body:
On 3/28/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Then why didn't the world explode when vec.wiki was created without
> already-translated messages?
>
> Mark
>

Because the copyright cabal is too busy argueing with the italians to
get round to yelling at minority languages for not localiseing their
copyright notices.

[[MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning]]

Needs to be localised.

 As does [[MediaWiki:Licenses]] if you are going to allow local image uploads.

--
geni


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: geni

subject: [Foundation-l] Language Prevention Committee created


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old (was New language)

body:
Berto 'd Sera wrote:

> Both domains seem to be up and running, Brion has been quick :)
>
> http://be-x-old.wikipedia.org
> http://be.wikipedia.org

Note that there is an IETF mailing list and IANA registration
authority for "language subtags", as specified in RFC 4645, 4646,
and 4647.  These RFC are updating RFC 3066, which is the
Internet's equivalent to ISO 3166.

For example, the German spelling reform of 1996 created a need in
some instances to tell the old spelling (following Duden's
dictionary from 1901) apart from the new one (after the 1996
reform).  Thus, the language subtags de-1901 and de-1996 have been
registered as official code names for the two German
orthographies.

This is to say that there is a way to register an official subtag
for "old" Byelorussian (instead of the inofficial be-x-old), if
the speakers of that language can agree on a suitable subtag.  As
always, your chances to succeed are greatest if you are well
prepared and already have a consensus within your community.

IANA registry,
http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry

IETF mailing list,
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


list: wikien-l

from_name: Oldak Quill

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway? - personality
	cult

body:
On 27/03/07, Zoney <zoney.ie at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have serious issues too with licencing your content free of charge, I do
> not think this will in the long run be good for anyone. I'm happier having a
> non-profit organisation pursue it, but it is worrying in that it means
> people are less careful about letting other organisations make profit from
> one's work (with one seeing any payback). Citizen journalism is an example;
> we will just end up without professionals, and the really proficient people
> won't be able to make money from their skills.

Other organisations would find a way to make profit from one's work
whether one charges for it or not. Adding more layers of cost doesn't
benefit the end-user and doesn't promote experimental and varied reuse
(which, in turn, increases the usefulness of the content).

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

subject: [WikiEN-l] On a lighter note for a change

body:
On 3/27/07, Avi <avi_wiki at yahoo.com> wrote:

  We are quoted in this month's issue of Focus, the Mathematical Association of America's newsletter, on page 5, for bringing a source for the term "spline".

  PDF link here:  http://www.maa.org/pubs/march07web.pdf

I fear we at wikipedia, and consequently that MAA article as well has it wrong. I rather suspect that splines were used already by folks copying illustrated manuscripts way back int the day, well before aeronautics had significantly progressed beyond flapping wing mechanisms.

--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] April Fool - how to prepare for the onslaught

body:
On 3/28/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/27/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone BUSH IS GAY
> > LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL can edit."
>
> Wikipedia, the free bathroom wall^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hencyclopedia
> that anyone can vandalize^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hedit.
>
> Better yet, unprotect the main page just for that day.

Been done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Main_Page

--
geni


from_name: bobolozo

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia, the encylopedia that anyone can't  edit

body:
--- "Daniel P. B. Smith" <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com>
wrote:
> > bobolozo wrote:
> >> We now have about 1500 articles in
> >> Category:Semi-protected, which new editors and IP
> >> addresses can't edit.  I picked a few at random,
> and
> >> most I checked were entirely uncontroversial
> articles
> >> which had briefly had some trouble from an IP
> address,
> >> which was over months ago and there was no reason
> to
> >> believe it would ever occur again.
> >>
> >> This is in violation of one of our basic
> principles.
>
> What basic principle is that? I thought Wikipedia's
> basic principles
> were a) to be free (as in freedom), and b) to be an
> encyclopedia.
> Everything else is a means to that end, not a "basic
> principle."
>
> Anyone _can_ edit any Wikipedia article, because
> anyone can create an
> account. And the account name can be pseudonymous.
>
> And, anyone _can_ edit any WIkipedia article,
> because they are all
> licensed under the GFDL. What they cannot do is:
>
> Edit a Wikipedia article
> --without creating an account
> --and host that edited version
> --on the Wikipedia website
> --in the main namespace.

