > exact measurement of the temperature of the warmth of the relations > > between the WMF and its contributors. > > > > Let's not call this a conspiracy. Philosopher Pierre Bourdieu would > > call it an unconcious strategy (1). > > The other reason why we can't call this a conspiracy is that a > conspiracy is usually kept secret, while that agenda is known by a lot > of people. They even managed to organise a vote and found a majority > approving it at > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Result > > The result is the adding of "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is > sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license" on every > edit tab footer. > > The result is that it is thought that it is OK to distribute contents > without the history tab, the author's names remaining in a format not > readable on the device the user is using. So all these things are > features of the new vastly known agenda. They are not bugs. > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > There was nothing secret about that vote, we announced it on all wiki's and we kept public archives for our mailinglist. -- Regards, Huib "Abigor" Laurens 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] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
2010/9/7, Teofilo : > 2010/9/7, Tim Starling : > >> Presumably this conspiracy would have to extend beyond the WMF to >> PediaPress and Purodha Blissenbach, the developers of Collection and >> mobile.wikipedia.org respectively. > > The absence of a history tab in the mobile format is in my view an > exact measurement of the temperature of the warmth of the relations > between the WMF and its contributors. > > Let's not call this a conspiracy. Philosopher Pierre Bourdieu would > call it an unconcious strategy (1). The other reason why we can't call this a conspiracy is that a conspiracy is usually kept secret, while that agenda is known by a lot of people. They even managed to organise a vote and found a majority approving it at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Result The result is the adding of "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license" on every edit tab footer. The result is that it is thought that it is OK to distribute contents without the history tab, the author's names remaining in a format not readable on the device the user is using. So all these things are features of the new vastly known agenda. They are not bugs. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
On 7 September 2010 11:01, Teofilo wrote: > No and there won't be (at least from me). Because I don't know if it > is a bug or a feature. Show me the specification of the pdf tool > first. I will see if the specification says that pictures' > photographers should be credited. If the specification says so, I will > report it as a bug. But if the specification does not say so, it > simply means that I disagree with the specification. And I don't think > bugzilla is the proper forum to discuss specifications. Given that you report below it's working for some images and not the others, it's very unlikely it's working to spec, unless that specification is itself deeply flawed! Glancing at the image files, it seems that it may be having trouble parsing the author sections of the Commons credits. I'll try and look into this more closely soon - for now, has anyone else identified attribution problems with the PDF generators? -- - 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] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Teofilo wrote: > 2010/9/7, Tim Starling : > >> Presumably this conspiracy would have to extend beyond the WMF to >> PediaPress and Purodha Blissenbach, the developers of Collection and >> mobile.wikipedia.org respectively. > > The absence of a history tab in the mobile format is in my view an > exact measurement of the temperature of the warmth of the relations > between the WMF and its contributors. > > Let's not call this a conspiracy. Philosopher Pierre Bourdieu would > call it an unconcious strategy (1). Developping software costs money > and time. Maybe especially time. Developping both feature A and > feature B is too expensive when most people will care only for feature > A. Feature B is dropped because people who had feature B in mind feel > that they will not be rewarded for it and they stop insisting for it > and it finally fails from being included in the specification. And yes > the outcome is that people did a great job developping feature A. > > (1) [His] theory seeks to show that social agents develop strategies > which are adapted to the needs of the social worlds that they inhabit. > These strategies are unconscious and act on the level of a bodily > logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu Teofilo - Unless you can provide a concise reason why this is a Foundation-related issue, I strongly urge you to go back to the French language Wikipedia and resolve it locally there. If you can get consensus there that it should be disabled, I am sure that the sysadmins will follow your local request and disable the feature with the config option for your wiki. If you are coming here to attempt to go around a consensus there that it was OK, then you are abusing the Foundation and the mailing list here, and you should stop doing so. If that's what you have done, then it's a sign of disrespect for your compatriots on fr.wikipedia and for those of us here that you attempted to do this in this manner. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Teofilo wrote: > (1) [His] theory seeks to show that social agents develop strategies > which are adapted to the needs of the social worlds that they inhabit. Strikes me that having a strategy that is adapted to your world is probably quite useful. For example, Wikimedia's strategy strives to increase the number of hits it receives; this seems rather a good idea strategy for the Wikimedia world. It would be, to perhaps understate the position, a less successful strategy in the world of boxing. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
