Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

[Peter Southwood]

Oh, I though it said if you display positive expectations you are more likely 
to have positive outcomes.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Peter Gervai
Sent: 03 July 2014 02:21 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Peter Southwood  
wrote:
> Wonderful,
>  I have high expectations of your ability and willingness to solve 
> these problems, Please notify us of your success so we can celebrate.

This was neither constructive nor civilised. It shows that you have missed the 
point, either. It said you should stop treating people as inferior and foretell 
their failure. Unlike you just did.

g

___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3986/7788 - Release Date: 07/03/14


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

[Peter Gervai]

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Peter Southwood
 wrote:
> Wonderful,
>  I have high expectations of your ability and willingness to solve these 
> problems,
> Please notify us of your success so we can celebrate.

This was neither constructive nor civilised. It shows that you have
missed the point, either. It said you should stop treating people as
inferior and foretell their failure. Unlike you just did.

g

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Peter Southwood]

Wonderful,
 I have high expectations of your ability and willingness to solve these 
problems, 
Please notify us of your success so we can celebrate.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Shlomi Fish
Sent: 03 July 2014 01:02 PM
To: Michael Maggs
Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

Hi Michael,

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:16:58 +0100
Michael Maggs  wrote:

> Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the notice boards on 
> Commons, or who is subscribed to this mailing list, will be aware of a 
> huge, wide-ranging and unfocused set of disputes and ill-natured 
> arguments that have been raging for several months. The disputes are 
> becoming more and more intemperate, and the positions of some editors 
> more and more entrenched. While a few contributors have tried hard to 
> pull the community back to constructive discussion and have made 
> sensible suggestions, their comments have been drowned out in the noise.
> 
> We need to stop now and focus not on stating a re-stating positions, 
> but on making definite and constructive proposals for ways in which 
> these issues can be fixed. The discussion on this list has been 
> non-productive for some time, and I suggest that editors should drop 
> discussion there and should focus attention on the discussion on Commons:
> 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboa
> rd#Disputes_relating_to_URAA.2C_policy.2C_Israeli_images.2C_and_behavi
> our
> 
> Michael.

here's a piece of advice. After I ran into this article on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect

and the corresponding "Golem effect", it changed my life for the better.
Reading from it:

[ QUOTE ]
The Pygmalion effect, or Rosenthal effect, is the phenomenon whereby the 
greater the expectation placed upon people, the better they perform.[1] The 
effect is named after the Greek myth of Pygmalion.

A corollary of the Pygmalion effect is the golem effect, in which low 
expectations lead to a decrease in performance.[1] The Pygmalion effect and the 
golem effect are forms of self-fulfilling prophecy. People will take the belief 
they have of themselves and attribute traits of the belief with themselves and 
their work. This will lead them to perform closer to these expectations that 
they set for themselves. Within sociology, the effect is often cited with 
regard to education and social class.
[ / QUOTE ]

After reading this, I decided that I will have high expectations of improvement 
from *anyone* and any community, and will practise it. So maybe some people 
should try to apply it in this case as well.

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Heaven_%28film%29 .

Best regards,

Shlomi Fish

--
-
Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
Optimising Code for Speed - http://shlom.in/optimise

When Chuck Norris disses your product, it’s not good publicity, even though you 
can bet he’ll get the name right.
— http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Chuck-Norris/

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3986/7788 - Release Date: 07/03/14


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

[Shlomi Fish]

Hi Michael,

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:16:58 +0100
Michael Maggs  wrote:

> Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the notice boards on Commons, or
> who is subscribed to this mailing list, will be aware of a huge, wide-ranging
> and unfocused set of disputes and ill-natured arguments that have been raging
> for several months. The disputes are becoming more and more intemperate, and
> the positions of some editors more and more entrenched. While a few
> contributors have tried hard to pull the community back to constructive
> discussion and have made sensible suggestions, their comments have been
> drowned out in the noise.
> 
> We need to stop now and focus not on stating a re-stating positions, but on
> making definite and constructive proposals for ways in which these issues can
> be fixed. The discussion on this list has been non-productive for some time,
> and I suggest that editors should drop discussion there and should focus
> attention on the discussion on Commons:
> 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Disputes_relating_to_URAA.2C_policy.2C_Israeli_images.2C_and_behaviour
> 
> Michael.

here's a piece of advice. After I ran into this article on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect

and the corresponding "Golem effect", it changed my life for the better.
Reading from it:

[ QUOTE ] 
The Pygmalion effect, or Rosenthal effect, is the phenomenon whereby the
greater the expectation placed upon people, the better they perform.[1] The
effect is named after the Greek myth of Pygmalion.

A corollary of the Pygmalion effect is the golem effect, in which low
expectations lead to a decrease in performance.[1] The Pygmalion effect and the
golem effect are forms of self-fulfilling prophecy. People will take the belief
they have of themselves and attribute traits of the belief with themselves and
their work. This will lead them to perform closer to these expectations that
they set for themselves. Within sociology, the effect is often cited with
regard to education and social class.
[ / QUOTE ]

After reading this, I decided that I will have high expectations of
improvement from *anyone* and any community, and will practise it. So maybe
some people should try to apply it in this case as well.

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Heaven_%28film%29 .

Best regards,

Shlomi Fish

-- 
-
Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
Optimising Code for Speed - http://shlom.in/optimise

When Chuck Norris disses your product, it’s not good publicity, even though
you can bet he’ll get the name right.
— http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Chuck-Norris/

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Erik Moeller]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> So what is your proposal for how to effectively curate the firehose of good
> and bad content that is uploaded to Commons day by day, hour by hour,
> minute by minute?

Hi Pete,

I would generally advocate for the following:

- more emphasis on education and positive communication in cases of
good faith, constructive behavior;
- more tolerance for ambiguity regarding files in the collection (e.g.
when the legal situation is truly ambiguous), and more use of tagging
over deletion;
- software which supports all of the above effectively.

Some of this is easier to act on. For example, the threshold at which
we decide to delete (rather than wait, or tag) is one which we can
modify. The templates we use for communication purposes are easy to
edit to be friendly or specific. Software is slower to build, but we
should definitely keep in mind what the ideal curation tools should
look like, as well, so we can plan on where we situate it in the
longer term roadmap of development efforts.

I do believe, though, that a lot of this conversation should ideally
take place on Wikimedia Commons itself. These types of threads
illustrate that there's a lot of real frustration in the larger
community today. I would encourage folks who want to see Commons
become a friendlier, more positive environment to not give up, but to
advocate for changes to practices and policies on Commons itself,
including in deletion discussions and policy debates. I don't think
setting up a new site is likely to be the answer, though if someone
wants to draft a clearer proposal for how such a site would work, this
list is certainly one appropriate forum to discuss it.

Erik

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Jeevan Jose]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Pete Forsyth 
wrote:

> What I *did* want, and am still waiting for, is some explanation from Erik
> Möller, the WMF's Deputy Director, about his inflammatory claim that the
> Wikimedia Commons community may be turning into a "CLUB OF ZEALOTS"
> (emphasis mine).
>

Please stop asking explanation from people who are coming to Commons with a
helping mind. I agree his comment had a insisting tone. But does Commoners
are too immature to tolerate any small criticism? If we start attacking
people and ask explanation or apology for every comment they make, no one
is going to visit Commons.

Instead we should welcome Erik, SJ, Jimmy or any body else who have an idea
to improve Commons.

Jee
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Pete Forsyth]

Several people have replied to my latest message. I'd like to reiterate - I
thought I was clear, but just to be certain:

I have never claimed that all discussion on Commons is perfect, or that
incivility or poor decisions never occur there.

I did not intend to open this discussion as a free-for-all, for *any* list
member with a problem with a Commons user or decision to bring it up for
critique. I think there are better venues for that.

What I *did* want, and am still waiting for, is some explanation from Erik
Möller, the WMF's Deputy Director, about his inflammatory claim that the
Wikimedia Commons community may be turning into a "CLUB OF ZEALOTS"
(emphasis mine).

Since it now looks unlikely that we'll have a response from Erik, and since
several people seem to have misunderstood what I meant, let me make myself
very clear.

I believe that the community of volunteers who have created Wikimedia are
its greatest asset, and in spite of all its (well known and documented)
problems, offer the greatest hope for Wikimedia to overcome its many
challenges and flourish. I believe that the people who choose to devote
time to Wikimedia as volunteers, by and large, do so out of a desire to
bring our shared vision -- a world in which everyone freely shares
knowledge -- closer to reality. I believe that organizations like the
Wikimedia Foundation, which intend to support that vision, have the
potential to be effective if they can speak to that shared vision, and
undermine their own influence when they undercut it.

Lest anybody mistake this for a personal attack, I'd like to add the
following.

I have known and admired Erik for many years. He has done tremendous good
for the Wikimedia movement, and for the world, and my respect for him is
unwavering. However, in recent months, he has joined other organizational
leaders in leveling broad and unfounded insults at the volunteer community
that has produced Wikimedia Commons, of which I am one.

I do not think Erik intends harm by doing this, but I think the primary
outcome of this approach is harm. I am confident he is proceeding in a
direction that he believes is positive. But I very strongly disagree with
that, and I do not think Commons volunteers (or any Wikimedia volunteers)
should have to endure broad insults coming from the leaders of an
organization that, in theory, exists to support their work.

I believe this issue is much more significant than any of the other issues
that have been discussed in this thread.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]



On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Michael Maggs  wrote:

> Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the notice boards on Commons,
> or who is subscribed to this mailing list, will be aware of a huge,
> wide-ranging and unfocused set of disputes and ill-natured arguments that
> have been raging for several months. The disputes are becoming more and
> more intemperate, and the positions of some editors more and more
> entrenched. While a few contributors have tried hard to pull the community
> back to constructive discussion and have made sensible suggestions, their
> comments have been drowned out in the noise.
>
> We need to stop now and focus not on stating a re-stating positions, but
> on making definite and constructive proposals for ways in which these
> issues can be fixed. The discussion on this list has been non-productive
> for some time, and I suggest that editors should drop discussion there and
> should focus attention on the discussion on Commons:
>
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Disputes_relating_to_URAA.2C_policy.2C_Israeli_images.2C_and_behaviour
>
> Michael.
> ___
> 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] The tragedy of Commons

[Nathan]

Correction - the first line should read "available and searchable across
WMF projects." Apologies for double posting.


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> The issue is *about* Commons but doesn't only affect Commons,
> particularly the discussion around alternative methods of making
> not-purely-free files available and searchable across Commons. As you can
> see from the growing discontent with Commons, this URAA issue is not the
> only problem. It's merely the best recent example. The discussion you
> propose on Commons appears to focus purely on URAA; that's fine, a
> discussion like that should exist (though I object to your presumption (and
> odders) that the URAA RfC is discredited or nullified either by the way it
> was closed or by a follow-up RfC with drastically fewer participants). But
> the content of the various "tragedy of Commons" threads on this list and
> others is broader and attempts to identify and solve deeply embedded
> problems in the Commons culture.
>
> So while a discussion on Commons might be easier for Commons
> administrators to shape and control, there is no good reason why discussion
> on this list (or commons-l) should be dropped in favor of a section on the
> Commons admin noticeboard.
>
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Nathan]

The issue is *about* Commons but doesn't only affect Commons, particularly
the discussion around alternative methods of making not-purely-free files
available and searchable across Commons. As you can see from the growing
discontent with Commons, this URAA issue is not the only problem. It's
merely the best recent example. The discussion you propose on Commons
appears to focus purely on URAA; that's fine, a discussion like that should
exist (though I object to your presumption (and odders) that the URAA RfC
is discredited or nullified either by the way it was closed or by a
follow-up RfC with drastically fewer participants). But the content of the
various "tragedy of Commons" threads on this list and others is broader and
attempts to identify and solve deeply embedded problems in the Commons
culture.

So while a discussion on Commons might be easier for Commons administrators
to shape and control, there is no good reason why discussion on this list
(or commons-l) should be dropped in favor of a section on the Commons admin
noticeboard.
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Michael Maggs]

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the notice boards on Commons, or 
who is subscribed to this mailing list, will be aware of a huge, wide-ranging 
and unfocused set of disputes and ill-natured arguments that have been raging 
for several months. The disputes are becoming more and more intemperate, and 
the positions of some editors more and more entrenched. While a few 
contributors have tried hard to pull the community back to constructive 
discussion and have made sensible suggestions, their comments have been drowned 
out in the noise.

We need to stop now and focus not on stating a re-stating positions, but on 
making definite and constructive proposals for ways in which these issues can 
be fixed. The discussion on this list has been non-productive for some time, 
and I suggest that editors should drop discussion there and should focus 
attention on the discussion on Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Disputes_relating_to_URAA.2C_policy.2C_Israeli_images.2C_and_behaviour

Michael.
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Jeevan Jose]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Indeed, and as there is a notice on the Wikilegal article stating that it
> is not legal advice, it can and will be ignored by those who think they
> know better.
> Cheers,
> Peter


That message on their every "advice" as part of [1] because they can't
advise the community.

Jee

1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Peter Southwood]

Indeed, and as there is a notice on the Wikilegal article stating that it is 
not legal advice, it can and will be ignored by those who think they know 
better.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jeevan Jose
Sent: 27 June 2014 10:46 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

> Well, just yesterday I saw a (good but slightly amateurish-looking) 
> image that is to be deleted because the metadata embedded in the 
> /other/ images of the uploader indicates multiple cameras were used. 
> Clearly, no one has more than one camera, so it must be a copyright 
> violation. (would post the URL but forgot which image)
>
> Childish fears indeed.
>
> Magnus


Indeed. The old days had gone. Now people have so many gadgets. Further, 
forensic research is not our business. Another grey area is the handling of 
selfies.  People need evidence that the photo is taken by themselves. They even 
do dummy tests to verify if it is possible from such an angle. Tired by the 
arguments, Legal released [1].