Try making a new account and editing a semi-protected
article and see what happens.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front


body:
On 3/28/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Better yet, unprotect the main page just for that day.
> >
> > Been done:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Main_Page
>
> Ok, how about this. At 12:00AM EDT on April 1st, nominate the mage
> page for deletion and leave it open for 24 hours.
>
> Then again, that's probably been done too.
>

Yes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Main_Page

--
geni


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia, the encylopedia that anyone can't 	edit

body:
> bobolozo wrote:
>> We now have about 1500 articles in
>> Category:Semi-protected, which new editors and IP
>> addresses can't edit.  I picked a few at random, and
>> most I checked were entirely uncontroversial articles
>> which had briefly had some trouble from an IP address,
>> which was over months ago and there was no reason to
>> believe it would ever occur again.
>>
>> This is in violation of one of our basic principles.

What basic principle is that? I thought Wikipedia's basic principles
were a) to be free (as in freedom), and b) to be an encyclopedia.
Everything else is a means to that end, not a "basic principle."

Anyone _can_ edit any Wikipedia article, because anyone can create an
account. And the account name can be pseudonymous.

And, anyone _can_ edit any WIkipedia article, because they are all
licensed under the GFDL. What they cannot do is:

Edit a Wikipedia article
--without creating an account
--and host that edited version
--on the Wikipedia website
--in the main namespace.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Robert Horning

subject:
[Foundation-l] Banning Fair Use (was Re: Foundation Licensing
	Policy)

body:
As I feared would be the case, this new foundation policy has become a
call to arms by deletionists to institute a massive removal of all fair
use content on all Wikimedia projects.  I don't know if this was the
intent, but on at least en.wikibooks, the most active bureaucrat there
has demanded that all fair use content be eliminated from Wikibooks. And
has used this policy to strength his own counter claim that we should
never have allowed fair use onto that project in the first place.

With statements like "By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an
unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an
EDP, or shall be deleted." seem to imply that unless you have already
"approved" an EDP (whatever that means.... and the process of approval
is certainly vague here) that all fair use can be retroactively deleted.

Wikibooks has had an unofficial policy about fair use for more than a
year now, and it has been used as a guideline.  Because of the earlier
discussion about fair use that was started by Kat (before this policy
was written), this same bureaucrat on Wikibooks also deleted and rewrote
the fair use policy to simply say that fair use was banned, presuming
authority on the part of the WMF.

If this really is the intent of the WMF, I wish you would have just come
out and said it simply:  "All fair use is banned."  I know that if this
tactic were to be tried on Wikipedia that you would have an uproar from
many users like has never been seen before.  But because this is a
smallish project with only a handful of users who set policy, it makes
it easier for some users to wildly mis-interpret what has been said.

-- Robert Horning


from_name: Denny Colt

subject:
[WikiEN-l] change RS/BLP etc to not say 'blogs' (was Blog
	Entries (Bauer fork))

body:
On 3/28/07, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Or, put another way, what is it about
> Movable Type that somehow corrupts her words when her speaking the
> exact same text aloud at a transcribed lecture or in an interview
> would be OK?
>
> -Phil

Why don't we just change BLP and RS immediately to not say blogs? It has
been demonstrated here to be a red herring to actively--I'll say this...
*discriminate* against what is becoming the most common publishing format on
the entire internet.

Mass-replace "BLOG" with "unreliable source" or "unreliable website" if you
want to be internet specific, and done.

The current policy inappropriately actively discriminates and is biased in
its wording...

--
- Denny


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Bauer DRV question - history (was Wikimedia
	Foundation sued)

body:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:35:42 +0100, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

>arbcom thinks this admin makes mistakes with regards to deletion.