On 7 September 2010 13:03, Teofilo wrote: > Let's not call this a conspiracy. You already did: "I think it is partly thoughtlessness, partly an agenda to remove contributor's names from wherever is possible, so that the WMF can dominate the contents and do whatever it wants with them without the contributors being able to control. An agenda to use the volunteers not as partners, but as a pleb available for [[:en:corvée]] (3)." If you don't recall what accusations you've made between messages in the same discussion, then it is possible that you do not have a sufficient practical attention span to have a productive discussion with. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
2010/9/7, Tim Starling : > Presumably this conspiracy would have to extend beyond the WMF to > PediaPress and Purodha Blissenbach, the developers of Collection and > mobile.wikipedia.org respectively. The absence of a history tab in the mobile format is in my view an exact measurement of the temperature of the warmth of the relations between the WMF and its contributors. Let's not call this a conspiracy. Philosopher Pierre Bourdieu would call it an unconcious strategy (1). Developping software costs money and time. Maybe especially time. Developping both feature A and feature B is too expensive when most people will care only for feature A. Feature B is dropped because people who had feature B in mind feel that they will not be rewarded for it and they stop insisting for it and it finally fails from being included in the specification. And yes the outcome is that people did a great job developping feature A. (1) [His] theory seeks to show that social agents develop strategies which are adapted to the needs of the social worlds that they inhabit. These strategies are unconscious and act on the level of a bodily logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Teofilo wrote: > 2010/9/7, Kropotkine_113 : >> There is absolutely nothing wrong with it on french Wikipedia. > > My interpretation : French admins are happy to see their powers > increased, and to mimic oversighters with it. You don't seem to understand how the feature works, despite repeated explanations. > Non-admins, especially > newly-registered ones might be too shy or not aware that they are > allowed to have an opinion on such issues, and feel that when > developpers install a new software on your wiki, (if they only find > out that the software has changed: many changes are quite invisible) > you just have to shut up and smile. > I agree that the learning curve for contribution into the development process is probably unnecessarily high for a newcomer. That being said, this feature (along with almost all others) are developed using a public bug tracker, a public code repository, and public code review. Both Bugzilla and Code Review are open for anyone to comment on. If you *want* to become involved in the development of MediaWiki and take interest in what's in store for the software then by all means do so. But don't sit here and make accusations that none of this was ever announced. That is simply not true. As Tim said, this feature was in development for years, and was no secret. The time for commenting has since passed, and I think this thread is going nowhere real quick. -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
2010/9/7, Kropotkine_113 : > There is absolutely nothing wrong with it on french Wikipedia. My interpretation : French admins are happy to see their powers increased, and to mimic oversighters with it. Non-admins, especially newly-registered ones might be too shy or not aware that they are allowed to have an opinion on such issues, and feel that when developpers install a new software on your wiki, (if they only find out that the software has changed: many changes are quite invisible) you just have to shut up and smile. The policy page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight implies that similar powers are not given to anybody except oversighters (or above : stewards and top level WMF people). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
On 07/09/10 20:01, Teofilo wrote: > 2010/9/7, Tim Starling : >> >> If you don't like it, you can request that it be switched off, using >> Bugzilla. You will need to demonstrate that the community is in favour >> of such an action. > > This is not proactive. Giving more power to the admins is a > constitutional change. Usually a constitutional change requires a > referendum beforehand (An amendment to the United States Constitution > must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, WP says). You don't > simply switch to the new constitution and tell the people who are > unhappy with the new constitution that it is their burden to > demonstrate that the older constitution was better. And when a > constitutional change changes a democracy into a dictatorship without > the freedom of speech, it is too late to express yourself after you > have lost the freedom of speech. The feature has been under discussion since 2005. Maybe you should have exercised your freedom of speech some time during those 5 years, instead of waiting until 4 months after admins were given the right to use it before voicing your objection. It was not discussed solely by "WMF big wheels" as you put it earlier, it was requested, discussed and to some extent implemented by community members. >>> * The pdf tool is not fulfilling the licenses of images imported from >>> Flickr. This is typically a tool enabled on all projects without >>> consulting with the communities. That tool should be