It would be nice if all of the chapters send to their governments a petition to allow a global standardized use of media just for wikimedia projects, it is a big problem that every country has different laws on copyright and public domain media, and that wikimedia has to comply with U.S law just because the servers are in there, we as a community should ask a global standardized media handling law for wikimedia which might or might not include giving special licenses for wikimedia projects, trying to keep in line with the foundation ideals, I know it sounds a bit crazy, but hey it's the biggest compilation of human knowlege, it should be following laws (copyright and public domain in this case) that all of human kind reach in consensus, not just the laws of the place where the servers are.
Dennis Pierri On 27/02/2014, at 19:23, Osmar Valdebenito <os...@wikimedia.org.ar> wrote: > Wikimedia Argentina is formed by a group of volunteers from the Wikimedia > movement. That includes several long-time contributors to Commons that have > discussed with us in the past months the situation about URAA. This open > letter is not something written by a group of strangers or people that > haven't participated in the discussions of the community; probably not all > of them have been able to participate before as much as we want in this > particular topic, but that doesn't mean their opinions are less valuable > than those that take a more active role within the discussions. Some of > them have seen in the past weeks their talk pages flooded with DR notices > against Argentine free pictures, uploaded even several years ago and they > have argued, trying to save them. Saying that they don't know how Wikimedia > Commons work to this group of volunteers is also really offensive. > > > I understand you could feel upset for the strong words of our letter > regarding the particular URAA situation, especially when most of the > contributors work hardly every day to maintain this project and a lot of > them have had a constructive approach to this discussion. If you feel our > letter has been disrespectful for the rest of the Commons community, our > sincere apologies for that. > > > However, we still believe in what we wrote on the letter. When you see > that, even after the BoT statement there are still new DR coming up [1] and > more files being deleted [2], then it is clear that something wrong is > happening. The BoT has called to stop the massive deletions unless there > are DMCA notices and this has been regarded as a "mere opinion" instead of > a statement from the authorities responsible of the project (it would be > great, anyway, to have a less ambiguous statement). > > > You may not agree with the BoT statement or the large majority on the > proposal to restore the deleted images on Commons [3], but there should > have been more prudence within some administrators and freeze the deletions > until we find a consensus for this situation. And it hasn't been the case, > clearly. This is what we criticize; this is the kind of attitudes that > de-motivates many editors. When one of the strictest interpretations of law > is applied without consideration of anything else, is what we labeled > "legal fetichism". > > > Maybe you don't agree with that opinion and that's ok, but it is a feeling > that a lot of people share, including even Commons contributors. Not only > those that wrote this open letter but also many of those that have voted > for the "massive restoration" proposal. > > > > [1] > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Carlos_Trillo.jpg > [2] > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Le%C3%B3n_Gieco_1980.jpg > > [3] > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA > > *Osmar Valdebenito G.* > Director Ejecutivo > A. C. Wikimedia Argentina > > > 2014-02-27 0:28 GMT-03:00 Avenue <avenu...@gmail.com>: > >> Look, I have no problem with the open letters from WM Venezuela, España or >> Israel. I might not agree 100% with everything in them, but they are >> generally on top of the issues, and they focus on the problems they law >> poses for us and our need for better solutions - all worth bringing to a >> wider audience. >> >> But the letter from WM Argentina is very different. It condemns the actions >> of "certain Wikimedia Commons administrators" who have deleted >> URAA-affected files (without naming them or linking to any of the relevant >> deletions), and makes various claims about how Commons policy and practice >> has changed and is inconsistent with statements by the WMF Board and Legal >> team. >> >> If you want to make these sorts of claims in an open letter, you should be >> ready to back them up. But WM Argentina cannot do so IMO, because many of >> their claims are untrue. Our practice is consistent with the WMF Board and >> Legal team statements, and it isn't true that the "burden of proof has been >> inverted" - the burden of proof has always been on those who want us to >> keep hosting a file. These sorts of mistakes could easily have been avoided >> if they had talked directly to experienced Commons editors first. >> >> I'm a Commons admin, but I'm fairly inactive these days and I don't believe >> I have deleted any URAA-affected files, so I don't think I am one of the >> "certain" Commons admins they refer to. But I do find defamation of >> hard-working members of my community offensive. If WM Argentina wants to >> "respectfully call the Wikimedia Commons community to reflect" on >> something, that does not seem the best way to start. >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Carlos M. Colina <ma...@wikimedia.org.ve >>> wrote: >> >>> Wait, aren't the chapters composed from people from the wikimedia >>> community? >>> >>> Also, didn't you guys stop by a second to think the chapter thoroughly >>> discussed the contents of the letter with its members, which may vote in >>> favor or against publishing it? >>> >>> And if it is on Meta, is open to discussion, no? >>> >>> Finally, in Venezuela we say "el que se pica es porque ají come". No >> need >>> to take it personally if you are not among those "certain" Commons >> admins, >>> right? >>> >>> >>> Sent from Samsung Mobile >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