No, ArbCom thinks this admin made one defensible bad call in respect
of one unusually high profile deletion, of an article which has a
particularly sordid and inflamed history.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Ken Arromdee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blog Entries (Bauer fork)

body:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:
> Or, perhaps, we could consider that if there are no indisputably reliable
> sources about a living person, we should not have an encyclopedia article on
> that person until such reliable sources are available. Or is that too
> difficult a concept to grasp?
>
> Loosening our "reliable sources" criteria is all well and good when
> considering something like Pokemon or Star Wars characters, but we're
> talking about the lives and reputations of real people, and I am vehemently
> opposed to weakening the criteria for biographical sources.

The point is that the blog *is a reliable source*.  Using the blog is not
loosening any criteria.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Bauer DRV question - history
	(was	Wikimedia	Foundation sued)

body:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:30:14 -0700, William Pietri
<william at scissor.com> wrote:

>But some people indeed aren't reasonable. That doesn't mean that we
>shouldn't try hard to be reasonable with them, just that we can live
>with them never being satisfied as long as a neutral observer can see
>both the fairness of our article and our desire to treat even difficult
>people fairly.

Yes, exactly that.  That is good in two ways: first, because it makes
a better encyclopaedia, and second, because if it ever *did* get to
court the fact that we had done everything in our power to ensure that
the article is completely fair would almost certainly result in us
winning.  Thus far, I don't think any such cases have gone to court,
and I suspect that the reason may be tied to Jimbo's tendency to wade
in and cut the crap when things get out of hand.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Cary Bass

subject: [Foundation-l] Communications Projects<s>Group</s> Committee

body:
?ukasz Garczewski wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Cary Bass <cbass at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Call for volunteers:
>>
>> The Wikimedia Foundation is looking for volunteers to contribute to
>> forming a Communications Projects Committee, for the purpose of acting
>> on specialized communications requests, such as researching press lists,
>> analyzing media coverage, as well as other functions not presently
>> covered under ComCom.
>>
>
> Great to see this is getting off the ground. To all those of you who
> do not have any experience with Wikimedia committees - try it, it's
> rewarding, fun and gives you real influence over a part of the
> organization. Note, however, that it is also hard work. :)
>
> On a side note: Cary & Sandy (and the committee, once it's formed) -
> try making the shortened name a bit more 'readable', ComProjCom is a
> bit longish and complicated. E.g. 'CPCom' (like SPCom) or ComPCom
> (might be too similar to ComCom).
>
>
CPCom is a very good idea.  Any other thoughts?  It's *your* committee!

Cary


body:
--- Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why don't we just change BLP and RS immediately to
> not say blogs? It has
> been demonstrated here to be a red herring to
> actively--I'll say this...
> *discriminate* against what is becoming the most
> common publishing format on
> the entire internet.
>
> Mass-replace "BLOG" with "unreliable source" or
> "unreliable website" if you
> want to be internet specific, and done.
>
> The current policy inappropriately actively
> discriminates and is biased in
> its wording...

The thing is, what percentage of blogs are reliable
sources?  .1%?  .01%?  There are millions of blogs,
and maybe 1 in 1000 or 10,000 are by notable people,
the rest are by random college students and teenagers
and various others who are writing for their friends
and family members to read.

A general "Don't use blogs" with a footnote of "except
the very rare occasion where you can" seems quite
reasonable to me.  We should be actively
discriminating against blogs, at least against the
99.99 percent of them which are no different than a
teenaged girl's diary.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL


body:
On 3/28/07, bobolozo <bobolozo at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The thing is, what percentage of blogs are reliable
> sources?  .1%?  .01%?  There are millions of blogs,
> and maybe 1 in 1000 or 10,000 are by notable people,
> the rest are by random college students and teenagers
> and various others who are writing for their friends
> and family members to read.

The real thing is, what percentage of *websites* are reliable sources?
.1%?  .01%?  There are tens of millions of websites, and maybe 1 in 1,000 or
10,000 are by notable people, the rest are by random college students and
teenagers and various others who are writing for their friends and family
members to read.

--
- Denny


subject: [Foundation-l] Communications Projects Group (revised)

body:
I'm not sure, but some information got lost in the original message.
This should be "Group", not "Committee".

