Re: [Wikimedia-l] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B dollars/euros?

[HaeB]

2017-05-17 10:38 GMT-07:00 Amir E. Aharoni :
> Heh, I remember Mr Wales asking what could the movement do with a million
> dollars some time around 2006.
That question was about a hundred million, actually:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-10-16/Copyright#.24100_million_copyright_fund_provokes_discussion

Many of those suggestions are interesting to read a decade later:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_wishlist (and talk page)
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-October/thread.html#27850

Some of the proposals have become reality since 2006, e.g.:

* sheet music - the Petrucci library/IMSLP, founded that year, seems
to be doing a fairly good job here, at least regarding PD classical
music (using MediaWiki no less)

* free maps and geodata - OSM

* all academic papers in JSTOR that are public domain - by JSTOR
itself (but only partially, and not before Aaron Swartz became
involved)

* Happy Birthday - via legal means (exposed as copyfraud via academic
research and subsequently freed by lawsuit)

Regards, HaeB (T. Bayer)

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[HaeB]

Background for some of the references in this thread (for people, such
as myself, who haven't been following this particular, peculiar corner
of the universe closely):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_Day
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Theodore_Beale

2016-10-10 11:13 GMT-07:00 David Gerard :
> "INFOGALACTIC: an online encyclopedia without bias or thought police"
>
> Home page: http://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
> Announcement: 
> http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/10/project-big-fork-infogalactic.html
> Roadmap: http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Roadmap
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Unvisited App for easier photo collection

[HaeB]

There is more information at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Unvisited_app .

2014-05-31 12:26 GMT-07:00 Kevin Rutherford :
> Hey all,
>
> I realized at the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin that many people do not know 
> that there is a phone app that you can use on your phone that searches for 
> places to take photos, and then provides walking directions for them. It’s 
> still in a bit of the development stage now for the iPhone, but one of the 
> local New England persons (Faolin42, aka John Phelan) has developed this app, 
> and since many photography sessions are coming up all over the world, I 
> figured it might be a good time to let people know outside of New England 
> that this exists: 
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mim1999.unvisited
>
> Let me know if you have any questions, as I would be happy to answer them. I 
> have also cc’d John on this list if anyone wants to contact him directly.
>
> Kevin Rutherford
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

[HaeB]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
 wrote:
> On 20 February 2014 00:56, HaeB  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but I think these concerns are overblown.
>>
>
> I do not intend to fill everyone's inbox with a back-and-forth, but I do
> want to clarify some of my points.
>
>
>> First, IANAL, but an "academic ... who makes their first tentative
>> edit" or other normal newbies will most likely not fall under that
>> provision, unless they are instructed by their employer to make that
>> edit (but then, why would an organization such as an university spend
>> money to pay someone for work in which that person has no experience
>> whatsoever?).
>>
>
> I know that you are familiar with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education
> Program, which did exactly what you are suggesting is so bizarre. Yes, many
> professors over the years have made their first edits as part of their paid
> work of teaching university courses,
Yes, but that comparison is a mischaracterization of what the
Education Program does. Of course it does not pay (or suggest to pay)
professors to make clueless newbie edits "with no experience
whatsoever" in ignorance of community policies or the TOU. From its
beginning as the "Public Policy Initiative", the program included
guidance for the participating instructors (e.g. training by
Ambassadors), to help them understand policies and provide training
experience, before they engage in their Wikipedia course work. That's
far from how I understood the situation that you had been evoking,
where an academic is just toying around with editing. I know you
worked as a Campus Ambassador yourself, and I'm relieved to see that
the very first edits of the professor you were supporting back then
consisted of this kind of disclosure. I sure hope she was made aware
of basic Wikipedia principles before engaging in the paid work of
teaching that Wikipedia university course.

What's more, the Education Program has since even hardcoded such
disclosure into MediaWiki, in form of the Education Program extension
for MediaWiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Courses (click through to the
course pages and look at the "Instructors" field in the table)

> and I doubt they were all diligent about disclosure, or that many people 
> minded.
Actually, a whole lot of people minded. The English Wikipedia
community has become quite adamant about disclosure. Last year there
was a huge community controversy about a case where one Canadian
professor was (in his own words) "going 'underground'" with his
Wikipedia course, refusing to take part in the Education Program
because he felt that its disclosure requirements would bring
unwarranted scrutiny by Wikipedians. IIRC, in the lengthy discussions
on the education noticeboard, no community members supported this
position.