Links:

1.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Authorship_and_Copyright_Ownership

Jee

Regards,
Jeevan Jose


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Pipo Le Clown  wrote:

> Aren't you mixing things a little bit ?
>
> Nobody denies that there are problems with video support, Search 
> engine and image display. But this is not (completely) the 
> responsability of the Commons community. The software is provided by 
> the foundation, and we deal with what they give us. If you want to 
> point fingers, point them in the right direction.
>
> Regarding the URAA shitstorm in a teacup, I will stand on my position:
> Saying "It's not our problem, and we won't provide legal advice or 
> help if there is any problem" (ie: "I wash my hands of it") is not very 
> helpfull.
> The position of the BoT and the statement from the legal team are at 
> least confusing and a open door to problems.
>
> The current situation at hand is messy, and not very well handled by 
> the community, I will admit that. Quoting from a famous movie: "it's a 
> huge shit sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite", but 
> adding manure to shit will not help to sweeten the taste.
>
> Pleclown.
> Le 27 juin 2014 09:22, "MZMcBride"  a écrit :
>
> > Pete Forsyth wrote:
> > >On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller 
> > wrote:
> > >>than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte 
> > >>of  potentially non-free content may infect the repository.
> > >
> > >You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe
> anybody
> > >acts out of such a childish fear. Rather, we have committed 
> > >volunteers
> at
> > >Commons who take seriously our commitment to the world, to provide 
> > >a repository of files that can be (pretty) reliably reused under a 
> > >free license, or as public domain materials. Maintaining the 
> > >integrity of the collection, in the face of literally hundreds of 
> > >problematic uploads
> every
> > >single day, is a big job, and certainly some less-than-ideal 
> > >decisions will be made along the way.
> > >
> > >Apart from the moaning I see on this email list, I generally hear 
> > >good things from those who visit Wikimedia Commons. "Tragedy?" 
> > >Citation
> needed,
> > >for real.
> >
> > Uploading media to Commons isn't as awful today as it once was. 
> > That's nice. But video support is pretty awful. Search support is pretty 
> > awful.
> > Even browsing images is pretty bad. Support for moving (renaming) 
> > files
> is
> > rudimentary and restricted. And there are many other flaws... but 
> > you're right that it probably doesn't amount to a tragedy quite yet. 
> > There's plenty of moaning on this e-mail list, but the issues are alive and 
> > real.
> >
> > I largely agree with Erik. Users at the extremes have the power at
> Commons
> > and this reality is actively damaging the wiki culture. Commons 
> > isn't alone in having this problem: the defensive (and hostile) 
> > response to the firehose is expected and predictable. But it still 
> > remains a real
> problem.
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikim

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

[Jeevan Jose]

> Well, just yesterday I saw a (good but slightly amateurish-looking) image
> that is to be deleted because the metadata embedded in the /other/ images
> of the uploader indicates multiple cameras were used. Clearly, no one has
> more than one camera, so it must be a copyright violation. (would post the
> URL but forgot which image)
>
> Childish fears indeed.
>
> Magnus


Indeed. The old days had gone. Now people have so many gadgets. Further,
forensic research is not our business. Another grey area is the handling of
selfies.  People need evidence that the photo is taken by themselves. They
even do dummy tests to verify if it is possible from such an angle. Tired
by the arguments, Legal released [1].

Links:

1.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Authorship_and_Copyright_Ownership

Jee

Regards,
Jeevan Jose


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Pipo Le Clown  wrote:

> Aren't you mixing things a little bit ?
>
> Nobody denies that there are problems with video support, Search engine and
> image display. But this is not (completely) the responsability of the
> Commons community. The software is provided by the foundation, and we deal
> with what they give us. If you want to point fingers, point them in the
> right direction.
>
> Regarding the URAA shitstorm in a teacup, I will stand on my position:
> Saying "It's not our problem, and we won't provide legal advice or help if
> there is any problem" (ie: "I wash my hands of it") is not very helpfull.
> The position of the BoT and the statement from the legal team are at least
> confusing and a open door to problems.
>
> The current situation at hand is messy, and not very well handled by the
> community, I will admit that. Quoting from a famous movie: "it's a huge
> shit sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite", but adding manure
> to shit will not help to sweeten the taste.
>
> Pleclown.
> Le 27 juin 2014 09:22, "MZMcBride"  a écrit :
>
> > Pete Forsyth wrote:
> > >On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller 
> > wrote:
> > >>than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of
> > >> potentially non-free content may infect the repository.
> > >
> > >You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe
> anybody
> > >acts out of such a childish fear. Rather, we have committed volunteers
> at
> > >Commons who take seriously our commitment to the world, to provide a
> > >repository of files that can be (pretty) reliably reused under a free
> > >license, or as public domain materials. Maintaining the integrity of the
> > >collection, in the face of literally hundreds of problematic uploads
> every
> > >single day, is a big job, and certainly some less-than-ideal decisions
> > >will be made along the way.
> > >
> > >Apart from the moaning I see on this email list, I generally hear good
> > >things from those who visit Wikimedia Commons. "Tragedy?" Citation
> needed,
> > >for real.
> >
> > Uploading media to Commons isn't as awful today as it once was. That's
> > nice. But video support is pretty awful. Search support is pretty awful.
> > Even browsing images is pretty bad. Support for moving (renaming) files
> is
> > rudimentary and restricted. And there are many other flaws... but you're
> > right that it probably doesn't amount to a tragedy quite yet. There's
> > plenty of moaning on this e-mail list, but the issues are alive and real.
> >
> > I largely agree with Erik. Users at the extremes have the power at
> Commons
> > and this reality is actively damaging the wiki culture. Commons isn't
> > alone in having this problem: the defensive (and hostile) response to the
> > firehose is expected and predictable. But it still remains a real
> problem.
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Pipo Le Clown]

Aren't you mixing things a little bit ?

Nobody denies that there are problems with video support, Search engine and
image display. But this is not (completely) the responsability of the
Commons community. The software is provided by the foundation, and we deal
with what they give us. If you want to point fingers, point them in the
right direction.

Regarding the URAA shitstorm in a teacup, I will stand on my position:
Saying "It's not our problem, and we won't provide legal advice or help if
there is any problem" (ie: "I wash my hands of it") is not very helpfull.
The position of the BoT and the statement from the legal team are at least
confusing and a open door to problems.

The current situation at hand is messy, and not very well handled by the
community, I will admit that. Quoting from a famous movie: "it's a huge
shit sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite", but adding manure
to shit will not help to sweeten the taste.

Pleclown.
Le 27 juin 2014 09:22, "MZMcBride"  a écrit :

> Pete Forsyth wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller 
> wrote:
> >>than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of
> >> potentially non-free content may infect the repository.
> >
> >You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe anybody
> >acts out of such a childish fear. Rather, we have committed volunteers at
> >Commons who take seriously our commitment to the world, to provide a
> >repository of files that can be (pretty) reliably reused under a free
> >license, or as public domain materials. Maintaining the integrity of the
> >collection, in the face of literally hundreds of problematic uploads every
> >single day, is a big job, and certainly some less-than-ideal decisions
> >will be made along the way.
> >
> >Apart from the moaning I see on this email list, I generally hear good
> >things from those who visit Wikimedia Commons. "Tragedy?" Citation needed,
> >for real.
>
> Uploading media to Commons isn't as awful today as it once was. That's
> nice. But video support is pretty awful. Search support is pretty awful.
> Even browsing images is pretty bad. Support for moving (renaming) files is
> rudimentary and restricted. And there are many other flaws... but you're
> right that it probably doesn't amount to a tragedy quite yet. There's
> plenty of moaning on this e-mail list, but the issues are alive and real.
>
> I largely agree with Erik. Users at the extremes have the power at Commons
> and this reality is actively damaging the wiki culture. Commons isn't
> alone in having this problem: the defensive (and hostile) response to the
> firehose is expected and predictable. But it still remains a real problem.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] The tragedy of Commons

[Magnus Manske]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
>
> > than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of
> > potentially non-free content may infect the repository.
> >
>
> You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe anybody
> acts out of such a childish fear.


Well, just yesterday I saw a (good but slightly amateurish-looking) image
that is to be deleted because the metadata embedded in the /other/ images
of the uploader indicates multiple cameras were used. Clearly, no one has
more than one camera, so it must be a copyright violation. (would post the
URL but forgot which image)

Childish fears indeed.

Magnus
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[MZMcBride]

Pete Forsyth wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
>>than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of
>> potentially non-free content may infect the repository.
>
>You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe anybody
>acts out of such a childish fear. Rather, we have committed volunteers at
>Commons who take seriously our commitment to the world, to provide a
>repository of files that can be (pretty) reliably reused under a free
>license, or as public domain materials. Maintaining the integrity of the
>collection, in the face of literally hundreds of problematic uploads every
>single day, is a big job, and certainly some less-than-ideal decisions
>will be made along the way.
>
>Apart from the moaning I see on this email list, I generally hear good
>things from those who visit Wikimedia Commons. "Tragedy?" Citation needed,
>for real.

Uploading media to Commons isn't as awful today as it once was. That's
nice. But video support is pretty awful. Search support is pretty awful.
Even browsing images is pretty bad. Support for moving (renaming) files is
rudimentary and restricted. And there are many other flaws... but you're
right that it probably doesn't amount to a tragedy quite yet. There's
plenty of moaning on this e-mail list, but the issues are alive and real.

I largely agree with Erik. Users at the extremes have the power at Commons
and this reality is actively damaging the wiki culture. Commons isn't
alone in having this problem: the defensive (and hostile) response to the
firehose is expected and predictable. But it still remains a real problem.

MZMcBride



___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Yann Forget]

Hi,

2014-06-27 5:57 GMT+05:30 Pete Forsyth :
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
>
>> than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of
>> potentially non-free content may infect the repository.
>>
>
> You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe anybody
> acts out of such a childish fear. Rather, we have committed volunteers at
> Commons who take seriously our commitment to the world, to provide a
> repository of files that can be (pretty) reliably reused under a free
> license, or as public domain materials. Maintaining the integrity of the
> collection, in the face of literally hundreds of problematic uploads every
> single day, is a big job, and certainly some less-than-ideal decisions will
> be made along the way.
>
> Apart from the moaning I see on this email list, I generally hear good
> things from those who visit Wikimedia Commons. "Tragedy?" Citation needed,
> for real.
>
> I think it's absolutely crucial to maintain that aspect of its identity.
>
> So what is your proposal for how to effectively curate the firehose of good
> and bad content that is uploaded to Commons day by day, hour by hour,
> minute by minute? We have a collection of processes that has been good
> enough to get us to where we are today. I don't think anybody believes it's
> perfect, but it's gotten us this far. What, pray tell, would be the better
> approach? Do you really think that if you present a better idea, it will be
> rejected? Do you think we *enjoy* sifting through the details of a zillion
> files, and comparing them to a zillion copyright laws, personality rights
> laws, FOP laws, etc.? I guess I can only speak for myself, but I'd much
> rather be creating content than curating it. But curation is the glaring,
> everyday need at Commons, so I pitch in.
>
> It's also absolutely crucial to keep my house from turning into a garbage
> dump...which is why I take the garbage out every week.
>
> But maintaining that commitment requires that we also maintain a  capacity
>> for nuance in how we enforce it, or we turn into a club of zealots nobody
>> wants to be part of rather than being effective advocates for our cause.
>
> Good God, Erik. Seriously, with the name-calling? Seriously? I don't know
> why you did it to begin with, but since you have, please share with us who
> the zealots are, and give some evidence of zealous behavior. If the
> "zealotry" is as obvious as you seem to assume, we should have no trouble
> running those ne'erdowells out on a rail.
>
> But the reality, I think, is much more straightforward: this "club of
> zealots" is a figment of your imagination.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]

Pete, Erik is exactly right here, in this precise case.

Here LGA tagged, and Fastily deleted 50 years old images from the
Israeli government and army on the reason that as no proof of
publication were given, these images were unpublished, and therefore
still in copyright in USA. As several contributors have explained,
these famous images were given to the press for publication 50 years
ago.

At the same time, Russavia wrote a request for deletion for recent
images from the Israeli government or army, which were copied from
Flickr, on the claim that a proper CC release was not provided. A
letter from the Israeli government was uploaded to Commons, saying the
Israeli government does not claim on copyright on these images. This
letter was speedy deleted by Fastily, again.

So clearly these requests for deletion, and these deletions are spurious.

Regards,

Yann

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Pete Forsyth]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of
> potentially non-free content may infect the repository.
>

You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe anybody
acts out of such a childish fear. Rather, we have committed volunteers at
Commons who take seriously our commitment to the world, to provide a
repository of files that can be (pretty) reliably reused under a free
license, or as public domain materials. Maintaining the integrity of the
collection, in the face of literally hundreds of problematic uploads every
single day, is a big job, and certainly some less-than-ideal decisions will
be made along the way.

Apart from the moaning I see on this email list, I generally hear good
things from those who visit Wikimedia Commons. "Tragedy?" Citation needed,
for real.

I think it's absolutely crucial to maintain that aspect of its identity.


So what is your proposal for how to effectively curate the firehose of good
and bad content that is uploaded to Commons day by day, hour by hour,
minute by minute? We have a collection of processes that has been good
enough to get us to where we are today. I don't think anybody believes it's
perfect, but it's gotten us this far. What, pray tell, would be the better
approach? Do you really think that if you present a better idea, it will be
rejected? Do you think we *enjoy* sifting through the details of a zillion
files, and comparing them to a zillion copyright laws, personality rights
laws, FOP laws, etc.? I guess I can only speak for myself, but I'd much
rather be creating content than curating it. But curation is the glaring,
everyday need at Commons, so I pitch in.