Cary Bass wrote:
> Call for volunteers:
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation is looking for volunteers to contribute to
> forming a Communications Projects Group, for the purpose of acting
> on specialized communications requests, such as researching press lists,
> analyzing media coverage, as well as other functions not presently
> covered under ComCom.
>
> This committee will be made up of translators, wiki liaisons and
> consultants, from a variety of countries, including graphic artists.  We
> are looking for volunteers who are willing to make CPGroup their
> first priority.
>
> ComProjCom will be responsible for executing and carrying out PR
> campaigns.  Members of CPGroup will also be given the opportunity for
> training and eventual entry into the Communications Committee.
>
> Interested parties should contact Sandra Ordonez at
> sordonez at wikimedia.org or myself with your details and/or specialties.
>
> Cary Bass
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>

Cary Bass


subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Presumably the Wikipedian who adds this information accesses Smalltown
> Gazette online. Having put the article online, Smalltown Gazette has
> made the information available to anyone who cares to look for it. It
> has already been taken "to [a] global level".
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>

By the same token I often read articles on foreign (US native here)
politicians. Why? Just interested. I don't know a cabinet member from
Licthenstein or whatever from a PM from Japan, but I enjoy reading the
articles. I find negative stuff sometimes. Sourced to "local" newspapers.
But what as said is local anymore? Even my tiny hometown (3000 odd people)
has their weekly paper online, including the occasional negative bits. It's
not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, since it's already there. If
they are "out of the way" people from a town of 3,000 named Farmville,
California, and someone googles:

Bob Jones pastor Farmville rape

...looking for, say a rape allegation... it's already there WITHOUT us. It's
on farmvillecaweeklynews.com. For what its worth.
--
- Denny


from_name: Sabine Cretella

body:
Thank God there is no such thing as a language prevention committe ...
they would have quite a bunch of problems with me and my colleagues. Or
was there one created lately I did not know of? whoops ... that must
then have happened while I was around to talk aobut languages and Open
Source and Open Content in universities ... well... probably it is
better to believe that some people are day dreaming and simply see
things that are not there.

/me veeery ironic

Sabine

Mark Williamson schrieb:
> It is now. The Language Prevention Committee (Langprevcom for short)
> won't allow you to have your new Wiki until you have a localised
> messages file. But then they probably won't allow it anyways for some
> other reason, and you will have to wait several billion years.
>
> Mark
>


from_name: William Pietri

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blog Entries (Bauer fork)

body:
Stephen Bain wrote:
> Her blog is *always* a great source for her opinion. It may or may not
> be a reliable source for fact, and is probably not most of the time,
> no matter how often she's actually right.

Is anybody suggesting that expert opinion should be treated as fact? I
think I've only seen people say that we should be able to use expert
opinion as expert opinion, whether that opinion appeared in a New York
Times interview or on the expert's blog, neither of which is
fact-checked. I thought that was a pretty uncontroversial thing to do on
Wikipedia.

William


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

body:
On 3/28/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> As I feared would be the case, this new foundation policy has become a
> call to arms by deletionists to institute a massive removal of all fair
> use content on all Wikimedia projects.

No, only for content claimed to be fair use but which actually is not.
The resolution explictly acknowledges that projects can host fair use,
but only if they develop an specific policy and show that an image is
covered by it.

So if it's claimed to be fair use, and it actually qualifies for fair
use, content won't be removed.

> I don't know if this was the
> intent, but on at least en.wikibooks, the most active bureaucrat there
> has demanded that all fair use content be eliminated from Wikibooks. And
> has used this policy to strength his own counter claim that we should
> never have allowed fair use onto that project in the first place.

Each project can take its own decisions. But arguing in general is no
good, can you provide specific examples of images you think they are
needed, and that fair use is justified, so we can analyze the
justification?

>
> With statements like "By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an
> unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an
> EDP, or shall be deleted." seem to imply that unless you have already
> "approved" an EDP (whatever that means.... and the process of approval
> is certainly vague here) that all fair use can be retroactively deleted.

It means each project has 1 year to develop its exemption policy, and
check that images will be covered under it. There?s plenty of time to
work on it.