disabled at once >>> from all project, until it is repaired (which might mean redevelopped >>> from scratch). (2) >> >> Is there a bug report for this? > > No and there won't be (at least from me). Because I don't know if it > is a bug or a feature. Show me the specification of the pdf tool > first. I will see if the specification says that pictures' > photographers should be credited. If the specification says so, I will > report it as a bug. But if the specification does not say so, it > simply means that I disagree with the specification. And I don't think > bugzilla is the proper forum to discuss specifications. You should report it at Bugzilla if you want it to be fixed. Note that the extension in question was not developed by Wikimedia, it was developed by PediaPress. > I think it is partly thoughtlessness, partly an agenda to remove > contributor's names from wherever is possible, so that the WMF can > dominate the contents and do whatever it wants with them without the > contributors being able to control. An agenda to use the volunteers > not as partners, but as a pleb available for [[:en:corvée]] (3). > > The removal of the article's history tab from mobile.wikipedia.org > (merely linking to the main websites's history tab is not the same as > including it within the mobile.wikipedia.org website) sounds more like > an agenda than mere thoughtlessness. Presumably this conspiracy would have to extend beyond the WMF to PediaPress and Purodha Blissenbach, the developers of Collection and mobile.wikipedia.org respectively. -- Tim Starling ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
2010/9/7 K. Peachey > > RevDel replaced Oversight (a extension), and little changed overall > between then, it features two deletion levels, one that hides it from > standard users (admins and higher still have access to it) and one > that hides it from everyone except oversight which leaves no visible > apart from oversighters. To everyone else the only real difference is > that the logs show a difference of "X changed viability of Y" and only > had to touch the appropriate revisions compared to the older extension > of oversight, where you had to delete a whole page then restore all > the revisions apart from the ones you don't want. > Is there something wrong with this on the french wikipedia? then you > should submit a bug request so people actually know and can work on > getting it set correctly. There is nothing wrong with RevDel nor Oversight on the french Wikipedia. Teofilo disagree with a particular use of the RevDel tool by a french admin. This is an internal community issue. If necessary the community may make a policy to decide how this tool shall be used. For now this is only Teofilo's own complaint and is not representative on the french community. Teofilo did try to discuss this issue with the community. But without success because he is known for being... controversial. The issue with credits of images in PDFs seems accurate though. But this behavior is definitely not part of the specification and was not intended. So Teofilo should definitely fill in a bug report about it. Kind regards, Rodan Bury / Dodoïste ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
Le mardi 07 septembre 2010 à 20:18 +1000, K. Peachey a écrit : > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Teofilo wrote: > Is there something wrong with this on the french wikipedia? then you > should submit a bug request so people actually know and can work on > getting it set correctly There is absolutely nothing wrong with it on french Wikipedia. About revdelete and oversight, things have already been explained to Teofilo and I'm happy to see that the explanations that were given to him in french wikipedia's community pages are exactly the same as those he receives in this thread : no more power to admins, no more rights, just a tool improvement. I'm not sure this worth an US Constitution amendment... Kropotkine_113 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Teofilo wrote: > This is not proactive. Giving more power to the admins is a > constitutional change. Usually a constitutional change requires a > referendum beforehand (An amendment to the United States Constitution > must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, WP says). You don't > simply switch to the new constitution and tell the people who are > unhappy with the new constitution that it is their burden to > demonstrate that the older constitution was better. And when a > constitutional change changes a democracy into a dictatorship without > the freedom of speech, it is too late to express yourself after you > have lost the freedom of speech. RevDel replaced Oversight (a extension), and little changed overall between then, it features two deletion levels, one that hides it from standard users (admins and higher still have access to it) and one that hides it from everyone except oversight which leaves no visible apart from oversighters. To everyone else the only real difference is that the logs show a difference of "X changed viability of Y" and only had to touch the appropriate revisions compared to the older extension of oversight, where you had to delete a whole page then restore all the revisions apart from the ones you don't want. Is there something wrong with this on the french wikipedia? then you should submit a bug request so people actually know and can work on getting it set correctly ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