It's also absolutely crucial to keep my house from turning into a garbage
dump...which is why I take the garbage out every week.

But maintaining that commitment requires that we also maintain a  capacity
> for nuance in how we enforce it, or we turn into a club of zealots nobody
> wants to be part of rather than being effective advocates for our cause.


Good God, Erik. Seriously, with the name-calling? Seriously? I don't know
why you did it to begin with, but since you have, please share with us who
the zealots are, and give some evidence of zealous behavior. If the
"zealotry" is as obvious as you seem to assume, we should have no trouble
running those ne'erdowells out on a rail.

But the reality, I think, is much more straightforward: this "club of
zealots" is a figment of your imagination.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Pete Forsyth]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:19 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 26 June 2014 23:17, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>
> > If people are excited about starting up a whole new project, that's fine
> by
> > me. I think you'll find that donors attracted to the "free knowledge"
> > aspect of our vision & mission statements might be a little tough to
> > persuade, but if you want to try, have at it.
>
>
> The more querulous Commons admins are treating "this is not provably
> 100% URAA safe" as equivalent to fair-use free-for-all, often seguing
> between the two in the same email. This is equivocation of a
> particularly unhelpful sort. Speaking as an unreconstructed
> Stallmanite, I say "what on earth."
>

David, I'm not sure how your message is supposed to connect to mine?
* I'm not an admin on Commons, not sure if you intended to lump me in there
* I have no position on URAA and don't think it's particularly germane to
this topic

My comments in this thread have, I think quite clearly and consistently,
been in response to George's proposal of "Uncommons," a site which would
host copyright materials for the purpose of fair use. URAA files would not
be a particularly interesting subset of the copyrighted files that could
live on such a site (or, for that matter, on Flickr etc, in the absence of
a DMCA complaint from a rights-holder.)

So -- who was this addressed to, if not me? What did my message have to do
with URAA, or with querulous admins?

Pete
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[David Gerard]

On 26 June 2014 23:17, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> If people are excited about starting up a whole new project, that's fine by
> me. I think you'll find that donors attracted to the "free knowledge"
> aspect of our vision & mission statements might be a little tough to
> persuade, but if you want to try, have at it.


The more querulous Commons admins are treating "this is not provably
100% URAA safe" as equivalent to fair-use free-for-all, often seguing
between the two in the same email. This is equivocation of a
particularly unhelpful sort. Speaking as an unreconstructed
Stallmanite, I say "what on earth."


- d.

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Pete Forsyth]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:19 PM, George Herbert
>  wrote:
>
> > the project and world benefit from [Commons] existing as is.  But we
> need an
> > alternative to support the educational mission, reasonable inter-project
> reuse,
> > and end the endless deletion wars.
>
> Yes, this.   With highly visible guidance for licensing/use.
>

If people are excited about starting up a whole new project, that's fine by
me. I think you'll find that donors attracted to the "free knowledge"
aspect of our vision & mission statements might be a little tough to
persuade, but if you want to try, have at it.

Still, I have to wonder: are the considerable financial, human, and
technical resources something like this would take justified? Why not
simply create the visible guidance SJ requests on each wiki (presumably as
Exemption Doctrine Policies), and enable a software feature that permits
including an image from elsewhere on the web? Wouldn't that accomplish the
same results, with vastly less effort, less expense, and less distraction
to existing communities?

Uncommons is a charming name.
>

I have to agree on this point :)

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[billinghurst]

Erik Moeller  writes:

> 
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan  gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins; time
> > and time and time again we have it reported here, we see it on Commons.
> > While not lawyers, they attempt to be extraordinarily demanding when it
> > comes to "legal" accuracy. Far more than the actual WMF lawyers have
> > required, incidentally.
> 
[snip]
> 
> In that way, the problems in the application of Commons policy are not
> that different from the problems in the application of policy on
> Wikipedia. It's just that Wikipedians who are used to operating under
> the regime of Wikipedia's policies frequently get upset when they are
> subjected to an entirely different regime. Their experience is not
> that different from that of a new user whose article gets speedied
> because the source cited to establish its notability doesn't quite
> cross the threshold applied by an admin.
> 
> In my view, it would be appropriate for WMF to take a more active role
> not in the decision-making itself, but in the training of and support
> for administrators and other functionaries to ensure that we apply
> policy rationally, in a manner that's civil and welcoming. That goes
> for these types of deletion decisions just as much as for civility and
> other standards of conduct. WMF is now organizationally in a position
> where it could resource the consensus-driven development of training
> modules for admins across projects to create a more welcoming,
> rational environment - on Commons and elsewhere.
> 
> Erik
> 

Refreshing approach Erik.  It would good to see if there could be a
continued conversation about this, maybe something at Wikimania.

I say refreshing, as it follows a similar user talk page conversation at
Commons that discussed the workload for admins trying to manage just the
daily uploads. Part of the reflection was that it was better to be a little
overzealous in the policing to maintain the quality, and to maintain a
curated collection, making it significantly better than flickr, and making
the collection meaningful.

To me it requires multi-pronged approach. You identified that more can done
to support admins. We still have more to do educate users, and the tools
that we have now make an upload easy, however, does it do sufficient to
inform, and does it do enough to provide a framework to ensure that the
added works are within scope. Is there more we can do to make some of the
administrative tasks easier, so admins feel less squeezed for time, and more
able to be supportive rather than squeezed.

Regards, Billinghurst


___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Jeevan Jose]

Hi Erik:

Thanks for your comment. I noticed your comment at [[1]] so hope they are
related.

Yes; making proper attributions and satisfying all license requirements are
a bit complicated and time consuming. See my proposal at [[2]].

I requested the help of CC team; but didn't get any response so far.

I requested the help of the WMF legal; Luis Villa (WMF)  commented that "Yup,
I understand - it is a difficult situation, and we'd like to help. But
interpreting the license obligations for the public is also tricky for us,
so we're working on it. " [[3]]

Any further help is highly appreciated.


Regards,
Jee

Links:

1.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peteforsyth#Some_recent_speedies.
..

2.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Propose_to_update_CC_license_tags_to_comply_with_the_new_wordings_in_CC_deeds

3. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LuisV_(WMF)#Attribution


On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins; time
> > and time and time again we have it reported here, we see it on Commons.
> > While not lawyers, they attempt to be extraordinarily demanding when it
> > comes to "legal" accuracy. Far more than the actual WMF lawyers have
> > required, incidentally.
>
> Yes, agreed. Deletion is frequently applied in an overzealous manner
> based on arbitrary interpretations and lack of nuance. It would be
> appropriate to more frequently apply tags like {{Disputed}} and to
> rely more on social contact to resolve incomplete metadata, rather
> than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of
> potentially non-free content may infect the repository.
>
> It is correct that I proposed Commons as a repository of freely
> re-usable media -- indeed, that is a key characteristic which
> distinguishes it from other sites and services, as others have pointed
> out. I think it's absolutely crucial to maintain that aspect of its
> identity. I worry that the creation of any kind of non-free repository
> would dramatically alter the incentive structure for contributing to
> our projects. Especially when negotiating releases of large
> collections, it will be much harder to argue for free licensing if it
> becomes trivial to upload and re-use non-free files.
>
> But maintaining that commitment requires that we also maintain a
> capacity for nuance in how we enforce it, or we turn into a club of
> zealots nobody wants to be part of rather than being effective
> advocates for our cause. That includes understanding that some
> situations in international copyright law are ambiguous and
> unresolved, that some files may present a minimal level of risk and
> can reasonably be kept unless someone complains, and that copyright on
> all bits that make up a work can be difficult to trace, identify and
> document comprehensively and consistently. Moreover, it should include
> (in policy and application) an emphasis on communication and
> education, rather than deletion and confrontation.
>
> In that way, the problems in the application of Commons policy are not
> that different from the problems in the application of policy on
> Wikipedia. It's just that Wikipedians who are used to operating under
> the regime of Wikipedia's policies frequently get upset when they are
> subjected to an entirely different regime. Their experience is not
> that different from that of a new user whose article gets speedied
> because the source cited to establish its notability doesn't quite
> cross the threshold applied by an admin.
>
> In my view, it would be appropriate for WMF to take a more active role
> not in the decision-making itself, but in the training of and support
> for administrators and other functionaries to ensure that we apply
> policy rationally, in a manner that's civil and welcoming. That goes
> for these types of deletion decisions just as much as for civility and
> other standards of conduct. WMF is now organizationally in a position
> where it could resource the consensus-driven development of training
> modules for admins across projects to create a more welcoming,
> rational environment - on Commons and elsewhere.
>
> Erik
>
> ___
> 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] The tragedy of Commons

[Erik Moeller]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins; time
> and time and time again we have it reported here, we see it on Commons.
> While not lawyers, they attempt to be extraordinarily demanding when it
> comes to "legal" accuracy. Far more than the actual WMF lawyers have
> required, incidentally.

Yes, agreed. Deletion is frequently applied in an overzealous manner
based on arbitrary interpretations and lack of nuance. It would be
appropriate to more frequently apply tags like {{Disputed}} and to
rely more on social contact to resolve incomplete metadata, rather
than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of
potentially non-free content may infect the repository.

It is correct that I proposed Commons as a repository of freely
re-usable media -- indeed, that is a key characteristic which
distinguishes it from other sites and services, as others have pointed
out. I think it's absolutely crucial to maintain that aspect of its
identity. I worry that the creation of any kind of non-free repository
would dramatically alter the incentive structure for contributing to
our projects. Especially when negotiating releases of large
collections, it will be much harder to argue for free licensing if it
becomes trivial to upload and re-use non-free files.

But maintaining that commitment requires that we also maintain a
capacity for nuance in how we enforce it, or we turn into a club of
zealots nobody wants to be part of rather than being effective
advocates for our cause. That includes understanding that some
situations in international copyright law are ambiguous and
unresolved, that some files may present a minimal level of risk and
can reasonably be kept unless someone complains, and that copyright on
all bits that make up a work can be difficult to trace, identify and
document comprehensively and consistently. Moreover, it should include
(in policy and application) an emphasis on communication and
education, rather than deletion and confrontation.

In that way, the problems in the application of Commons policy are not
that different from the problems in the application of policy on
Wikipedia. It's just that Wikipedians who are used to operating under
the regime of Wikipedia's policies frequently get upset when they are
subjected to an entirely different regime. Their experience is not
that different from that of a new user whose article gets speedied
because the source cited to establish its notability doesn't quite
cross the threshold applied by an admin.

In my view, it would be appropriate for WMF to take a more active role
not in the decision-making itself, but in the training of and support
for administrators and other functionaries to ensure that we apply
policy rationally, in a manner that's civil and welcoming. That goes
for these types of deletion decisions just as much as for civility and
other standards of conduct. WMF is now organizationally in a position
where it could resource the consensus-driven development of training
modules for admins across projects to create a more welcoming,
rational environment - on Commons and elsewhere.

Erik

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Jeevan Jose]

All ended in a good way as Sven Manguard unblocked her.  Hope the Hebrew
Wikipedia will recover from the painful memories soon.

Regards,
Jee


On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 2:33 AM, Yann Forget  wrote:

> Suite of the drama.
>
> A request for a topic ban against LGA, who made these deletion
> requests, was started by Hanay, a user from the Hebrew Wikipedia.
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:LGA
>
> Now she is blocked for one week for "canvassing", because she informed
> the Hebrew Wikipedia of the request.
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Block_of_Hanay_for_cross-wiki_canvassing
>
> This affair is going to degenerate in a full war between Commons and
> some Wikipedias, if a solution is not found.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann
>
> 2014-06-17 5:04 GMT+05:30 Yann Forget :
> > Hi,
> >
> > Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and
> > threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of
> > famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense
> > Forces.
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg
> >
> > These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured
> > pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been
> > deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing
> > enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication
> > details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can
> > understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they
> > were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition,
> > publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in
> > Israel.
> >
> > After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
> > delete-only account:
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
> > There, more contributors argue on this issue.
> >
> > By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
> > contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will
> > lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons.
> > Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is
> > gone.
> >
> > Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should
> > try to find a reason to keep them.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Yann
>
> ___
> 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] The tragedy of Commons

[Yann Forget]

Suite of the drama.

A request for a topic ban against LGA, who made these deletion
requests, was started by Hanay, a user from the Hebrew Wikipedia.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:LGA

Now she is blocked for one week for "canvassing", because she informed
the Hebrew Wikipedia of the request.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Block_of_Hanay_for_cross-wiki_canvassing

This affair is going to degenerate in a full war between Commons and
some Wikipedias, if a solution is not found.

Regards,

Yann

2014-06-17 5:04 GMT+05:30 Yann Forget :
> Hi,
>
> Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and
> threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of
> famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense
> Forces.
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg
>
> These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured
> pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been
> deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing
> enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication
> details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can
> understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they
> were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition,
> publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in
> Israel.
>
> After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
> delete-only account:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
> There, more contributors argue on this issue.
>
> By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
> contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will
> lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons.
> Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is
> gone.
>
> Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should
> try to find a reason to keep them.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Yann Forget]

2014-06-18 1:43 GMT+05:30 Russavia :
> Yann,
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Yann Forget  wrote:
>
>> The rules of the project, "free license", or "in the public domain in
>> USA and in the source country", are fine as long as they are not used
>> to game the system.
>
>
> Yann I totally agree with this.
>
> The problem is, that the URAA RFC goes against that statement entirely by
> ignoring or turning a blind eye to the copyright status of files in the US.
>
> Can you explain why there is the blaring discrepancy in your viewpoint here?
>
> Cheers
>
> Russvia

My point here is not about URAA, but about exaggerate requirements
from some contributors.
And gaming the system is exactly what YOU did when you speedy deleted
the 4 files I mentioned in my first message.