>
> Wikibooks has had an unofficial policy about fair use for more than a
> year now, and it has been used as a guideline.  Because of the earlier
> discussion about fair use that was started by Kat (before this policy
> was written), this same bureaucrat on Wikibooks also deleted and rewrote
> the fair use policy to simply say that fair use was banned, presuming
> authority on the part of the WMF.

Yes, the resolution says that now, an specific policy has to be
developed. THat's the new thing.
Notice that some projects have policy exemptions of the form "we dont'
want exemptions" and that's right, as long as each project can decide
its own

>
> If this really is the intent of the WMF, I wish you would have just come
> out and said it simply:  "All fair use is banned."  I know that if this
> tactic were to be tried on Wikipedia that you would have an uproar from
> many users like has never been seen before.  But because this is a
> smallish project with only a handful of users who set policy, it makes
> it easier for some users to wildly mis-interpret what has been said.
>
> -- Robert Horning
>

The resolution is meant to provide a way to have fair use, not to ban
it. However, it also states that things should be done right. Have an
explicit policy, and have images matched to that policy.

> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blog Entries (Bauer fork)

body:
jayjg wrote:
>> There are two questions that matter here.
>>
>> 1) Is Teresa Nielsen Hayden a source worthy of citing in matters
>> related to publishing?
>> 2) Does Making Light definitely contain material by her?
>>
>> The answer to both is unquestionably yes. Here endeth the discussion.
>>
>
> Not really. Blogs have no editorial oversight, and their contents are
> ephemeral - that is, they can change without notice, leaving evidence
> of that change.
>

What sort of editorial oversight do you believe is in place for an
interview in a normal publication? My understanding is that when a
newspaper or magazine says you said something, then the fact-checker
verifies that you said it, not that it is true.

As to the latter, there's no technical barrier for web publishers of any
sort, blogs or magazines. The main protection is convention; in both
realms it is customary to note changes on the page, and you risk
ridicule if you don't do that. But the original text is not sacrosanct.
To overcome this would it be sufficient in your eyes to cite from the
Internet Archive or WebCite?

William


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Stable versions (was Re: Wikipedia,
	the encylopedia that anyone can't edit)

body:
On 3/28/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Will the community have any say over whether it is implemented?

Yes; we are building a feature that is flexibly configurable according
to the wishes of any project community that wants to try it out.

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


from_name: Philip Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blog Entries (Bauer fork)

body:
On Mar 28, 2007, at 2:42 AM, Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:

> What we write appears on one of the most popular Internet sites in the
> world, and there is a moral and ethical imperative for us to be
> responsible
> and prudent when talking about real people. Yes, that means
> accepting only
> sources which are clearly reliable to support information of a
> negative
> nature.

Sure. No problem. So here's my question. Why is Teresa Nielsen
Hayden, the former managing editor for the biggest science fiction
publishing imprint on the US, ever an unreliable source for a
question about publishing? Or, put another way, what is it about
Movable Type that somehow corrupts her words when her speaking the
exact same text aloud at a transcribed lecture or in an interview
would be OK?

This is not a matter of us using a fansite. This is a case of us
using a source that should, by any standard whatsoever, be an
acceptable source for issues related to publishing, and should in
fact be considered a positively excellent source for issues related
to publishing science fiction and fantasy. If BLP forbids the use of
this source, BLP has moved from useful to paranoia.

-Phil


from_name: Michael Bimmler

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blog Entries (Bauer fork)

body:
On 3/27/07, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 27, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Michael Bimmler wrote:
>
> > Could we please refrain from referring to the fact that Cary /
> > bastique happens to be foundation staff. I think he has made it
> > perfectly clear in one of his last emails that he felt insulted as
> > Wikipedian and not as Wikimedia Foundation staff member.
>
> In a word... no.
>
> It's incredibly damaging to efforts to create responsible sourcing
> practices on Wikipedia for someone who, earlier in the thread, spoke
> as a representative of the Foundation to speak in support of bad
> policy. I know that Foundation members don't always speak on behalf
> of the Foundation. Just as Jimbo doesn't always speak ex cathedra.
>
quoting http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/066725.html
which was a reply to my question whether these were statements as
foundation staff or as private person:

"These [comments] are made by myself individually.  I'm not listed on
the WP:OFFICE
page and have never been officially recognized as having OFFICE authority.

