Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On 27/06/12 06:46, Nathan wrote: It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for political reasons. Actually, the SOPA blackout notice was developed and deployed by WMF staff. http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Centralnotice-template-blackoutaction=history http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CentralNoticeLogsoffset=2012011805limit=100 -- Tim Starling ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote: Actually, the SOPA blackout notice was developed and deployed by WMF staff. Point of clarification: Developed and deployed, yes - but at the request of the English Wikipedia community, in the form of the RFC that was run. Staff developed it because they could be quickly tasked to it; had the RFC gone the other way, we wouldn't have intervened. PB ___ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 415-839-6885, x 6643 phili...@wikimedia.org phili...@wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
This must be the most misleading mailing list title I've seen in a long time. Almost all of these tropes are untouched: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SexualHarassmentAndRapeTropes?from=Main.RapeTropes - it seems they just had a problem with Google withdrawing ad revenue because they hadn't clearly demarcated all the pages which were not OK according to Google's terms. With that said, it does make a great case for why Wikimedia should remain independent: we have enough to do to ensure the quality of our project without also worrying about whether we'll irritate Google. [[:en:User:Slashme]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 June 2012 16:02, David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com wrote: This must be the most misleading mailing list title I've seen in a long time. Almost all of these tropes are untouched: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SexualHarassmentAndRapeTropes?from=Main.RapeTropes - it seems they just had a problem with Google withdrawing ad revenue because they hadn't clearly demarcated all the pages which were not OK according to Google's terms. This is pretty much completely wrong, as you'd know if you'd read the links at the beginning. The pages were already marked don't put ads here. Google objected to their presence on the site at all. The pages were removed, the internet said wtf and TVtropes has now restored them without hearing back from Google. Wow, they moved fast! I read the blog post and then went to check, and found the supposedly deleted articles up, less than a full day after the original mailing list email, so I assumed there had to be some mistake. How long were the articles actually deleted? -- David Richfield [[:en:User:Slashme]] +27718539985 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On 27 June 2012 16:30, David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com wrote: Wow, they moved fast! I read the blog post and then went to check, and found the supposedly deleted articles up, less than a full day after the original mailing list email, so I assumed there had to be some mistake. How long were the articles actually deleted? Coupla days. But it turns out TVtropes is big enough that the Internet now notices when Google starts getting into corporate censorship. Also, the Tropers were more than a little annoyed at the response of the site's founder and proprietor. The site is CC by-sa, but I don't think there are downloadable dumps or anything. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Further to Jimbo's championing O'Dwyer, here is the court document from O'Dwyer's January extradition trial: [snip] It looks like these – rather than NPOV – are the values that Wikipedia has been co-opted to support. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about that is hard to understand? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer
On Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 17:56, Nathan wrote: Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about that is hard to understand? The whole point about deliberate obfuscation is that it's supposed to blur that line. ;-) -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer
Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about that is hard to understand? I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there would be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article that mentions his campaign for O'Dwyer has the obligatory Wikipedia founder label. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is now associated with that effort in the public's eye, for better or worse. Yes, you can argue it's his right to act as an individual, it's not his fault that the press describe him as the Wikipedia founder, etc. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer
- Original Message - From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:48 PM Subject: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer Further to Jimbo's championing O'Dwyer, here is the court document from O'Dwyer's January extradition trial: http://www.europeanrights.eu/public/sentenze/WMC13gen2012.pdf Some quotes: ---o0o--- O’Dwyer did not charge users of TVShack.net to download or stream content. Instead he earned money from hosting advertisements on various portions of the TVShack.net website. [...] According to Alexa.com, an organisation that ranks website popularity based on frequency of visits, as of on or about June 28, 2010, TVShack.net was the 1779th most popular website in the world and the 1419th in the United States”. Following seizure of the original domain name on 29th June 2010 “within one day O’Dwyer and one of his co conspirators… registered a new domain name, TVShack.net to TVShack.cc which was hosted on a server located at an ISP either in Germany or the Netherlands. [...] TVShack.cc continued to offer copyrighted movies and television programs under the new domain name without authorisation from the copyright holders… Also posted on the homepage of this new website was the photograph of a rap music group and the title of one of their songs “F*ck the Police”. In interview, relied on in the U.S. Request, he is said to have accepted owning TVShack.net and TVShack.cc “earning approximately £15,000 per month” from online advertisements hosted on those sites. [...] [The US prosecutor argued] there was no attempt to protect copyright, he, Richard O’Dwyer, knew materials were subject to copyright and actively taunted already cited efforts in June 2010 to seize TVShack.net. ---o0o--- So Jimbo is saying that a chap who, according to statements in this court document, made well over 20,000 advertising dollars a month from copyright infringement (under the motto fuck the police) reminds him of many great Internet entrepreneurs. It looks like these – rather than NPOV – are the values that Wikipedia has been co-opted to support. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l I might have supported this guy but for two things- 1. It's obviously in issue whether his activities amount to assisting copyright infringement, so I don't feel confident in saying yea or nay before a full consideration of the facts has occurred, and 2. Wales supports him. This is, in my view wrong for three reasons; (a) see 1 above (2) it's an overtly political act in which Wales is seeking to use his reputation and influence (if any) to gather support for Dwyer and (3) having been treated appallingly badly by Wales and his Arbitration Committee, I feel disinclined to offer my own support. Forgive me if I am being less than sanguine, but some pain just does not go away, particularly the toothache I am currently suffering. Ask again next week, perhaps. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer
On Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 18:05, Andreas Kolbe wrote: I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there would be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article that mentions his campaign for O'Dwyer has the obligatory Wikipedia founder label. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is now associated with that effort in the public's eye, for better or worse. Yes, you can argue it's his right to act as an individual, it's not his fault that the press describe him as the Wikipedia founder, etc. It's almost as if what the press say and what the facts are in reality are two different things that have only a very tenuous relationship. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer
Jimmy's platform is Wikipedia. The media struggle to seperate the two (note the connect back to SOPA in this case) Not that I agree entirely with Andreas. But certainly I think the community could have a view on this. Tom Morton On 27 Jun 2012, at 18:01, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: On Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 17:56, Nathan wrote: Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about that is hard to understand? The whole point about deliberate obfuscation is that it's supposed to blur that line. ;-) -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: On Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 18:05, Andreas Kolbe wrote: I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there would be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article that mentions his campaign for O'Dwyer has the obligatory Wikipedia founder label. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is now associated with that effort in the public's eye, for better or worse. Yes, you can argue it's his right to act as an individual, it's not his fault that the press describe him as the Wikipedia founder, etc. It's almost as if what the press say and what the facts are in reality are two different things that have only a very tenuous relationship. That's what makes a reliable source. ;) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Input on new models
Dominic - A fair point; this shoudl be clarified explicitly in the description of AffCom work. The discussion in DC will touch on both, but is mostly about getting AffCom underway. SJ On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks mcdev...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for that information. The resolution doesn't actually spell out that AffCom is not working on the partnerships, except implicitly by failing to mention movement partners along with the other three (which I hadn't even realized on first reading). Will the movement roles discussion at the Board meeting be resolving the partnership process too, or is it mostly just about AffCom? Dominic On 27 June 2012 14:15, Samuel Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hello Dominic, A draft of the AffCom charter and plan have been shared with the Board; I believe a final draft will be shared (and then published?) within the week. It is on the agenda for the Board's July meeting. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Board_meetings/July_11,_2012 AffCom is not taking on recognition of partners, at least initially (as indicated in the same resolution you quote). Right now the Foundation and Chapters have separate processes for forming partnerships and recognizing those partners. It was suggested that a WMF staff member oversee the process for recognizing partners, but that remains to be finalized and aligned with existing process. SJ On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks mcdev...@gmail.com wrote: The Board's resolution for the new Affiliations Committee says that The proposed charter and plan should be submitted to the Board by 15 June, for approval by its July 2012 meeting. Did that ever happen? I'm glad that Wikimedia CAT has been able to start the thematic organization application, and that there is a preliminary process in place for that and the user groups (along with the pre-existing chapter process), but what about movement partners? Dominic On 21 June 2012 11:06, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Forwarding on behalf of Bence. -- Forwarded message -- From: Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com Date: Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:41 PM Subject: [Movementroles] Input on new models Hi all, Currently, the Chapters/Affiliations Committee is considering the procedural elements needed for processing applications for the new types of affiliates, the actual substance of the process largely depend on the requirements and definition we use. I would appreciate if you could take a look at a number of wiki pages I have started [based on the similar pages for chapters and the conclusions of this group] and provide feedback (which could range from seems good to suggestions and actual edits for changes). My aim is not to restart any debates that we have already concluded, rather to make sure that the documents created reflect the final consensus and nothing is left out and nothing controversial is added. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Thematic_Organizations (if anyone can create a new map that shows the Amical regions, that would be appreciated, as well) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Step-by-step_thematic_organization_creation_guide http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requirements_for_future_thematic_organizations http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_User_Groups http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Step-by-step_user_group_creation_guide http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requirements_for_future_user_groups Thank you, Best, Bence ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 June 2012 18:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: And hell, there really are two points of view about copyright, I understand you've not really studied the subject but there are far more than that. Let's just start with the notion that there might be more than just *one* view. ;) Useful article about the Internet's impact on musicians, in an independent UK music newspaper: http://www.thestoolpigeon.co.uk/features/interview-robert-levine-ben-watt-sopa-internet-piracy.html ---o0o--- *How well drafted is SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and what impact do you think it will have? * That’s very hard to answer because it’s a complicated law that keeps changing almost daily. I think SOPA had some problems, some of which were solved before Christmas and almost all of which will be solved when the DNS-blocking provisions are blocked. At the same time, most of the objections were a little silly — enforcing copyright isn’t censorship, and I can’t see how keeping the current structure of the internet the same way it was in 1995 is more important than a body of law that’s hundreds of years old. The truth is that most of SOPA’s opponents will object to anything that enforces copyright because they hate it on principle or their businesses depend on the intellectual property of others — mostly the latter. And it’s important to remember that many of the nonprofit organisations that came out against the bill receive some funding from Google. Again, to be clear, SOPA had problems. But it’s important to keep in mind that the goal of the other side isn’t to derail SOPA — it’s to prevent any kind of law or legal precedent that would protect creators’ rights. *It’s hard to avoid big names from the the arts speaking out strongly against SOPA at the moment. Both Stephen Fry and the comedy writer Graham Linehan (‘Father Ted’, ‘The Ladykillers’) have been very outspoken on Twitter this week. Do you feel they are misguided? * There are plenty of aspects to SOPA that one can legitimately dislike, but there’s also a great amount of misinformation. It’s a complex issue that’s not very well-suited for the tone of the modern media, and it’s even less well-suited for 140-character tweets. For example, I would not consider blocking sites like The Pirate Bay to be censorship and neither would US courts, from what I understand. The truth is that the law wouldn’t change what’s illegal as much as who’s responsible for infringement — and the reason Silicon Valley Venture Capitalists are so opposed to it is because they don’t want any responsibility at all. To some extent, this is really an argument about corporate liability that Google is hiding beneath a lot of rhetoric about free speech. That doesn’t mean there aren’t some free speech issues involved, or that there are no legitimate reasons to dislike the law; it’s a complicated issue that merits an extensive and serious discussion (which, to be fair, neither side is exactly calling for). But many of the nonprofits who have come out against the law receive funding from Google — and that includes Wikipedia. ---o0o--- It's nice to see not everyone has drunk the Kool-Aid. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer
On 27 June 2012 21:25, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 June 2012 18:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: And hell, there really are two points of view about copyright, I understand you've not really studied the subject but there are far more than that. Let's just start with the notion that there might be more than just *one* view. ;) It's a question of extremes. At one extreme there are, for example, music executives who see a risk to they fat paychecks, and prefer a model where they can control the distribution and license costs indefinitely. On the other extreme are people who not only want something for nothing, but consider it an inherent right they deserve it. I find both of these people objectionable. ascends soap box The aggravating thing about copyright reform lobby is that I often find myself surrounded by the latter people - the utter dregs of society. As mentioned somewhere here the idea of intellectual property is a moral right; lack of respect for this is yet another symptom of our declining social standards. /dismounts O'dwyer is an odd case. I don't begrudge him the opportunity to make good money he saw (the media seem not to be interested in how much he has stashed away... but from his own words, I imagine it is a fair amount) He is far from an impoverished and defenceless individual. I'm not a fan of extraditing him. But I would like to see a firmer stance taken in the UK; perhaps a court could rule he must pay compensation to the copyright holders of the works he linked to. On the topic of Jimmy; Wikipedia is his calling card, it opens doors. I think he hasn't done enough in many situations to distance his own views from us; which is unfortunate. But not necessarily deliberate :) As I said before; Wikipedia should have it's own view. It would be interesting to see the community develop its own high profile media contacts so this view can be communicated to the world! Tom ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: On the topic of Jimmy; Wikipedia is his calling card, it opens doors. I think he hasn't done enough in many situations to distance his own views from us; which is unfortunate. But not necessarily deliberate :) As I said before; Wikipedia should have it's own view. It would be interesting to see the community develop its own high profile media contacts so this view can be communicated to the world! If Jimmy can write this in The Guardian (a paper which really seems to like him a lot), ---o0o--- Together, we won the battle against Sopa and Pipa. Together, we can win this one too. ---o0o--- and it ends up copied in newspapers around the world, https://news.google.co.uk/news/story?q=%22Together,+we+won+the+battle+against+Sopa+and+Pipa.+Together,+we+can+win+this+one+too.%22hl=enprmd=imvnsbav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osbbiw=1066bih=743um=1ie=UTF-8ncl=dgWkAFmBLjQBsNMJyGJqPnbvsPpkMsa=Xei=xXTrT8rQHYqp8QO_hqXVBQved=0CC0QqgIwAA attributed to the Wikipedia founder, then there really is no discernible difference between his view and Wikipedia's, or Google's. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer
On 27 June 2012 21:25, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Let's just start with the notion that there might be more than just *one* view. ;) Why start there? Again I understand you haven't really studied copyright but quite a few wikipedians have. So everything from copyright maximalist anarco-capitalists to the usual annoying everything should be free crowd is well understood. And thats before we even begin to consider historic positions and those that involve technology that hasn't been invented yet. Useful article about the Internet's impact on musicians, in an independent UK music newspaper: http://www.thestoolpigeon.co.uk/features/interview-robert-levine-ben-watt-sopa-internet-piracy.html Not really. No new stats no worthwhile legal or technical analysis. ---o0o--- *How well drafted is SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and what impact do you think it will have? * SOAP is dead. It is largely irrelevant at this point. Perhaps you couldn't find anyone talking about ACTA but that suggests a concerning lack of google skills. Incidentally the length of your quote is really pushing it a bit with regards to the UKs fair dealing provisions. But perhaps you are unconcerned with such matters. It's nice to see not everyone has drunk the Kool-Aid. Were you trying to say something here? -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer
On 27 June 2012 22:05, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: attributed to the Wikipedia founder, then there really is no discernible difference between his view and Wikipedia's, or Google's. wikipedia doesn't really have views in the conventional sense. The amorphous blob that is the Wikipedia community does to an extent and it is well documented that they conflict with jimbo from time to time. Trying to line up wikipedia and google though is just more evidence you haven't been paying attention. Differing approaches to user privacy and PLC vs non profit being the most obvious differences. -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Board visitors resolution passed
All, FYI The Board of Trustees passed a resolution extending and making permanent the Board Visitors visitors program, which we tried out for a one-year trial in 2011. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_Visitors_%282012%29 The language is the same as that in the resolution establishing the trial program: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_visitors The resolution allows for having up to two visitors per year, who would attend one meeting apiece. Board visitors sit in on the meeting they attend for most items, but do not participate in voting or the board email list. The intent is that by having visitors the board can learn from significant contributors and related institutions, while at the same time related projects and institutions as well as individuals can learn more about the WMF. The number of visitors and the amount they can participate is deliberately limited to avoid becoming a distraction. Suggestions of potential visitors are welcome and should be made directly to the board (via me or another trustee). best, phoebe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board visitors resolution passed
In what sense do these visitors have a one-year term when they are actually just attending one meeting? And why doesn't the board just allow anyone that wants to come along to observe their meetings? On 27 June 2012 23:58, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: All, FYI The Board of Trustees passed a resolution extending and making permanent the Board Visitors visitors program, which we tried out for a one-year trial in 2011. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_Visitors_%282012%29 The language is the same as that in the resolution establishing the trial program: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_visitors The resolution allows for having up to two visitors per year, who would attend one meeting apiece. Board visitors sit in on the meeting they attend for most items, but do not participate in voting or the board email list. The intent is that by having visitors the board can learn from significant contributors and related institutions, while at the same time related projects and institutions as well as individuals can learn more about the WMF. The number of visitors and the amount they can participate is deliberately limited to avoid becoming a distraction. Suggestions of potential visitors are welcome and should be made directly to the board (via me or another trustee). best, phoebe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board visitors resolution passed
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: In what sense do these visitors have a one-year term when they are actually just attending one meeting? In the sense that someone could attend any of the meetings happening within that year, as agreed on by the board and the visitor. So if someone is a visitor for 2011-12 they might attend any one of the 3-4 in-person meetings that will happen during that year. We probably could have phrased that better but that is the intention. And why doesn't the board just allow anyone that wants to come along to observe their meetings? When we discussed the visitors program last year some of the arguments against opening the meetings to all were, IIRC: maintaining confidentiality, the potential distraction of having observers, preserving the ability of the trustees to feel like they are able to speak their minds, and logistics. -- phoebe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board visitors resolution passed