I several times proposed to allow only a restricted sets of files
affected by URAA, not all (e.g. only files older than 50? years,
or/and orphan/anonymous files, and/or government files). It seems
there is a wild consensus about such a compromise, but you
deliberately ignore my proposal, and choose to attack unilaterally the
whole issue.

Yann

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When it is appropriate to mention Wikidata, I will mention Wikidata. The
other side of the coin is that not every thread in this list needs to be
about Wikipedia or used as a platform to promote it. In this instance
technology was discussed where Wikidata may be of service. Consequently it
is relevant and opportune to mention this.

A single editor in Commons can tweaks license information as much as it
might be in Wikidata. Remember both Commons and Wikidata are wikis. It is
likely that a property will be needed to reference an OTRS instance.
Reasons why a file has issues will be as much be defined by properties and
qualifiers. Really Fae, not much will change except that a Russian may view
all this in Russian and a Brazilian in Portuguese.

Effectively the number of people who will be able to understand what is
expressed will increase. More people will be able to find media files...
Remember, that IS the objective isn't it?
Thanks,
  GerardM


On 18 June 2014 11:19, Fæ  wrote:

> On 18/06/2014, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > Arguably when all repositories of media-files are Wikidatified, general
> > availability could be as difficult as selecting the appropriate license.
> >
> > To do this no new project is needed as the Wikidata team has started
> work.
> > All that is needed is to have one database to know about all media files.
> > Thanks,
> >  Gerard
>
> Not every thread on this list needs to be about Wikidata, or used as a
> platform to promote it.
>
> The vision that a single editor in Wikidata tweaking a licence field,
> effectively overrules detailed assessments of copyright, RFCs, or
> deletions of media for good reasons such as OTRS request, courtesy
> deletions and so forth, is not one I recognize as being within the
> original intended scope of Wikidata.
>
> Fae
> (Writing from the grave.)
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> 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] The tragedy of Commons

[Fæ]

On 18/06/2014, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> Hoi,
> Arguably when all repositories of media-files are Wikidatified, general
> availability could be as difficult as selecting the appropriate license.
>
> To do this no new project is needed as the Wikidata team has started work.
> All that is needed is to have one database to know about all media files.
> Thanks,
>  Gerard

Not every thread on this list needs to be about Wikidata, or used as a
platform to promote it.

The vision that a single editor in Wikidata tweaking a licence field,
effectively overrules detailed assessments of copyright, RFCs, or
deletions of media for good reasons such as OTRS request, courtesy
deletions and so forth, is not one I recognize as being within the
original intended scope of Wikidata.

Fae
(Writing from the grave.)
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Arguably when all repositories of media-files are Wikidatified, general
availability could be as difficult as selecting the appropriate license.

To do this no new project is needed as the Wikidata team has started work.
All that is needed is to have one database to know about all media files.
Thanks,
 Gerard


On 18 June 2014 11:01, Petr Kadlec  wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:00 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> > From the technical side, supporting one-click (i.e., easy to use) file
> > moves between wikis would be enormously helpful here. This would allow
> > transferring files to Commons or from Commons without much pain, which
> > should reduce a lot of friction. As David notes, we could set up
> > additional file repositories for use in Wikimedia wikis, but it requires
> > solving the hosting issues mentioned above.
> >
>
> This. Creating a completely new project when all what people want is an
> ability to easily reuse an image they saw on another project (i.e. on
> enwiki) means creating thousand new problems instead of solving one. (You
> could devise a bit more sophisticated solutions instead of file copying,
> e.g. direct cross-project image use like “[[en:File:Example.jpg]]” or
> whatever, but they create other issues to solve; one-click cross-project
> file upload could be easily implemented right now.)
>
> -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
> ___
> 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] The tragedy of Commons

[Petr Kadlec]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:00 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> From the technical side, supporting one-click (i.e., easy to use) file
> moves between wikis would be enormously helpful here. This would allow
> transferring files to Commons or from Commons without much pain, which
> should reduce a lot of friction. As David notes, we could set up
> additional file repositories for use in Wikimedia wikis, but it requires
> solving the hosting issues mentioned above.
>

This. Creating a completely new project when all what people want is an
ability to easily reuse an image they saw on another project (i.e. on
enwiki) means creating thousand new problems instead of solving one. (You
could devise a bit more sophisticated solutions instead of file copying,
e.g. direct cross-project image use like “[[en:File:Example.jpg]]” or
whatever, but they create other issues to solve; one-click cross-project
file upload could be easily implemented right now.)

-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Peter Southwood]

I do not understand the relevance of this reply to my comments.



-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Fæ
Sent: 18 June 2014 10:20 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

On 18/06/2014, Peter Southwood  wrote:
> This is a strong argument for locating Uncommons outside the USA. 
> Somewhere where the copyright laws allow the widest range of images to 
> be kept. Images can be tagged for where they are free and where they are not 
> free.

I have now uploaded nearly 400,000 public domain and other freely released 
images to Wikimedia Commons. Every week there are times I break into a sweat 
wondering if one of the many institutions I have taken the original images 
from, will attempt to prosecute me personally under 'sweat of the brow', 
conflicting international law, database rights, misuse of a website under a 
tacit contract, etc. Even though I am careful to ensure I have made "reasonable 
efforts" to ascertain that the images are free to reuse, mistakes happen and I 
am subject to UK law, along with the long reach of US law and the Wikimedia 
Foundation has made it clear that there is no guarantee that any legal costs as 
a direct result of my volunteer work would be covered by them.

Deliberately setting out to avoid copyright law and uploading material to an 
aggregating website that you know for certain is "non-free" and supplying it so 
that others may avoid copyright, is a far riskier thing to do. If a civil 
action against a volunteer were taken, I doubt there could be a defence in 
court based on "good faith" or "reasonable effort".

I note that a WMF trustee has made a supportive comment in this thread, however 
before Wikimedia starts officially encouraging and promoting sharing non-free 
media using donated charitable funds intended for free works, any "uncommons" 
proposal should be carefully advised on by lawyers. At an individual level, I 
would recommend that volunteers protect themselves with anonymity using 
technical means to ensure their contributions were untraceable, so that only 
the website host could ever be prosecuted in relevant jurisdictions. Note that 
just because your server is in Peru, does not mean that works protected under 
US or EU law may not be vigorously defended in local courts. Legally, this may 
well be treated as an internet piracy website, they tend to not end well.

Commons has 21,500,000 files, the unnecessary drama created
(literally) by a couple of admins who should be able to talk to each other 
rather than wheel-warring, and then forum shopping, over some works suffering 
under the consequences of the rather daft URAA, represent a pin-drop in that 
ocean of freely reusable media. This does not make Commons "tragic", indeed it 
feels like a mellow place 99% of the time as nobody really notices the 
committed content contributors.

Links
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Staying_mellow
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WW#Wheel_war

Fae
--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3972/7697 - Release Date: 06/18/14


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

[Peter Southwood]

a) Why would they be confiscated if the contents are locally legal?
b) 1st amendment you refer to is presumably to the US constitution. Do you know 
for a fact that similar law does not exist anywhere else in the world? - 
(citation needed)



-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of geni
Sent: 18 June 2014 10:18 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

On 18 June 2014 08:43, Peter Southwood  wrote:

> This is a strong argument for locating Uncommons outside the USA.
> Somewhere where the copyright laws allow the widest range of images to 
> be kept. Images can be tagged for where they are free and where they 
> are not free.
>


Sure if you want the severs to be confiscated within a week. No 1st amendment 
outside the US.


--
geni
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3972/7697 - Release Date: 06/18/14


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

[Fæ]

On 18/06/2014, Peter Southwood  wrote:
> This is a strong argument for locating Uncommons outside the USA. Somewhere
> where the copyright laws allow the widest range of images to be kept. Images
> can be tagged for where they are free and where they are not free.

I have now uploaded nearly 400,000 public domain and other freely
released images to Wikimedia Commons. Every week there are times I
break into a sweat wondering if one of the many institutions I have
taken the original images from, will attempt to prosecute me
personally under 'sweat of the brow', conflicting international law,
database rights, misuse of a website under a tacit contract, etc. Even
though I am careful to ensure I have made "reasonable efforts" to
ascertain that the images are free to reuse, mistakes happen and I am
subject to UK law, along with the long reach of US law and the
Wikimedia Foundation has made it clear that there is no guarantee that
any legal costs as a direct result of my volunteer work would be
covered by them.

Deliberately setting out to avoid copyright law and uploading material
to an aggregating website that you know for certain is "non-free" and
supplying it so that others may avoid copyright, is a far riskier
thing to do. If a civil action against a volunteer were taken, I doubt
there could be a defence in court based on "good faith" or "reasonable
effort".

I note that a WMF trustee has made a supportive comment in this
thread, however before Wikimedia starts officially encouraging and
promoting sharing non-free media using donated charitable funds
intended for free works, any "uncommons" proposal should be carefully
advised on by lawyers. At an individual level, I would recommend that
volunteers protect themselves with anonymity using technical means to
ensure their contributions were untraceable, so that only the website
host could ever be prosecuted in relevant jurisdictions. Note that
just because your server is in Peru, does not mean that works
protected under US or EU law may not be vigorously defended in local
courts. Legally, this may well be treated as an internet piracy
website, they tend to not end well.

Commons has 21,500,000 files, the unnecessary drama created
(literally) by a couple of admins who should be able to talk to each
other rather than wheel-warring, and then forum shopping, over some
works suffering under the consequences of the rather daft URAA,
represent a pin-drop in that ocean of freely reusable media. This does
not make Commons "tragic", indeed it feels like a mellow place 99% of
the time as nobody really notices the committed content contributors.

Links
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Staying_mellow
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WW#Wheel_war

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[geni]

On 18 June 2014 08:43, Peter Southwood  wrote:

> This is a strong argument for locating Uncommons outside the USA.
> Somewhere where the copyright laws allow the widest range of images to be
> kept. Images can be tagged for where they are free and where they are not
> free.
>


Sure if you want the severs to be confiscated within a week. No 1st
amendment outside the US.


-- 
geni
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Peter Southwood]

Is it currently possible and acceptable to include an image from Flickr or 
equivalent in an article in any project? I don’t think I have ever seen/noticed 
this done.



-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nathan
Sent: 17 June 2014 09:52 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:29 PM, George Herbert 
wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > I don't think the concept of the project is the problem. I'm 
> > skeptical
> that
> > an "Uncommons" project built around fair use could be workable,
> considering
> > that the validity of a fair use claim is context-specific and no
> cross-wiki
> > project (like Commons) is going to have an easy time managing that 
> > requirement.
> >
>
> We don't have to.  As a basic inclusion rule, someone justified an 
> image on a fair-use project, and someone else wants to share it.  If 
> its use gets deleted on both those wikis (and anywhere else that 
> started using it) due to not complying with fair use, and it stays out 
> of use, we identify a cleanup procedure.  But as long as a basically 
> credible "it's fair use over here" exists for 1 or more projects, it's a 
> candidate for Uncommons.
>
> Uncommons should *never* see an image deleted out from under an 
> article using it, for example.  If someone feels it's not compliant 
> with X wiki's local fair use criteria, they go to X wiki, argue the 
> case, get it removed from the article(s).  Uncommons would consider 
> deletion if all the projects which tried to use it rejected it on fair use 
> grounds.
>
> Caveat that a copyright violation in the US, where the servers are, 
> may still need to be removed even if fair-use in (for example) 
> Argentina and Botswana apply, which is unfortunate, but we have a 
> process for people to report copyvios of their images to the 
> Foundation, and allowing OTRS to do their thing as usual would cover that.
>
>

So you want to split the role of "image repository" into two projects - one 
that is freely reusable for all possible reusers, and one that is useful in the 
first instance for all WMF projects and secondarily for anyone else using it in 
an educational context.

Ok, I get that. But there are some unanswered questions:

1) Why would our "Uncommons" be superior to Flickr or any other repository of 
images that can be used under fair use doctrine? Is it that we are categorizing 
them? That we might be able to select the "best" file for a particular usage, 
and replicate that out in context across projects?

2) How would Uncommons not fall prey to same set of issues that have beset 
Commons for years? Copyright status would still need to be investigated to some 
degree, FUR would need to be policed at least a little, etc. etc.You'd attract 
the same people, probably, with the same biases and prejudices and problems.

3) EDP files on projects are currently already hosted by WMF, so what we're 
really talking about is pushing them into the same bucket to focus curation 
resources. Considering the challenges, would it be better to just implement an 
easier common architecture for these files (i.e. make discovery of files from 
various projects simpler on any individual project)?
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3972/7697 - Release Date: 06/18/14


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

[Peter Southwood]

This is a strong argument for locating Uncommons outside the USA. Somewhere 
where the copyright laws allow the widest range of images to be kept. Images 
can be tagged for where they are free and where they are not free.



-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George Herbert
Sent: 17 June 2014 09:29 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> I don't think the concept of the project is the problem. I'm skeptical 
> that an "Uncommons" project built around fair use could be workable, 
> considering that the validity of a fair use claim is context-specific 
> and no cross-wiki project (like Commons) is going to have an easy time 
> managing that requirement.
>

We don't have to.  As a basic inclusion rule, someone justified an image on a 
fair-use project, and someone else wants to share it.  If its use gets deleted 
on both those wikis (and anywhere else that started using it) due to not 
complying with fair use, and it stays out of use, we identify a cleanup 
procedure.  But as long as a basically credible "it's fair use over here" 
exists for 1 or more projects, it's a candidate for Uncommons.