I am still a volunteer on the Wikimedia project, still work on External
Correspondence, and I still have feelings as a human being, and still
get insulted just like everyone else."

I agree that people (many people on this list...) need to choose their
words more carefully, but please allow Cary to have a voice separate
from his foundation activities. Just because he is a foundation staff
member, this does not mean that he cannot also speak in his own right.
this is not about "is it an official statement or not" but rather
"does the fact that he is foundation staff member matter in this
respect?". As long as Cary does not "decree" something or officially
state something referring to his position als Volunteer Coordinator,
his opinion should be taken as the opinion of an interested
wikimedian.

Thanks
Michael

> But we still do take their words seriously, and they need to be more
> carefully chosen all the time - not just some of it.
>
> -Phil
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] change RS/BLP etc to not say 'blogs' (was
 Blog	Entries (Bauer fork))

body:
jayjg wrote:
> In contrast,
> websites in general are often maintained by news organizations, other
> publications, corporations, universities, non-profit organizations,
> etc. The number of general websites having some sort of editorial
> oversight is vastly higher than the number of blogs having some sort
> of editorial oversight.
>

Editorial oversight strikes me as a red herring for 99% of the web. News
organizations may be reliable sources for facts. Ditto for academics
publishing in their spheres of expertise. And I say "may" because there
are plenty of shaky news organizations and academics out there. But
there, editorial oversight does usually improve things from our perspective.

But for everybody else, editorial oversight does not guarantee you
factual accuracy. The purpose of editorial oversight there is more often
to ensure textual quality and conformance with institutional POV. For
many organizations, text isn't so much a means of honest communication
as a means to an end. I'm sure whitehouse.gov has excellent editorial
oversight, for example.

An expert's blog on the other hand, is unlikely to be greatly improved
by editorial oversight. They already know their own opinions, and
they're already able to say them. That doesn't mean that their opinions
are fact, but that does mean we have no particular reason to doubt that
their opinions are their opinions.

William


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt & other banned users posting still

body:
Bringing this up again, as it's getting silly. Daniel Brandt posts here, and
I rv him per policy as a banned user:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADaniel_Brandt&diff=118543746&oldid=118543037

I get undone here with the comment "it is ridiculous that brandt should not
be allowed to comment on his own article":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADaniel_Brandt&diff=118544957&oldid=118543746

I then refactored out his commentary (Brandt's), reported his IP to AIV as
posting by a banned user, and that IP is now blocked.

My question: *if* there is concensus to allow banned users to post if "some
people feel like letting them", why not SAY that in the banning/blocking
policy? Because that seems to be... the practice.

--
- Denny


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
2007/3/28, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it>:
>
> Thank God there is no such thing as a language prevention committe ...
> they would have quite a bunch of problems with me and my colleagues. Or
> was there one created lately I did not know of? whoops ... that must
> then have happened while I was around to talk aobut languages and Open
> Source and Open Content in universities ... well... probably it is
> better to believe that some people are day dreaming and simply see
> things that are not there.

Like new languages being created? Then they indeed see things that are not
there.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 3/28/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
[snip]
> Wikibooks has had an unofficial policy about fair use for more than a
> year now, and it has been used as a guideline

Can you explain for us why Wikibooks needs fair use? I'm not sure I
see as much of as a use case as I do for Wikipedia. Can you provide
some pointers?

At most it would seem to me that it would be something that should
only be permitted by exception on a book by book basis based on the
subject matter of the book.

The prospects of printing wikibooks is probably much greater, to the
complications and harm from using non-free images is also probably
greater. This should cause us to consider more carefully.