On 28 Jun 2012, at 00:03, Thomas Dalton wrote: In what sense do these visitors have a one-year term when they are actually just attending one meeting? And why doesn't the board just allow anyone that wants to come along to observe their meetings? +1. Compare and contrast with WMUK board meetings, where we regularly have several (different) visitors attending each meeting, and also webcast our board meetings wherever possible. We have 'in-camera' elements as needed to protect the limited amount of confidential discussion we need to have, but otherwise we're striving for as much transparency and openness as possible. We've yet to encounter distractions as a result that haven't been rather constructive in the discussions that were being held. I think that this visitor's resolution is a great step forward for transparency at the Board level of the WMF, but please consider being BOLD and walking down the rest of the path. :-) Thanks, Mike On 27 June 2012 23:58, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: All, FYI The Board of Trustees passed a resolution extending and making permanent the Board Visitors visitors program, which we tried out for a one-year trial in 2011. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_Visitors_%282012%29 The language is the same as that in the resolution establishing the trial program: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_visitors The resolution allows for having up to two visitors per year, who would attend one meeting apiece. Board visitors sit in on the meeting they attend for most items, but do not participate in voting or the board email list. The intent is that by having visitors the board can learn from significant contributors and related institutions, while at the same time related projects and institutions as well as individuals can learn more about the WMF. The number of visitors and the amount they can participate is deliberately limited to avoid becoming a distraction. Suggestions of potential visitors are welcome and should be made directly to the board (via me or another trustee). best, phoebe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Jay Walsh jwa...@wikimedia.org wrote: It would be interesting to see the community develop its own high profile media contacts so this view can be communicated to the world! If Jimmy can write this in The Guardian (a paper which really seems to like him a lot), ---o0o--- Together, we won the battle against Sopa and Pipa. Together, we can win this one too. ---o0o--- and it ends up copied in newspapers around the world, https://news.google.co.uk/news/story?q=%22Together,+we+won+the+battle+against+Sopa+and+Pipa.+Together,+we+can+win+this+one+too.%22hl=enprmd=imvnsbav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf .,cf.osbbiw=1066bih=743um=1ie=UTF-8ncl=dgWkAFmBLjQBsNMJyGJqPnbvsPpkMsa=Xei=xXTrT8rQHYqp8QO_hqXVBQved=0CC0QqgIwAA attributed to the Wikipedia founder, then there really is no discernible difference between his view and Wikipedia's, or Google's. Hi folks - I'm a bit late to this thread, but I wanted to chime in. The Communications Committee list/group brought up the issue of some wildly inaccurate headlines on this story over the last 48hrs, and with their help and some outreach we've tried to get some corrections. The press is going to make a very logical, if occasionally wildly inaccurate, series of judgements on how to frame this whole topic/issue up. Headlines are commonly over-generalized to the point of being dead wrong - Wikipedia backs Richard O'Dwyer petition etc. The Wikimedia (chapter etc) folks who work with the press around the world are regularly doing everything possible to avoid the overly general summaries that come out in the media. We (and certainly WMF) are highly sensitive to incorrect facts, and generally the media actually appreciate it when we're able to reach out and get corrections. Wikimedians and readers of the stories who offer up comments/responses on stories - below the story - can help with this too. In some cases we have relationships with senior editors at outlets and can get things fixed quickly. In other cases timezones and publication timelines make this harder to resolve. I know how quickly a bad headline can spiral into more headlines and echoing of false information. We hold the news outlets who originate those stories and the ones that continue to repeat them accountable, and we ask them to get it right. Just wanted to let you know that there's almost always an effort underway to get corrections recorded. Jimmy is also very sensitive to these facts and frequently when he sees an issue in a story he was interviewed for he writes directly to the reporter for a fix. Jay, what did Jimmy expect the press to report? None of you have been doing this since yesterday. Jimmy's very petition is signed Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder. http://www.change.org/petitions/ukhomeoffice-stop-the-extradition-of-richard-o-dwyer-to-the-usa-saverichard This is Wikipedia's name that is being leveraged here, pure and simply. And consciously so, deliberately, intentionally, knowingly. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 27/06/2012 12:10 AM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kim Bruningk...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: The SOPA strike was necessary for us to retain neutrality. Figuratively speaking, or do you think it actually made a whit of difference? I'm pretty sure it had an effect; if only that of increased media coverage (Wikipedia's visible action did focus much of the coverage). To me, at least, it seems evident that the backlash against SOPA was stoked by that media coverage. So yes, I'm pretty sure it did make a difference. As I recall SOPA was already dead in the water before the blackout occurred. Am I wrong about this? The law was quite clearly flawed, even beyond what I think the current US congress is capable of passing (at least, without some direct tie to terrorism). Interestingly, one of the best arguments against SOPA will be if Jimmy Wales loses the argument about his newest cause. If websites like TVShack.net can be shut down without relying on SOPA-like language, then this would be preferred, since 1) current law is much less likely to hit legitimate sites like Google and Wikipedia; and 2) Extradition under SOPA is much less likely to meet the dual criminality standard. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