Uncommons should *never* see an image deleted out from under an article using 
it, for example.  If someone feels it's not compliant with X wiki's local fair 
use criteria, they go to X wiki, argue the case, get it removed from the 
article(s).  Uncommons would consider deletion if all the projects which tried 
to use it rejected it on fair use grounds.

Caveat that a copyright violation in the US, where the servers are, may still 
need to be removed even if fair-use in (for example) Argentina and Botswana 
apply, which is unfortunate, but we have a process for people to report 
copyvios of their images to the Foundation, and allowing OTRS to do their thing 
as usual would cover that.



> The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins; 
> time and time and time again we have it reported here, we see it on Commons.
> While not lawyers, they attempt to be extraordinarily demanding when 
> it comes to "legal" accuracy. Far more than the actual WMF lawyers 
> have required, incidentally.
>
> It's not surprising that the locus of the dispute often revolves 
> around community members who have been banned on other projects but 
> reached positions of authority on Commons. Perhaps Commons social 
> structures haven't evolved enough to deal with people who are both 
> productive and deeply disruptive, and who are not uncivil but 
> contribute to a toxic environment.



I understand, and applaud those who still want to attempt to reform that.
 The curation of the free content is affected along with the spillover into 
fair use content.

That said, it's time to move on, for a large bulk of the content hosting role.  
The fight now engaged on Commons is not the fight that content creators and 
curators on projects need or want to be engaged in.


--
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3972/7697 - Release Date: 06/18/14


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

[Lodewijk]

would that become Wikimedia Uncommons or Unwikimedia Commons? Or do we
avoid this question by leaving it to an outside party?

Lodewijk
(who is btw not so much charmed of an uncommons at all)


2014-06-17 21:06 GMT+02:00 Samuel Klein :

> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:19 PM, George Herbert
>  wrote:
>
> > the project and world benefit from [Commons] existing as is.  But we
> need an
> > alternative to support the educational mission, reasonable inter-project
> reuse,
> > and end the endless deletion wars.
>
> Yes, this.   With highly visible guidance for licensing/use.
> Uncommons is a charming name.
>
> SJ
>
> ___
> 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] The tragedy of Commons

[Peter Southwood]

This is a reasonable and practicable compromise. 



-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George Herbert
Sent: 17 June 2014 08:20 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> If we don't maintain the focus on free media, we may as well direct 
> people to a web image search, all of which is "use at your own risk" 
> anyway, just like our proposed new repository. Being free content is 
> the Commons value add over Google Images or the like. Keeping a 
> nonfree image repository adds... what?


 It allows free reuse of images which fall under the fair use criteria between 
separate Projects, without directly copying them N times between the projects, 
which is an obvious and self evident waste of time and disk space.

If fair use is allowed at all, and it is, then we should support inter-project 
reuse on a reasonable basis.  What Commons has become with its copyright Stazi 
is no longer acceptable as a component of a project whose educational goal has 
always and must remain an equally balanced part of its total portfolio.

This is not a call to disband Commons; the project and world benefit from that 
existing as is.  But we need an alternative to support the educational mission, 
reasonable inter-project reuse, and end the endless deletion wars.


--
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3972/7694 - Release Date: 06/17/14


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

[MZMcBride]

The subject line is cute, but perhaps a bit trite. I think with a bit of
effort we can do better. :-)

George Herbert wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>>If we don't maintain the focus on free media, we may as well direct
>>people to a web image search, all of which is "use at your own risk"
>>anyway, just like our proposed new repository. Being free content is the
>>Commons value add over Google Images or the like. Keeping a nonfree
>>image repository adds... what?
>
>It allows free reuse of images which fall under the fair use criteria
>between separate Projects, without directly copying them N times between
>the projects, which is an obvious and self evident waste of time and disk
>space.
>
>If fair use is allowed at all, and it is, then we should support
>inter-project reuse on a reasonable basis.  What Commons has become with
>its copyright Stazi is no longer acceptable as a component of a project
>whose educational goal has always and must remain an equally balanced part
>of its total portfolio.
>
>This is not a call to disband Commons; the project and world benefit from
>that existing as is.  But we need an alternative to support the
>educational mission, reasonable inter-project reuse, and end the endless
>deletion wars.

Thank you, George Herbert, for making a number of good points in this
thread. I think we should capture these arguments and ideas in a page on
Meta-Wiki for further thought and consideration.

To respond to Todd's question from a slightly different direction, the
advantages of file repositories such as Commons or the English
Wikipedia's is that they allow us to keep the files forever (we host the
files and can manage them as we see fit) and they allow directly
embedding the files into articles and other pages, protecting user
privacy by not having browsers accessing other hosts directly. Whenever a
user loads an file, their IP address and the file name are recorded in
server logs. In addition to exposing private user data, hosting files
elsewhere can be a substantial burden on the (often unsuspecting) hosts. A
few Wikimedia wikis get quite a lot of traffic. :-)

I agree with the general sentiment that dealing with Commons is a pain in
the ass. Just a few weeks ago I was annoyed and frustrated yet again with
Commons and its policies.

Broadly, copyright is painfully and horribly complex and unfair. Commons
is a global project, so the ill effects of copyright are often
dramatically amplified by a dizzying mixture of copyright laws around the
world and differences in cultural norms, including ideas about fair use
and ownership and author rights and much more.

It doesn't help that some Commoners, particularly some Commons admins,
sometimes seem to revel in this legal minefield. Editors just want a
centralized file repository that will house their files in perpetuity.
Not everyone is interested in debating the finer points of the horrible
system of copyright laws we're now forced to live with.

Yes, the work that Wikimedia is doing will likely slightly ease the burden
of copyright in the long run, but it's reasonable to re-examine the
current reality and medium-term future to see if there aren't better,
workable solutions. I imagine others have already done some of this
research either on Meta-Wiki or on Commons.

From the technical side, supporting one-click (i.e., easy to use) file
moves between wikis would be enormously helpful here. This would allow
transferring files to Commons or from Commons without much pain, which
should reduce a lot of friction. As David notes, we could set up
additional file repositories for use in Wikimedia wikis, but it requires
solving the hosting issues mentioned above.

It makes sense to investigate and discuss a shared file repository that
allows fair use files. While I think it's indisputable that Wikimedia
prefers and encourages content that's released under a free license, we
currently have a system that actively decentralizes fair use content,
which is simply unacceptably inefficient, in my opinion.

MZMcBride



___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Nathan]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Russavia 
wrote:

> Yann,
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Yann Forget  wrote:
>
> >
> > The rules of the project, "free license", or "in the public domain in
> > USA and in the source country", are fine as long as they are not used
> > to game the system.
>
>
> Yann I totally agree with this.
>
> The problem is, that the URAA RFC goes against that statement entirely by
> ignoring or turning a blind eye to the copyright status of files in the US.
>
> Can you explain why there is the blaring discrepancy in your viewpoint
> here?
>
> Cheers
>
> Russvia


Can you explain why you think it's acceptable to substitute your judgment
for the judgment of the Commons community? Evidently you don't argue the
outcome of the RfC itself, so please enlighten us as to why your authority
exceeds that of the very large number of participants in that discussion.
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Russavia]

Yann,

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Yann Forget  wrote:

>
> The rules of the project, "free license", or "in the public domain in
> USA and in the source country", are fine as long as they are not used
> to game the system.


Yann I totally agree with this.

The problem is, that the URAA RFC goes against that statement entirely by
ignoring or turning a blind eye to the copyright status of files in the US.

Can you explain why there is the blaring discrepancy in your viewpoint here?

Cheers

Russvia
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[George Herbert]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:29 PM, George Herbert 
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan  wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think the concept of the project is the problem. I'm skeptical
> > that
> > > an "Uncommons" project built around fair use could be workable,
> > considering
> > > that the validity of a fair use claim is context-specific and no
> > cross-wiki
> > > project (like Commons) is going to have an easy time managing that
> > > requirement.
> > >
> >
> > We don't have to.  As a basic inclusion rule, someone justified an image
> on
> > a fair-use project, and someone else wants to share it.  If its use gets
> > deleted on both those wikis (and anywhere else that started using it) due
> > to not complying with fair use, and it stays out of use, we identify a
> > cleanup procedure.  But as long as a basically credible "it's fair use
> over
> > here" exists for 1 or more projects, it's a candidate for Uncommons.
> >
> > Uncommons should *never* see an image deleted out from under an article
> > using it, for example.  If someone feels it's not compliant with X wiki's
> > local fair use criteria, they go to X wiki, argue the case, get it
> removed
> > from the article(s).  Uncommons would consider deletion if all the
> projects
> > which tried to use it rejected it on fair use grounds.
> >
> > Caveat that a copyright violation in the US, where the servers are, may
> > still need to be removed even if fair-use in (for example) Argentina and
> > Botswana apply, which is unfortunate, but we have a process for people to
> > report copyvios of their images to the Foundation, and allowing OTRS to
> do
> > their thing as usual would cover that.
> >
> >
>
> So you want to split the role of "image repository" into two projects - one
> that is freely reusable for all possible reusers, and one that is useful in
> the first instance for all WMF projects and secondarily for anyone else
> using it in an educational context.
>
> Ok, I get that. But there are some unanswered questions:
>
> 1) Why would our "Uncommons" be superior to Flickr or any other repository
> of images that can be used under fair use doctrine? Is it that we are
> categorizing them? That we might be able to select the "best" file for a
> particular usage, and replicate that out in context across projects?
>


Well, let's start with control and quality control.

If I put an illustration on Flickr, and you say "Oh, cool, great for
Wikipedia article on Foo" and image linked it, I could take it down or
change it.  Minor modifications are one thing; me taking my Flickr and
changing it from Nyan Cat to a pair of human female breasts, the day that
the Wikipedia article on Foo was featured article of the day, is a big deal.

Another issue is copyright enforcement.  On WMF projects, we have the
consistent reporting and investigation mechanism under DMCA using OTRS or
Legal (depending on how upset the complaintant is), with contextual
understanding of WMF project usage, ability to see who and what articles
depend on an image, etc.  We have and take due responsibility with
sensitivity to Context.  For Flickr, they have no responsibility to us or
our articles; they care only about their direct user and themselves.  They
may use much less stringent criteria for establishing that a copyright
problem exists than OTRS does, for example.

I don't see Uncommons as a selection mechanism.  I see it as a logical
sharing mechanism for things that editors who are doing cross-wiki content
pollination projects can use easily and painlessly.  They're selecting what
content from (mostly) larger wikis they want on smaller ones (and sometimes
the other way around).  This is just the one stop shopping location to put
the common version in once you determine you'd like to use this image in
five articles across five languages.



> 2) How would Uncommons not fall prey to same set of issues that have beset
> Commons for years? Copyright status would still need to be investigated to
> some degree, FUR would need to be policed at least a little, etc. etc.You'd
> attract the same people, probably, with the same biases and prejudices and
> problems.
>

Again - Uncommons is about usage.  Usage of an Uncommons image on
en.wikipedia needs to comply with english FUR policy.  Use on the Malaysian
wiki needs to comply with their standards, etc.  Uncommons cares that the
image is used somewhere.  If it stops being used everywhere due to FUR
issue then perhaps it should not be in Uncommons, but we should not be too
hasty with that as perhaps other Wikis have less stringent local legal
requirements and FUR policies and will come to use it later on.

So; remove if a valid copyright complaint comes in (OTRS / Legal), remove
if it really truly is not being used anywhere anymore, otherwise the
use/don't use is up to individual wikis and their policies.

We could centralize the fair use templates / justifications at Uncommons so
peo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

[Pete Forsyth]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Yann Forget  wrote:

> 2014-06-18 0:55 GMT+05:30 Pete Forsyth :
> > The people you, Nathan, are accusing of behaving badly, are the ones who
> > are doing the hard, day-do-day work of enforcing the expressed consensus
> of
> > the Wikimedia community, which values a commitment to free licenses.
>
> Sorry, but this is a strawman argument.
> No, these people are not enforcing any consensus.
> Actually, they are precisely working against the silent majority in
> the case of URAA.


I am going to take a pass on following this shift from talking about
non-free files as a general topic (which is a very broad topic and a core
issue to our movement, and which I feel qualified to talk about) and the
URAA issue (which, though significant, is a bit murky to me).

My opinion on URAA is pretty simple: it is a terribly misguided law. One
sign of a bad law is that it prompts deeply divisive arguments where they
need not exist. Within the Wikimedia world, I recognize that various people
are pushing for incompatible outcomes, all in good faith. I have stayed out
of that debate so far, and will probably continue to do so.

Pete
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Tim Davenport]

Per GerardM: "Many people no longer trust Commons to store their media
files. People
   are more certain that their files will remain available when they upload
   media files to their own project."


I for one won't use Commons for image uploads. I feel that my uploads have
been treated vindictively there.

There is no functional reason for Commons to even exist. Images can as
easily be uploaded to the various language Wikipedias for use in
illustrating encyclopedic articles, which is the true point of the
exercise, thus allowing different encyclopedias maintaining differing local
standards for their inclusion. (Just be sure to use the {{keep local}} flag
to keep things from being expropriated by bots and buccaneers if you go
this route.)

Commons is dominated by "free use" (as opposed to "fair use") advocates who
see mission of the repository as the accumulation of any image whatsoever
which may be deemed "educational" in the very loosest sense of the term.
They rely on a precedent established in 2004 as their rationale for their
free use worship, which they consider axiomatic but which is actually
debatable.

Commons has poorly developed standards for inclusion vs. exclusion and is
dominated by a group who run roughshod over their critics.