2010/9/7, Tim Starling : > > If you don't like it, you can request that it be switched off, using > Bugzilla. You will need to demonstrate that the community is in favour > of such an action. This is not proactive. Giving more power to the admins is a constitutional change. Usually a constitutional change requires a referendum beforehand (An amendment to the United States Constitution must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, WP says). You don't simply switch to the new constitution and tell the people who are unhappy with the new constitution that it is their burden to demonstrate that the older constitution was better. And when a constitutional change changes a democracy into a dictatorship without the freedom of speech, it is too late to express yourself after you have lost the freedom of speech. >> * The pdf tool is not fulfilling the licenses of images imported from >> Flickr. This is typically a tool enabled on all projects without >> consulting with the communities. That tool should be disabled at once >> from all project, until it is repaired (which might mean redevelopped >> from scratch). (2) > > Is there a bug report for this? No and there won't be (at least from me). Because I don't know if it is a bug or a feature. Show me the specification of the pdf tool first. I will see if the specification says that pictures' photographers should be credited. If the specification says so, I will report it as a bug. But if the specification does not say so, it simply means that I disagree with the specification. And I don't think bugzilla is the proper forum to discuss specifications. If there had been a talk before implementing the tool between the developpers and the Wikimedia Commons community, I would have been able to say how I see such a tool. Basically I think that every description page from Commons must be added at the end of every pdf produced. That will make the pdf a bit longer, but it is an easy and secure way to have the pictures properly described, and licenced. This is not my idea. This is what somebody else answered to a newbie asking how to best credit pictures when a wiki article is distributed in printed form. This is part of the common knowledge at wikimedia commons. By the way, the pdf of [[:fr:Valery Giscard d'Estaing]] (1) is properly crediting at least some photographers. But I wonder why File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1990-0309-027, Dresden, Volkskammerwahl, BFD-Wahlkundgebung.jpg (2) is marked as "public domain" in the pdf instead of "creative commons". My feeling with that pdf tool is that I am the first person ever to care on how pictures are credited. So I think it has never been specified as a requested feature. That means how little the WMF cares about respecting licenses. I think it is partly thoughtlessness, partly an agenda to remove contributor's names from wherever is possible, so that the WMF can dominate the contents and do whatever it wants with them without the contributors being able to control. An agenda to use the volunteers not as partners, but as a pleb available for [[:en:corvée]] (3). The removal of the article's history tab from mobile.wikipedia.org (merely linking to the main websites's history tab is not the same as including it within the mobile.wikipedia.org website) sounds more like an agenda than mere thoughtlessness. (1) http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val%C3%A9ry_Giscard_d'Estaing (2) http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1990-0309-027,_Dresden,_Volkskammerwahl,_BFD-Wahlkundgebung.jpg (but the pdf is not crediting the photographer of Fichier:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F075424-0004, Bonn, Genscher mit Politikern aus Frankreich - crop 2 - Anne-Aymone Giscard d'Estaing.jpg ) (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corv%C3%A9e ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
Liam Wyatt wrote: > In order to rid ourselves of all this harmful software I propose that we > extend this moratorium and dispose with the need for software at all. Instead, > we should build the world's first carrier pigeon-based encyclopedia. I think this would be funnier if the Wikimedia Foundation weren't already involved in so many brain-dead projects. Half-assed and half-baked efforts do distract from the projects that show actual potential. Or alternately, the projects that show potential are pushed aside for the projects that make headlines. Instead of doing a few things well, Wikimedia ends up doing a lot of things poorly. That seems to be the main point in the original poster's message. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
On 06/09/10 20:33, Teofilo wrote: > During the past few years, the new softwares of the Wikimedia > Foundations have been developped in a too much anarchic way. > > * They are sometimes implemented as a whim of a few WMF big wheels, > without consulting the user communities. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3576 https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15644 https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18780 > * We are never shown specifications defining the goals of the planned > softwares, which makes me doubt such specifications are ever written. > With specifications being written and published, problems could be > talked in a proactive way. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bitfields_for_rev_deleted > * The developpers have enabled for every Admin of the French > Wikipedia, the possibility to mask (and exert acts of censorship) > without needing to be an oversighter (1) Which means that the policy > page at [[:fr:Wikipédia:Masqueur d'adresses IP]] (more or less the > same as [[:en:Wikipedia:Oversight]]) is a joke. Every single admin has > virtually the same power as an oversighter. If you don't like it, you can request that it be switched off, using Bugzilla. You will need to demonstrate that the community is in favour of such an action. > * The pdf tool is not fulfilling the licenses of images imported from > Flickr. This is typically a tool enabled on all projects without > consulting with the communities. That tool should be disabled at once > from all project, until it is repaired (which might mean redevelopped > from scratch). (2) Is there a bug report for this? -- Tim Starling ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Teofilo wrote: > Conclusion : Because more software means more harm, I call for a > moratorium (1 year? 6 months ?) on all new software developpements. > During that time the developpers should be allowed to repair only > obvious and urgent bugs. A brief examination of French Wikipedia will show that it is abounding with obvious (and some may say they are urgent) mistakes. I suggest hence to introduce a moratorium on all content addition in French Wikipedia. Feel the analogy? Or I'd actually suggest to fix all bugs yourself per WP:SOFIXIT. --vvv ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