> And it's not hard to imagine
> other activities an academic, with a professional mandate to provide public
> education, could legitimately perform on Wikimedia as part of their day
> job.
Sure, I don't see this being disputed.

> The president of the American Historical Association wrote an article
> saying that historians have a professional obligation to do so.
If you meant to say that this article talks about day jobs:
http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/february-2012/scholarly-authority-in-a-wikified-world
...then I think that this is misrepresenting its content - it ends
with the words "Any volunteers?" and says that historians should
follow the example of "Scientists, engineers, and programmers [who]
have been contributing sophisticated entries to Wikipedia almost from
the beginning", certainly not as paid editors back then.

> Sue Gardner
> gave a keynote for the American Library Association suggesting the same
> thing for librarians.
Could you cite the exact wording where she was talking about editing
as part of their day jobs? (If it helps, here is the brief summary I
wrote back then for the Signpost:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-06-27/News_and_notes
)

> I believe the reason universities and scholars would
> do this sort of thing and receive compensation for it is that, like an
> academic's normal day job, it serves the public interest. These are all
> mainstream and fairly well-understood concepts within the Wikimedia
> community, even though they entail (non-advocacy) paid editing.
Dominic, nobody is trying to prohibit this kind of activity per se,
and personally I agree it can be a good thing. But if we get these
universities to write the improvement of Wikipedia into scholars' job
responsibilities (instead of those of their PR staff, many of whom
engage in problematic advocacy editing), t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

[HaeB]

to make this mailing list post.)
Me neither ;) Although I work for the Foundation in my day job, I have
also been a volunteer editor for a decade now, and I'm speaking as
such here. Over the years I have lost a lot of time trying to maintain
NPOV in articles that were subject to (as it would turn out later)
undisclosed paid editing, and turned away in frustration from many
others that likely were, because I lacked the time and energy to get
involved. And I think that many of our conversations about this
problem area are missing the voice of the editors who actually do this
kind of unrewarding work of cleaning up after edits where someone was
paid to advance interests that do not align with those of Wikipedia
and our readers. Instead, the discussions about this topic, even on
this mailing list, often see heavy participation by the minority of
community members who do, or have done, professional PR work or paid
work related to content contribution, often without disclosing it in
these discussions.
Don't get me wrong, I respect your own approach to disclosure, and
understand that you speak for others who don't follow the same good
principles as you do. (And BTW, I'm a fan of your GLAM-Wiki project,
and spent hours volunteering for it, categorizing hundreds of the NARA
images uploaded by your bot.) But the GLAM perspective is not the only
one, and if there really exists legitimate, beneficial work by
Wikimedians-in-residence such as yourself that would be seriously
affected in the negative by the current wording of the proposed
amendment - which I highly doubt - there should be ways of remedying
that without rejecting it entirely, or otherwise harming its overall
goals.

Regards, HaeB (T. Bayer)

>
>
> On 19 February 2014 17:06, Stephen LaPorte  wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> We are asking for community input on a proposed amendment to the Wikimedia
>> Terms of Use regarding undisclosed paid editing. The amendment is currently
>> available in English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Japanese, and
>> we welcome further translations and discussion in any language.
>>
>> For your review, you may find the proposed amendment and background
>> information here:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
>>
>> Please join the discussion on the talk page:
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
>>
>> Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments.
>>
>> --
>> Stephen LaPorte
>> Legal Counsel
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>> *For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia
>> Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer
>> for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal
>> capacity.*

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

[HaeB]

That blog post contains at least one glaring factual error:

"Part of Sarah’s role at the Foundation is to educate GLAM institutions on
issues relating to sourcing, original research, notability & conflict of
interest."
 - linking to a page dating from mid-2011, when Sarah was a
Wikipedian-in-Residence at a GLAM institution, as an intern of that
organization (see e.g. my Signpost article at the time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-04-25/News_and_notes
),
predating her employment at WMF.
I'm commenting in a purely personal capacity here and can't speak with
authority on the details of Sarah's current job responsibilities, but I'm
quite certain that the blog's claim about them is wrong.

Regards, HaeB (Tilman Bayer)

Am Sonntag, 5. Januar 2014 schrieb Russavia :

> Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at
> http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/ in
> which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid
> editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per
> article.
>
> I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to this
> list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I think
> it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised here.
> It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing
> occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's
> cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).
>
> What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing violates
> Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In relation
> to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright
> Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in practice,
> so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russavia
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org 
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dillon gallery?