Tim Davenport /// Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Yann Forget]

2014-06-18 0:55 GMT+05:30 Pete Forsyth :
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan  wrote:
>
>> The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins;

Yes.

> George, SJ, and Nathan:
>
> In addition to Erik Moeller's initial proposal that Commons be used as a
> repository for *free* media files (linked previously), there has been a
> very recent referendum that speaks very directly to the Wikimedia
> community's commitment to holding the line on the principles of free
> licenses, even in the face of negative practical consequences. That
> referendum was the recent proposal to use the MP4 format. When concluded,
> more than 300 people had voted against compromising on this principle,
> while fewer then 150 voted in favor.[1] Of course there are some
> considerations that are specific to that case, but it is useful to consider
> now, because the central topic is essentially the same in both cases:
>
> Should we sacrifice free content principles, if that sacrifice will enable
> us to distribute more educational content?
>
> The answer was a resounding "no."
>
> The people you, Nathan, are accusing of behaving badly, are the ones who
> are doing the hard, day-do-day work of enforcing the expressed consensus of
> the Wikimedia community, which values a commitment to free licenses.

Sorry, but this is a strawman argument.
No, these people are not enforcing any consensus.
Actually, they are precisely working against the silent majority in
the case of URAA.

All we need is a bit more of common sense.
I think we could have a tag for borderline cases saying "probably OK,
except some uncertainities".
We already have this for some freedom of panorama issues (FOP), and for URAA.
Then reusers are clearly warned about the situation, and are free to
use the file depending on their own requirements.

Anyway, seeing that these cases are very unlikely to get into legal
trouble, the claim that these cases put our reusers into danger is a
complete bullshit, IMHO.

> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> [1]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video

Regards,

Yann

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Andrew Gray]

On 17 June 2014 17:53, Delirium  wrote:

> educational and other uses, by Wikimedians and third parties. If it's not an
> open-content encyclopedia, for example if Wikipedia articles make use of
> provincial American copyright loopholes that render them illegal to
> redistribute here in Denmark, imo it has failed in its educational mission.

We already do this, and it's been going on for a decade.

The English Wikipedia is stuffed full of text added under a "pre 1923
so public domain" basis, which of course is a complete minefield
anywhere else in the world. Some of it is tagged, some of it isn't

See, for example, the 12000+ pages (often very prominent) in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_the_1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica

Some of this is PD in most of the world (assuming life+70). Some
isn't. We cheerfully warrant it all to be CC-BY-SA...

(In practice, I think this is reasonably de minimis. The amount of
material that survives is relatively small in many articles, and I've
even removed a few EB1911 tags when it's been written out entirely.
But it's interesting to compare this with the way we handle Commons
material.)

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Yann Forget]

Hi,

2014-06-18 0:37 GMT+05:30 Nathan :
> I don't think the concept of the project is the problem. I'm skeptical that
> an "Uncommons" project built around fair use could be workable, considering
> that the validity of a fair use claim is context-specific and no cross-wiki
> project (like Commons) is going to have an easy time managing that
> requirement.
>
> The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins; time
> and time and time again we have it reported here, we see it on Commons.
> While not lawyers, they attempt to be extraordinarily demanding when it
> comes to "legal" accuracy. Far more than the actual WMF lawyers have
> required, incidentally.
>
> It's not surprising that the locus of the dispute often revolves around
> community members who have been banned on other projects but reached
> positions of authority on Commons. Perhaps Commons social structures
> haven't evolved enough to deal with people who are both productive and
> deeply disruptive, and who are not uncivil but contribute to a toxic
> environment.

Exactly.
I don't complain about the principle, I only complain about the
copyright paranoia.

The rules of the project, "free license", or "in the public domain in
USA and in the source country", are fine as long as they are not used
to game the system.

Yann

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Pete Forsyth]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:37 PM, George Herbert 
wrote:


> Unless you
> intend to try to roll that back on en.wikipedia and the Foundation policy,
>

Absolutely not. I don't have any real problem with the way fair use is
handled on English Wikipedia, and have uploaded some files myself under
that justification.

A project to facilitate *search* of existing non-free files on Wikimedia
projects (which I think could probably be accomplished in the WMF Labs
project, with no particular need for broad consensus) would, I think, be
worthwhile.

But an effort to establish a new *project* to facilitate and encourage the
upload of non-free files is something I see as problematic for a number of
reasons:
* Setting up a new project would take a lot of technical and financial
resources
* Establishing sensible policies to handle all the kinds of concerns
established on this list would take a lot of volunteer resources; and
strife and division is a possible, though not necessary, outcome
* Volunteer resources to curate the site would need to come from somewhere;
either they wouldn't, assuring failure; or they would come from existing
volunteer pool, diluting our volunteer resources; or, just possibly, armies
of new volunteers might be recruited for this new project, which would be a
positive outcome. But I am skeptical that outcome #3 would be the most
likely one.
* Differing EDPs on various projects means many files wouldn't be useful
across projects, or it would be difficult to determine whether they are.
* If the new project is successful, it would (yes, among other positive
outcomes) have the negative effect of working against efforts to get people
to freely license their work, to upload images that are in the public
domain but locked away in physical vaults, etc. This may not be of central
importance to you, but it is important to a great many Wikimedians.

It is time to rebalance in favor of fairly and equitably supporting the
> educational mission.
>

"Freely share" is part of the vision statement. It sounds to me like what
you propose is simply a different vision than the one Wikimedia has
convened around. I do not think your vision is a bad one, but I do think
it's a different one, and I'm not sure that dedicating substantial
resources to a bold new project is a good way to advocate for changing the
basic direction this movement is heading.

-Pete
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Nathan]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:29 PM, George Herbert 
wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > I don't think the concept of the project is the problem. I'm skeptical
> that
> > an "Uncommons" project built around fair use could be workable,
> considering
> > that the validity of a fair use claim is context-specific and no
> cross-wiki
> > project (like Commons) is going to have an easy time managing that
> > requirement.
> >
>
> We don't have to.  As a basic inclusion rule, someone justified an image on
> a fair-use project, and someone else wants to share it.  If its use gets
> deleted on both those wikis (and anywhere else that started using it) due
> to not complying with fair use, and it stays out of use, we identify a
> cleanup procedure.  But as long as a basically credible "it's fair use over
> here" exists for 1 or more projects, it's a candidate for Uncommons.
>
> Uncommons should *never* see an image deleted out from under an article
> using it, for example.  If someone feels it's not compliant with X wiki's
> local fair use criteria, they go to X wiki, argue the case, get it removed
> from the article(s).  Uncommons would consider deletion if all the projects
> which tried to use it rejected it on fair use grounds.
>
> Caveat that a copyright violation in the US, where the servers are, may
> still need to be removed even if fair-use in (for example) Argentina and
> Botswana apply, which is unfortunate, but we have a process for people to
> report copyvios of their images to the Foundation, and allowing OTRS to do
> their thing as usual would cover that.
>
>

So you want to split the role of "image repository" into two projects - one
that is freely reusable for all possible reusers, and one that is useful in
the first instance for all WMF projects and secondarily for anyone else
using it in an educational context.

Ok, I get that. But there are some unanswered questions:

1) Why would our "Uncommons" be superior to Flickr or any other repository
of images that can be used under fair use doctrine? Is it that we are
categorizing them? That we might be able to select the "best" file for a
particular usage, and replicate that out in context across projects?

2) How would Uncommons not fall prey to same set of issues that have beset
Commons for years? Copyright status would still need to be investigated to
some degree, FUR would need to be policed at least a little, etc. etc.You'd
attract the same people, probably, with the same biases and prejudices and
problems.

3) EDP files on projects are currently already hosted by WMF, so what we're
really talking about is pushing them into the same bucket to focus curation
resources. Considering the challenges, would it be better to just implement
an easier common architecture for these files (i.e. make discovery of files
from various projects simpler on any individual project)?
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[George Herbert]

And yet we have a global, and in many cases (and specifically, en.wp) local
Fair Use policy, which is quite actively and productively used, and has
been since around day one of the first Wikipedia.

Uncommons is not a change in policy.  It is ultimately a technical matter;
a software and project solution to disagreement as to whether Commons'
project reflects the totality of the Projects' desires and needs for shared
content or not.

The MP4 thing is not the sole and total consensus.  The totality of
consensus has been and remains that Fair Use - not unlimited, but within
reason and focused on educational value - is here to stay.  Unless you
intend to try to roll that back on en.wikipedia and the Foundation policy,
then objecting to a technical solution to make that content more
practically reusable is simple obstructionism towards the educational
mission.

It is time to rebalance in favor of fairly and equitably supporting the
educational mission.



On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Pete Forsyth 
wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins;
> >
>
> George, SJ, and Nathan:
>
> In addition to Erik Moeller's initial proposal that Commons be used as a
> repository for *free* media files (linked previously), there has been a
> very recent referendum that speaks very directly to the Wikimedia
> community's commitment to holding the line on the principles of free
> licenses, even in the face of negative practical consequences. That
> referendum was the recent proposal to use the MP4 format. When concluded,
> more than 300 people had voted against compromising on this principle,
> while fewer then 150 voted in favor.[1] Of course there are some
> considerations that are specific to that case, but it is useful to consider
> now, because the central topic is essentially the same in both cases:
>
> Should we sacrifice free content principles, if that sacrifice will enable
> us to distribute more educational content?
>
> The answer was a resounding "no."
>
> The people you, Nathan, are accusing of behaving badly, are the ones who
> are doing the hard, day-do-day work of enforcing the expressed consensus of
> the Wikimedia community, which values a commitment to free licenses.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> [1]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Nathan]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins;
> >
>
> George, SJ, and Nathan:
>
> In addition to Erik Moeller's initial proposal that Commons be used as a
> repository for *free* media files (linked previously), there has been a
> very recent referendum that speaks very directly to the Wikimedia
> community's commitment to holding the line on the principles of free
> licenses, even in the face of negative practical consequences. That
> referendum was the recent proposal to use the MP4 format. When concluded,
> more than 300 people had voted against compromising on this principle,
> while fewer then 150 voted in favor.[1] Of course there are some
> considerations that are specific to that case, but it is useful to consider
> now, because the central topic is essentially the same in both cases:
>
> Should we sacrifice free content principles, if that sacrifice will enable
> us to distribute more educational content?
>
> The answer was a resounding "no."
>
> The people you, Nathan, are accusing of behaving badly, are the ones who
> are doing the hard, day-do-day work of enforcing the expressed consensus of
> the Wikimedia community, which values a commitment to free licenses.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
>
The basis of this thread provides as clear a counter-example as there
possibly could be. Take a look at the deletion discussions regarding the
files Yann first posted about; each was a clear, obvious "keep" judging by
consensus. Yet each file was deleted. And this was not the first time;
files that were deleted because of URAA and restored following the RFC are
being deleted repeatedly for other, excessively technical and practically
irrelevant reasons. Is this a violation of consensus? Of course, but
according to the administrators involved, that doesn't matter. When
"technocrats" (i.e. self-described experts) disagree with a consensus
outcome, they over-rule it. And they will tell you that themselves, and be
proud of it.

I don't dispute that there are many hard-working, conscientious Commons
users who take a practical, realistic approach to keeping Commons content
free. But the URAA RFC consensus was clear, yet there are multiple admins
who are not shy about saying that they will disregard it when the feel like
it. It's obvious to me that the "expressed consensus" of Commons only
matters to these administrators when they agree with it.  This URAA issue
is only one recent example, and in fact -- in fact!! -- its notable at
least in part because it shows the tiniest bit of progress. Typically the
"technocrats" have totally free rein, but at least in this case the Commons
community spoke up for reason and practicality in the RFC. Yet as we can
see, no real good has come of it.
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[George Herbert]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> I don't think the concept of the project is the problem. I'm skeptical that
> an "Uncommons" project built around fair use could be workable, considering
> that the validity of a fair use claim is context-specific and no cross-wiki
> project (like Commons) is going to have an easy time managing that
> requirement.
>

We don't have to.  As a basic inclusion rule, someone justified an image on
a fair-use project, and someone else wants to share it.  If its use gets
deleted on both those wikis (and anywhere else that started using it) due
to not complying with fair use, and it stays out of use, we identify a
cleanup procedure.  But as long as a basically credible "it's fair use over
here" exists for 1 or more projects, it's a candidate for Uncommons.

Uncommons should *never* see an image deleted out from under an article
using it, for example.  If someone feels it's not compliant with X wiki's
local fair use criteria, they go to X wiki, argue the case, get it removed
from the article(s).  Uncommons would consider deletion if all the projects
which tried to use it rejected it on fair use grounds.

Caveat that a copyright violation in the US, where the servers are, may
still need to be removed even if fair-use in (for example) Argentina and
Botswana apply, which is unfortunate, but we have a process for people to
report copyvios of their images to the Foundation, and allowing OTRS to do
their thing as usual would cover that.



> The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins; time
> and time and time again we have it reported here, we see it on Commons.
> While not lawyers, they attempt to be extraordinarily demanding when it
> comes to "legal" accuracy. Far more than the actual WMF lawyers have
> required, incidentally.
>
> It's not surprising that the locus of the dispute often revolves around
> community members who have been banned on other projects but reached
> positions of authority on Commons. Perhaps Commons social structures
> haven't evolved enough to deal with people who are both productive and
> deeply disruptive, and who are not uncivil but contribute to a toxic
> environment.



I understand, and applaud those who still want to attempt to reform that.
 The curation of the free content is affected along with the spillover into
fair use content.