On 06/09/2010, at 11:23, Bod Notbod wrote: > On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Teofilo wrote: > >> Conclusion : Because more software means more harm... > > Your premises don't seem to support quite such a sweeping conclusion. > In order to rid ourselves of all this harmful software I propose that we extend this moratorium and dispose with the need for software at all. Instead, we should build the world's first carrier pigeon-based encyclopedia. Insincerely yours, Witty Lama ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
On 6 September 2010 11:33, Teofilo wrote: > > * We are never shown specifications defining the goals of the planned > softwares, which makes me doubt such specifications are ever written. > With specifications being written and published, problems could be > talked in a proactive way. > Also, I don't think it's yet been posted on this list, the technical staff have released the first "Engineering Update" on their blog: http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2010/09/wmf-engineering/ It contains an overview of all the major infrastructure and coding projects that are underway, and is well worth a look. Hopefully this will be a monthly update in future. Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
On 6 September 2010 11:33, Teofilo wrote: > * The developpers have enabled for every Admin of the French > Wikipedia, the possibility to mask (and exert acts of censorship) > without needing to be an oversighter (1) Which means that the policy > page at [[:fr:Wikipédia:Masqueur d'adresses IP]] (more or less the > same as [[:en:Wikipedia:Oversight]]) is a joke. Every single admin has > virtually the same power as an oversighter. > Um, if you're talking about being able to delete individual revisions, that was a long requested feature. In fact it was achievable before by deleting the entire page, then undeleting every revision except those you wanted gone. This was commonly done where needed, at least on the English Wikipedia, long before the concept of "oversighter" existed. Now the same thing is done using the RevisionDelete system, introduced in 2009, which I assume is what you are talking about. Its use by admins is different from "oversight", because the revision content is still visible to admins, and the presence of a revison is still visible - even to non-admins. Of course if you can demonstrate a consensus on the French Wikipedia to change the user rights setup, and file a bug, I'm sure the developers will act on that. But bear in mind the same thing is possible as long as admins have the ability to delete/undelete. Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Teofilo wrote: > Conclusion : Because more software means more harm... Your premises don't seem to support quite such a sweeping conclusion. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Teofilo wrote: > During the past few years, the new softwares of the Wikimedia > Foundations have been developped in a too much anarchic way. > > * They are sometimes implemented as a whim of a few WMF big wheels, > without consulting the user communities. > > * We are never shown specifications defining the goals of the planned > softwares, which makes me doubt such specifications are ever written. > With specifications being written and published, problems could be > talked in a proactive way. > > A few problems : > > * The developpers have enabled for every Admin of the French > Wikipedia, the possibility to mask (and exert acts of censorship) > without needing to be an oversighter (1) Which means that the policy > page at [[:fr:Wikipédia:Masqueur d'adresses IP]] (more or less the > same as [[:en:Wikipedia:Oversight]]) is a joke. Every single admin has > virtually the same power as an oversighter. > > * The pdf tool is not fulfilling the licenses of images imported from > Flickr. This is typically a tool enabled on all projects without > consulting with the communities. That tool should be disabled at once > from all project, until it is repaired (which might mean redevelopped > from scratch). (2) > > Conclusion : Because more software means more harm, I call for a > moratorium (1 year? 6 months ?) on all new software developpements. > During that time the developpers should be allowed to repair only > obvious and urgent bugs. > > (1) A statement by a French admin saying that such acts are currently > performed by simple admins : > http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia%3ABulletin_des_administrateurs%2F2010%2FSemaine_36&action=historysubmit&diff=56843997&oldid=56843680 > > (2) Example provided here : > http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia%3ALe_Bistro%2F4_septembre_2010&action=historysubmit&diff=56786685&oldid=56786681 > IF something doesn't meet the expectations or is configured wrongly, gain local community consensus (mostly for the latter situation) and then post a bug in bugzilla requesting the configuration be changed. -Peachey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