[HaeB]

2013/8/30 Renata St :
> Hi Lisa,
>
> Thanks for the reply, I never doubted it's WM event -- it just majorly
> surprised me and I still have a bunch of questions:
>
> 1) is this the first fundraising event? I have never heard of them before...

FWIW, here is a Signpost article about a previous fundraising event:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-10-18/News_and_notes#Wikipedia_community_gathers_for_fundraising_event

> 2) what's going to happen at that event and why should I go? Invitation had
> not a peep about that...
> 3) why there is nothing about it anywhere?
> 4) when did this policy change come about? I know Sue was quite adamantly
> against it...
>
> Thanks!
> Renata
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Lisa Gruwell wrote:
>
>> Hi Renata St and Dan-
>>
>> I just wanted to assure you that there is no change in fundraising
>> strategy. WMF raises that great majority of its funds from online
>> donations, with most of them being under USD $30.
>>
>> We also raise approximately $6 million from foundations and major donors.
>> The guidance for this comes from the Revenue Plan that was developed in the
>> five year strategic plan (page 17):
>>
>>  “In addition to seeking increased support from community donations,
>> Wikimedia will continue to raise limited but critical funds from
>> foundations, major donors, and licensing and other business partnerships.”
>>
>> Yes, the event at the Dillion Gallery is our. That said, we focus the
>> lion’s share of our work on the online donation model.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Lisa Seitz Gruwell
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Dan Collins  wrote:
>>
>> > What are you talking about? A quick Google reveals no evidence that the
>> > Wikimedia Foundation and the Dillon Gallery have any association, apart
>> > from we have a wiki page on them. Who is the mail from - WMF or a
>> chapter?
>> > Do you often receive snail mail from them? If not, do you have any
>> evidence
>> > that you haven't fallen victim to an elaborate scam? What is an
>> > "invitation(?)" and how does it differ from an invitation?
>> >
>> > To borrow your TL;DR, In short: huh???
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Renata St  wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi, so I got this snail mail with an invitation(?) to an event(?) at
>> > Dillon
>> > > Gallery on Oct 1 for a suggested(?) donation of $500... and it left me
>> > > confused more than anything else.
>> > >
>> > > What's the event about? I can't find anything anywhere else (not that I
>> > > looked very hard). I understand it's a fundraising function, but
>> besides
>> > > that? If I go there, what am I going to get (other than Cocktails &
>> Hors
>> > > d'oeuvres)?
>> > >
>> > > What if I don't do the suggested donation?
>> > >
>> > > On a whole different level, since when does Wikimedia do fundraising
>> > > events? I thought it was a policy to abandon attempts to gain major
>> > donors
>> > > and to focus on the $10 donations? When did that change?
>> > >
>> > > In short: huh???
>> > >
>> > > R.
>> > > ___
>> > > 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,
>> 
>>
> ___
> 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] Licencing question

[HaeB]

2013/1/22 ??? :
> On 22/01/2013 18:28, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> On 22 January 2013 16:51, Richard Symonds
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> It appears that opinion is divided on whether a hyperlink is acceptable
>>> as
>>> attribution, therefore I'm asking the experts:
>>>
>>> - Does anyone have any input on this?
>>> - Has this discussion been had before, if so, where?
>>> - Should Wikipedia, Commons and the various Wikimedia sites use the
>>> full
>>> byline, or are we OK just using a hyperlink?
>>
>>
>> If we need to have bylines for images, surely we need them for text as
>> well?
>>
>> It's been discussed hundreds of times before, as you can imagine. I'm
>> not aware of any particular conclusions being reached, other than
>> no-one caring enough to get the status quo changed.
>>
>> The issue of us taking freely licenced content from other sources is
>> potentially more of an issue. When you submit something, you agree to
>> be attributed through a link to the Wikipedia article, but when you
>> import something the author has made no such agreement.
>>
>
> Commons may have related issues where they clone out a copyright watermark.
> If nothing else it is likely to aggravate the content creator and in the
> case of one German archive resulted in them saying that after donating
> 80,000 images they weren't donating any more images to Commons because of
> it.
>
That's a very simplified description of what happened. See e.g
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-22/News_and_notes

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l