That said, it's time to move on, for a large bulk of the content hosting
role.  The fight now engaged on Commons is not the fight that content
creators and curators on projects need or want to be engaged in.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Pete Forsyth]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins;
>

George, SJ, and Nathan:

In addition to Erik Moeller's initial proposal that Commons be used as a
repository for *free* media files (linked previously), there has been a
very recent referendum that speaks very directly to the Wikimedia
community's commitment to holding the line on the principles of free
licenses, even in the face of negative practical consequences. That
referendum was the recent proposal to use the MP4 format. When concluded,
more than 300 people had voted against compromising on this principle,
while fewer then 150 voted in favor.[1] Of course there are some
considerations that are specific to that case, but it is useful to consider
now, because the central topic is essentially the same in both cases:

Should we sacrifice free content principles, if that sacrifice will enable
us to distribute more educational content?

The answer was a resounding "no."

The people you, Nathan, are accusing of behaving badly, are the ones who
are doing the hard, day-do-day work of enforcing the expressed consensus of
the Wikimedia community, which values a commitment to free licenses.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Nathan]

I don't think the concept of the project is the problem. I'm skeptical that
an "Uncommons" project built around fair use could be workable, considering
that the validity of a fair use claim is context-specific and no cross-wiki
project (like Commons) is going to have an easy time managing that
requirement.

The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins; time
and time and time again we have it reported here, we see it on Commons.
While not lawyers, they attempt to be extraordinarily demanding when it
comes to "legal" accuracy. Far more than the actual WMF lawyers have
required, incidentally.

It's not surprising that the locus of the dispute often revolves around
community members who have been banned on other projects but reached
positions of authority on Commons. Perhaps Commons social structures
haven't evolved enough to deal with people who are both productive and
deeply disruptive, and who are not uncivil but contribute to a toxic
environment.
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Samuel Klein]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:19 PM, George Herbert
 wrote:

> the project and world benefit from [Commons] existing as is.  But we need an
> alternative to support the educational mission, reasonable inter-project 
> reuse,
> and end the endless deletion wars.

Yes, this.   With highly visible guidance for licensing/use.
Uncommons is a charming name.

SJ

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[George Herbert]

Pete -

An apologia for Commons, and the obvious implication that use on projects
will have to (if people actually care to enforce local standards) require
checking license status for every Project use, do not in any way lessen the
need for Uncommons.


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Pete Forsyth 
wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:12 AM, George Herbert  >
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Pete Forsyth 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Can you clarify -- who do you intend by "we"? If your answer is
> "English
> > > Wikipedia," I think we already have a somewhat workable solution to
> this
> > > complex problem: fair use is permitted in certain cases.[2] Of course,
> > you
> > > probably mean something broader. But the solution English Wikipedia has
> > > chosen is available, by virtue of a WMF resolution,[3] to every
> Wikimedia
> > > project. So if fair use is the issue, why not simply propose permitting
> > it
> > > at specific local projects?
> >
> >
> > The whole point of Commons is to serve as a central repository of shared
> > images for Projects to use together.
>
>
> I think if we're going to talk about the *whole* point of Commons, we
> should look back at the original proposal for its establishment, which
> clearly identified it as a place for *freely licensed* works:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-March/014885.html
>
>
> > The same image on en.wikipedia and
> > ru.wikipedia and es.wikipedia and the dictionaries and books and travel
> > and...
> >
>
> But en.wikipedia and ru.wikipedia and es.wikipedia have different standards
> about whether a non-free file can be used. So, does a shared repository for
> non-free files really make sense, considering that most projects prohibit
> them outright, and those few that do permit them only permit them under
> very narrow and unique circumstances?
>
> >
> > The failure of Commons
> >
>
> The failure of Commons? You consider the most extensive project created in
> the Wikimedia movement a failure? On what grounds?
>
> I have no problem with Commons
> > remaining as-is if we have an alternate lowest-common-denominator image
> > repo that will automatically be searched for images as Commons is now.
>
>
> "Fair use" law in the U.S. is pretty tightly tied to the way something is
> used; so the very act of publishing something *outside* of a use context
> would, by its very nature, strain at the limits of the fair use provision.
> And English Wikipedia's standards are actually much tighter than those of
> the U.S. law in that regard.
>
> -Pete
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Pete Forsyth]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:12 AM, George Herbert 
wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Can you clarify -- who do you intend by "we"? If your answer is "English
> > Wikipedia," I think we already have a somewhat workable solution to this
> > complex problem: fair use is permitted in certain cases.[2] Of course,
> you
> > probably mean something broader. But the solution English Wikipedia has
> > chosen is available, by virtue of a WMF resolution,[3] to every Wikimedia
> > project. So if fair use is the issue, why not simply propose permitting
> it
> > at specific local projects?
>
>
> The whole point of Commons is to serve as a central repository of shared
> images for Projects to use together.


I think if we're going to talk about the *whole* point of Commons, we
should look back at the original proposal for its establishment, which
clearly identified it as a place for *freely licensed* works:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-March/014885.html


> The same image on en.wikipedia and
> ru.wikipedia and es.wikipedia and the dictionaries and books and travel
> and...
>

But en.wikipedia and ru.wikipedia and es.wikipedia have different standards
about whether a non-free file can be used. So, does a shared repository for
non-free files really make sense, considering that most projects prohibit
them outright, and those few that do permit them only permit them under
very narrow and unique circumstances?

>
> The failure of Commons
>

The failure of Commons? You consider the most extensive project created in
the Wikimedia movement a failure? On what grounds?

I have no problem with Commons
> remaining as-is if we have an alternate lowest-common-denominator image
> repo that will automatically be searched for images as Commons is now.


"Fair use" law in the U.S. is pretty tightly tied to the way something is
used; so the very act of publishing something *outside* of a use context
would, by its very nature, strain at the limits of the fair use provision.
And English Wikipedia's standards are actually much tighter than those of
the U.S. law in that regard.

-Pete
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Sarah]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Austin Hair  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:26 PM, George William Herbert
>  wrote:
> > Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content
> advocacy was always risky and is proving impossible.  Without devaluing
> open content, we need to separately support fair use for educational
> purposes, and stop letting cross-project advocacy games screw with our
> educational mission.
>
> This is the most intelligent thing I've seen said on this list in a while.
>

​I agree. The fair-use situation on the English Wikipedia is so absurd that
I've had to use only an external link for a close-up shot of Madeleine
McCann's distinctive right eye​, which must be one of the most-reproduced
photographs ever. I also had to go through very, very long discussions to
persuade people that it was okay to post Scotland Yard e-fits of men they
wanted to trace in connection with the disappearance.

And, as always, Holocaust images are still routinely challenged.

Sarah
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[George Herbert]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> If we don't maintain the focus on free media, we may as well direct people
> to a web image search, all of which is "use at your own risk" anyway, just
> like our proposed new repository. Being free content is the Commons value
> add over Google Images or the like. Keeping a nonfree image repository
> adds... what?


 It allows free reuse of images which fall under the fair use criteria
between separate Projects, without directly copying them N times between
the projects, which is an obvious and self evident waste of time and disk
space.

If fair use is allowed at all, and it is, then we should support
inter-project reuse on a reasonable basis.  What Commons has become with
its copyright Stazi is no longer acceptable as a component of a project
whose educational goal has always and must remain an equally balanced part
of its total portfolio.

This is not a call to disband Commons; the project and world benefit from
that existing as is.  But we need an alternative to support the educational
mission, reasonable inter-project reuse, and end the endless deletion wars.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[George Herbert]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

>
> Can you clarify -- who do you intend by "we"? If your answer is "English
> Wikipedia," I think we already have a somewhat workable solution to this
> complex problem: fair use is permitted in certain cases.[2] Of course, you
> probably mean something broader. But the solution English Wikipedia has
> chosen is available, by virtue of a WMF resolution,[3] to every Wikimedia
> project. So if fair use is the issue, why not simply propose permitting it
> at specific local projects?


The whole point of Commons is to serve as a central repository of shared
images for Projects to use together.  The same image on en.wikipedia and
ru.wikipedia and es.wikipedia and the dictionaries and books and travel
and...

The failure of Commons is that it's defaulting to a fuzzily defined highest
common denominator on licensing.

What we need here is another shared image repo which is defaulting to the
*lowest* common denominator on licensing.  I.e., somewhere I can stick an
image which is fair usable on en.wikipedia and make it available to all the
other projects, even if it would fail Commons retention criteria.

It is in the combination of "the only common repository" and "highest
common denominator" that Commons fails.  I have no problem with Commons
remaining as-is if we have an alternate lowest-common-denominator image
repo that will automatically be searched for images as Commons is now.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Todd Allen]

If we don't maintain the focus on free media, we may as well direct people
to a web image search, all of which is "use at your own risk" anyway, just
like our proposed new repository. Being free content is the Commons value
add over Google Images or the like. Keeping a nonfree image repository
adds... what?

Also, I don't know what "fair use can be established" means. Fair use is
established based on the particular nature of a specific use, so fair use
for what exactly?
On Jun 17, 2014 10:53 AM, "Delirium"  wrote:

> On 6/17/14, 5:52 PM, George William Herbert wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 17, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Emmanuel Engelhart  wrote:
>>
>>  On 17.06.2014 17:26, George William Herbert wrote:
>>>
 We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are
 abandoned and we accept images as long as their fair use can be
 established.  And don't delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned.

 Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content
 advocacy was always risky and is proving impossible.  Without devaluing
 open content, we need to separately support fair use for educational
 purposes, and stop letting cross-project advocacy games screw with our
 educational mission.

 Third parties may or may not be able to re-redistribute, but we simply
 put it up with an explicit "reuse at your own risk".

>>> "reuse at your own risk" = "risky" = "no reuse for most actors"
>>> Well done!
>>>
>> Not my problem.
>>
>> Educational role.
>>
>>
>>  The whole mission of the movement, including its educational mission, is
> *produce freely reusable content*, not just to run a website. Wikipedia in
> particular is an open-content encyclopedia, which can be adapted to many
> educational and other uses, by Wikimedians and third parties. If it's not
> an open-content encyclopedia, for example if Wikipedia articles make use of
> provincial American copyright loopholes that render them illegal to
> redistribute here in Denmark, imo it has failed in its educational mission.
> In my view, the fact that I (an educator not in the United States) should
> be able to legally reproduce and distribute Wikipedia articles, is part of
> the whole point of an open-content educational project.
>
> -Mark
>
>
> ___
> 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] The tragedy of Commons

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 17.06.2014 18:13, Jeevan Jose wrote:
"Accidentally, I have one of these FFD nomination pages on my 
watchlist.

Yesterday it was renominated for the THIRD time by the same user (the
second one was keep as well). And I can not act on it anymore. 
Apparently,
at some point the user will get an admin with a stricter 
interpretation of

the policies, and the file gets deleted."

Could you give the DR link? We can think about topic ban him from any 
URAA

related DRs.



Sorry, I found the link, and now I see these are two different users, 
not just one. My bad.


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Portales_Porcel_Olmedo.jpg

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Pete Forsyth]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:26 AM, George William Herbert <
george.herb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy
> was always risky and is proving impossible.


Insightful point. (We have a similar situation with our competing values of
privacy and clear disclosure.[1])

 Without devaluing open content, we need to separately support fair use for
> educational purposes, and stop letting cross-project advocacy games screw
> with our educational mission.
>

Can you clarify -- who do you intend by "we"? If your answer is "English
Wikipedia," I think we already have a somewhat workable solution to this
complex problem: fair use is permitted in certain cases.[2] Of course, you
probably mean something broader. But the solution English Wikipedia has
chosen is available, by virtue of a WMF resolution,[3] to every Wikimedia
project. So if fair use is the issue, why not simply propose permitting it
at specific local projects?

>
> Third parties may or may not be able to re-redistribute, but we simply put
> it up with an explicit "reuse at your own risk".
>

Indeed, and copyright is not the only thing impacting whether or not
something can be reused. Personality rights, trademarks, patents, and
common courtesy are all things that might impact reuse, even for a file
that is fully in the public domain (i.e., not protected by copyright) in
every jurisdiction on the planet. "reuse at your own risk" is a principle
we can never broadly disavow.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

[1] I blogged about this topic here:
http://ournewmind.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/anonymity-and-public-service/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFUR
[3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Delirium]

On 6/17/14, 5:52 PM, George William Herbert wrote:



On Jun 17, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Emmanuel Engelhart  wrote:


On 17.06.2014 17:26, George William Herbert wrote:

We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned 
and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established.  And don't 
delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned.

Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy was 
always risky and is proving impossible.  Without devaluing open content, we 
need to separately support fair use for educational purposes, and stop letting 
cross-project advocacy games screw with our educational mission.

Third parties may or may not be able to re-redistribute, but we simply put it up with an 
explicit "reuse at your own risk".

"reuse at your own risk" = "risky" = "no reuse for most actors"
Well done!

Not my problem.

Educational role.


The whole mission of the movement, including its educational mission, is 
*produce freely reusable content*, not just to run a website. Wikipedia 
in particular is an open-content encyclopedia, which can be adapted to 
many educational and other uses, by Wikimedians and third parties. If 
it's not an open-content encyclopedia, for example if Wikipedia articles 
make use of provincial American copyright loopholes that render them 
illegal to redistribute here in Denmark, imo it has failed in its 
educational mission. In my view, the fact that I (an educator not in the 
United States) should be able to legally reproduce and distribute 
Wikipedia articles, is part of the whole point of an open-content 
educational project.


-Mark


___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Fæ]

On 17/06/2014, George William Herbert  wrote:
> We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are
> abandoned and we accept images as long as their fair use can be
> established.  And don't delete unless that fair use is credibly
> questioned.

There is no such thing as Fair Use copyright in most of the world. I
suggest we save the movement's money, by focusing on *freely reusable*
educational material. This is specified as part of the mission of the
Wikimedia Foundation.[1][2]

If you want to donate material to an "uncommons", many websites
without a strong concern for copyright already exist, there is no need
to create another. They remain unusable for serious educators, writers
or publishers.

Links
1. "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage
people around the world to collect and develop educational content
under a free content license"
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
2. However, the FDC may be more flexible in allowing Wikimedia
chapters to use their significant funds to pay for non-free projects.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/WMUK/Progress_report_form/Q1#Request_to_make_changes

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Jeevan Jose]

"Accidentally, I have one of these FFD nomination pages on my watchlist.
Yesterday it was renominated for the THIRD time by the same user (the
second one was keep as well). And I can not act on it anymore. Apparently,
at some point the user will get an admin with a stricter interpretation of
the policies, and the file gets deleted."

Could you give the DR link? We can think about topic ban him from any URAA
related DRs.

Jee


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
wrote:

> On 17.06.2014 16:47, Osmar Valdebenito wrote:
>
>> If you take a look at the undeletion requests after the URAA discussion,
>> most of the images restored were deleted afterwards anyway.[1][2] The only
>> exception that I've seen are some German stamps that haven't been deleted
>> (yet).
>> The problem is that, at this moment, most of the people whose valid images
>> were quickly deleted and re-deleted are tired and have no intention to
>> start again defending their contributions when they will be deleted no
>> matter what.
>>
>>
> I personally kept several Argentinian flies arguing that the URAA can not
> be the sole reason for deletion.
>
> Accidentally, I have one of these FFD nomination pages on my watchlist.
> Yesterday it was renominated for the THIRD time by the same user (the
> second one was keep as well). And I can not act on it anymore. Apparently,
> at some point the user will get an admin with a stricter interpretation of
> the policies, and the file gets deleted.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> ___
> 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] The tragedy of Commons

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 17.06.2014 16:47, Osmar Valdebenito wrote:
If you take a look at the undeletion requests after the URAA 
discussion,
most of the images restored were deleted afterwards anyway.[1][2] The 
only
exception that I've seen are some German stamps that haven't been 
deleted

(yet).
The problem is that, at this moment, most of the people whose valid 
images

were quickly deleted and re-deleted are tired and have no intention to
start again defending their contributions when they will be deleted no
matter what.



I personally kept several Argentinian flies arguing that the URAA can 
not be the sole reason for deletion.


Accidentally, I have one of these FFD nomination pages on my watchlist. 
Yesterday it was renominated for the THIRD time by the same user (the 
second one was keep as well). And I can not act on it anymore. 
Apparently, at some point the user will get an admin with a stricter 
interpretation of the policies, and the file gets deleted.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[George William Herbert]

On Jun 17, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Emmanuel Engelhart  wrote:

> On 17.06.2014 17:26, George William Herbert wrote:
>> We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned 
>> and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established.  And 
>> don't delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned.
>> 
>> Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy 
>> was always risky and is proving impossible.  Without devaluing open content, 
>> we need to separately support fair use for educational purposes, and stop 
>> letting cross-project advocacy games screw with our educational mission.
>> 
>> Third parties may or may not be able to re-redistribute, but we simply put 
>> it up with an explicit "reuse at your own risk".
> 
> "reuse at your own risk" = "risky" = "no reuse for most actors"
> Well done!

Not my problem.

Educational role.


-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

Sent from Kangphone


___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Austin Hair]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:26 PM, George William Herbert
 wrote:
> Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy was 
> always risky and is proving impossible.  Without devaluing open content, we 
> need to separately support fair use for educational purposes, and stop 
> letting cross-project advocacy games screw with our educational mission.

This is the most intelligent thing I've seen said on this list in a while.

Austin

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Emmanuel Engelhart]

On 17.06.2014 17:26, George William Herbert wrote:

We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned 
and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established.  And don't 
delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned.

Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy was 
always risky and is proving impossible.  Without devaluing open content, we 
need to separately support fair use for educational purposes, and stop letting 
cross-project advocacy games screw with our educational mission.

Third parties may or may not be able to re-redistribute, but we simply put it up with an 
explicit "reuse at your own risk".


"reuse at your own risk" = "risky" = "no reuse for most actors"
Well done!

Emmanuel
--
Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline & more
* Web: http://www.kiwix.org
* Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline
* more: http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Communication

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[David Gerard]

On 17 June 2014 16:26, George William Herbert  wrote:

> We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned 
> and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established.  And don't 
> delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned.


Grant to WikiLivres, add it as a foreign repo.


> Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy was 
> always risky and is proving impossible.  Without devaluing open content, we 
> need to separately support fair use for educational purposes, and stop 
> letting cross-project advocacy games screw with our educational mission.


This is the root of the problem.


- d.

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[George William Herbert]

We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned 
and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established.  And don't 
delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned.

Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy was 
always risky and is proving impossible.  Without devaluing open content, we 
need to separately support fair use for educational purposes, and stop letting 
cross-project advocacy games screw with our educational mission.

Third parties may or may not be able to re-redistribute, but we simply put it 
up with an explicit "reuse at your own risk".

I don't recall if the code which handles finding images at Commons can take a 
search path of multiple alternate image sources; if so, I would like to propose 
Uncommons as a project, initial central file upload default target replacement 
for Commons, and putting it in said search path.

This has gone on too long.


-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

Sent from Kangphone

On Jun 17, 2014, at 7:47 AM, Osmar Valdebenito  
wrote:

> If you take a look at the undeletion requests after the URAA discussion,
> most of the images restored were deleted afterwards anyway.[1][2] The only
> exception that I've seen are some German stamps that haven't been deleted
> (yet).
> The problem is that, at this moment, most of the people whose valid images
> were quickly deleted and re-deleted are tired and have no intention to
> start again defending their contributions when they will be deleted no
> matter what.
> 
> [1]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Per%C3%B3n_Funeral.jpg
> [2]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2014-05#Files%20of%20Category:Ra%C3%BAl%20Alfons%C3%ADn
> 
> 
> 
> 2014-06-17 10:31 GMT-04:00 Fæ :
> 
>> On 17/06/2014, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
>>> with final consensus that "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for
>>> deletion"...
>> 
>> This is a selective quote, missing the explicit caveat that:
>> "Deleted files can be restored after a discussion in COM:UDR."
>> 
>> If the process is being followed correctly, there should be an
>> established specific consensus via an undeletion request, *before* an
>> administrator action can or should be taken.
>> 
>> Links:
>> 1.
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA#Close
>> 2.
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests
>> 
>> Fae
>> --
>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>> 
>> ___
>> 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, 
> 

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Osmar Valdebenito]

If you take a look at the undeletion requests after the URAA discussion,
most of the images restored were deleted afterwards anyway.[1][2] The only
exception that I've seen are some German stamps that haven't been deleted
(yet).
The problem is that, at this moment, most of the people whose valid images
were quickly deleted and re-deleted are tired and have no intention to
start again defending their contributions when they will be deleted no
matter what.

[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Per%C3%B3n_Funeral.jpg
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2014-05#Files%20of%20Category:Ra%C3%BAl%20Alfons%C3%ADn



2014-06-17 10:31 GMT-04:00 Fæ :

> On 17/06/2014, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
> > with final consensus that "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for
> > deletion"...
>
> This is a selective quote, missing the explicit caveat that:
> "Deleted files can be restored after a discussion in COM:UDR."
>
> If the process is being followed correctly, there should be an
> established specific consensus via an undeletion request, *before* an
> administrator action can or should be taken.
>
> Links:
> 1.
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA#Close
> 2.
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> 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] The tragedy of Commons

[Fæ]

On 17/06/2014, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
> with final consensus that "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for
> deletion"...

This is a selective quote, missing the explicit caveat that:
"Deleted files can be restored after a discussion in COM:UDR."

If the process is being followed correctly, there should be an
established specific consensus via an undeletion request, *before* an
administrator action can or should be taken.

Links:
1. 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA#Close
2. 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Tomasz Ganicz]

The discussion about it was already performed:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA

with final consensus that "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for
deletion". However this consensus (a rough one) was questioned by a
small, but very active group of Commons users. Actually this group of
users - which is not easy to define - as people change their mind over
time, was quite long time creating a sort of main spirit of the
regulations of Commons, and it was very first time for quite long,
that their , somehow extreme POV wasn't accepted.


2014-06-17 11:37 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk :
> Hi Yann,
>
> While we can have a different discussion about methods used and tone
> applied, if I understand correctly the core argument/discussion point here
> is the question whether US law applies to Commons or not; more
> specifically: whether a picture that is (likely?) not in the Public Domain
> in the US, but is in the public domain in its 'source country' should be
> considered 'free' or not.
>
> This is a returning discussion, and I'm always confused what exactly the
> answer is to that. The discussion is equally valid for any content project
> actually - all being hosted in the US. It would be good to have a more
> fundamental answer to it, and then follow it.
>
> Whether or not the nominating account is a 'delete only' account etc. is
> less relevant to this discussion. The core question remains the same. It is
> a bit technocrat, I know.
>
> I thought this question was already put for the WMF legal team as a
> question, but I wasn't able to find so quickly whether a useful reply
> resulted from that consultation.
>
> Lodewijk
>
>
> 2014-06-17 1:34 GMT+02:00 Yann Forget :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and
>> threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of
>> famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense
>> Forces.
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg
>>
>> These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured
>> pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been
>> deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing
>> enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication
>> details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can
>> understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they
>> were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition,
>> publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in
>> Israel.
>>
>> After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
>> delete-only account:
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
>> There, more contributors argue on this issue.
>>
>> By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
>> contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will
>> lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons.
>> Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is
>> gone.
>>
>> Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should
>> try to find a reason to keep them.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Yann
>>
>> ___
>> 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, 
> 



-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Yann Forget]

Hi,

2014-06-17 15:07 GMT+05:30 Lodewijk :
> Hi Yann,
>
> While we can have a different discussion about methods used and tone
> applied, if I understand correctly the core argument/discussion point here
> is the question whether US law applies to Commons or not; more
> specifically: whether a picture that is (likely?) not in the Public Domain
> in the US, but is in the public domain in its 'source country' should be
> considered 'free' or not.

No, the issue is not US law. The issue is the ridiculous requirements
coming from some contributors.

The issue is that these contributors use the US law as a pretext
asking for deletion again and again, when there is no reason to doubt
that they were published. Looking at their demands, it seems that they
would ask anything based on any law.

> This is a returning discussion, and I'm always confused what exactly the
> answer is to that. The discussion is equally valid for any content project
> actually - all being hosted in the US. It would be good to have a more
> fundamental answer to it, and then follow it.
>
> Whether or not the nominating account is a 'delete only' account etc. is
> less relevant to this discussion. The core question remains the same. It is
> a bit technocrat, I know.

The same user first argue for deletion because of URAA, and when it
was not successful, ask again for deletion using another reason.
Actually, this account does not produce anything useful. The only
contributions are requests for deletions on controversial cases like
this one.
Looking for real copyright violations is useful, but arguing again and
again on borderline cases is not.

> I thought this question was already put for the WMF legal team as a
> question, but I wasn't able to find so quickly whether a useful reply
> resulted from that consultation.
>
> Lodewijk

Regards,

Yann

> 2014-06-17 1:34 GMT+02:00 Yann Forget :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and
>> threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of
>> famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense
>> Forces.
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg
>>
>> These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured
>> pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been
>> deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing
>> enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication
>> details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can
>> understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they
>> were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition,
>> publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in
>> Israel.
>>
>> After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
>> delete-only account:
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
>> There, more contributors argue on this issue.
>>
>> By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
>> contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will
>> lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons.
>> Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is
>> gone.
>>
>> Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should
>> try to find a reason to keep them.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Yann

___
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] The tragedy of Commons

[Lodewijk]

Hi Yann,

While we can have a different discussion about methods used and tone
applied, if I understand correctly the core argument/discussion point here
is the question whether US law applies to Commons or not; more
specifically: whether a picture that is (likely?) not in the Public Domain
in the US, but is in the public domain in its 'source country' should be
considered 'free' or not.

This is a returning discussion, and I'm always confused what exactly the
answer is to that. The discussion is equally valid for any content project
actually - all being hosted in the US. It would be good to have a more
fundamental answer to it, and then follow it.

Whether or not the nominating account is a 'delete only' account etc. is
less relevant to this discussion. The core question remains the same. It is
a bit technocrat, I know.

I thought this question was already put for the WMF legal team as a
question, but I wasn't able to find so quickly whether a useful reply
resulted from that consultation.

Lodewijk


2014-06-17 1:34 GMT+02:00 Yann Forget :

> Hi,
>
> Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and
> threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of
> famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense
> Forces.
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg
>
> These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured
> pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been
> deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing
> enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication
> details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can
> understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they
> were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition,
> publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in
> Israel.
>
> After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
> delete-only account:
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
> There, more contributors argue on this issue.
>
> By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
> contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will
> lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons.
> Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is
> gone.
>
> Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should
> try to find a reason to keep them.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann
>
> ___
> 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, 

[Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

[Yann Forget]

Hi,

Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and
threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of
famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense
Forces.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_were_deleted_by_User:Fastily_that_I_am_aware_of_them
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idelson_Ada_Maimon1952.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi_1956.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Meskin_-_Ben_Gurion_-_Israel_Prize1960.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Shlonsky_1952.jpg

These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured
pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been
deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing
enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication
details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can
understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they
were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition,
publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in
Israel.

After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a
delete-only account:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Yann
There, more contributors argue on this issue.

By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these
contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will
lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons.
Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is
gone.

Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should
try to find a reason to keep them.

Regards,

Yann

___
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,