In any case, the first place to take a dispute about your EDP is your
community, and not the foundation list.  Since you're here already,
educating us about the need for non-free images in Wikibooks makes
sense to me.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blog Entries (Bauer fork)

body:
jayjg wrote:
>> What sort of editorial oversight do you believe is in place for an
>> interview in a normal publication?
>>
>
> The fact checker checks that you said it; the editor decides whether
> or not the magazine or newspaper will fact a lawsuit if they print it.
> The latter, in my view, is fairly criticial.
>

Could you point me at cases where publications have successfully been
sued for publishing an interview with an expert where the expert gives
their opinions on something? I've heard of publications being sued for
libel over articles, and I've heard of people being sued for libel over
what they say in the press, but I've never heard of a successful US suit
against a publication for printing somebody else's opinion when that
person is an expert on the topic. It's not my field, so I'm prepared to
be surprised, but I'd be very, very surprised.

Barring precedents like that, I don't think it matters to us, just as
long as we don't confuse expert opinion for fact. If we write "notable
publisher X said that agent Y is a fraud", then we are reporting the
fact of the saying, not an unproven fact of fraud.

William


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject:
[Foundation-l] Communication is required (was Re: Language
 Prevention Committee created)

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Please cut the drama, folks.

There are several developers who work primarily on localization updates,
including Nikerabbit and recently Raymond; updates which are sent to
bugzilla usually get through in a relatively timely fashion.

If there are language updates floating around which haven't been
committed yet, *let me know* and we'll make sure they get through.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGCnMywRnhpk1wk44RAkCVAKCzsLaF0DLHm2APwXFJrTI3kVl0pgCfR84K
ZcCuGU6q85Fpo/KCW6ftKPg=
=IKAd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject:
[Foundation-l] Banning Fair Use (was Re: Foundation Licensing
 Policy)

body:
Kat Walsh wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>
>> As I feared would be the case, this new foundation policy has become a
>> call to arms by deletionists to institute a massive removal of all fair
>> use content on all Wikimedia projects.
>>
>> -- Robert Horning
>>
>
>
> No, it's not a call to ban all fair use. But it *is* certainly a call
> to minimize it as much as possible and to treat it as inferior to free
> content -- and an individual project is more than welcome to decide
> that it does not want to use fair use at all. If Wikibooks does not
> need it then by all means it should remove it; most of the Wikibooks I
> have seen don't need non-free media as illustration, but perhaps there
> are others that do. (And looking back now Greg has posted -- going by
> the subject matter of the book is an interesting idea.)
>
> Actually I find that people have been reading all sorts of things into
> the resolution -- I have been throwing up my hands in frustration at
> some corners of en.wikipedia proclaiming that because fair use was not
> banned entirely it must mean we wanted more of it. The policy should
> not actually be much of a change of anything, just set out a bit more
> formally.
>
> The basic idea is that this is what we have adopted as the definition
> of free content; projects should treat everything else as very much
> inferior to it, and use things outside that definition only where it
> is not reasonably possible to avoid it.
>
> -Kat
>
There are several Wikibooks users who indeed want to keep fair use, and
I believe this should be something that can be resolved through the
normal policy building process that already exists within the Wikibooks
community.  The problem I see here is that radical solutions are being
suggested on the authority of this new policy, and I want reassurances
(like you have done here) that this is not intended to be a massive
change of existing polices and content.  Certainly not giving license to
eliminate thousands of images (as do exist on Wikibooks) that are
currently available only under fair-use terms, and have been selected
for deletion by only a small handful of individuals acting on the
authority of this policy that has been put forward by the WMF.

I agree that if we as a community want to move toward eliminating fair
use, that we can come and decide that for ourselves and move in that
direction.  I am of the philosophical camp that some fair use ought to
be permitted and that there are legitimate reasons for including it in
our projects, but such fair use ought to be significantly restricted and
encompass what is legally permissible even in countries that don't have
fair-use legislation or comparable legal concepts.

I do agree with the general philosophy that more free images ought to be
sought after, and that Wikimedia project contributors ought to find
illustrations either in the public domain, available under free content
licenses, or be able to generate those illustrations themselves when
possible.  I don't think this is always possible, and that we can find
some reasonable exceptions that most people can live with that don't
compromise the basic values of trying to create content that meets the
basic philosophical principles of the GFDL and other free content builders.

--Robert Horning


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blog Entries (Bauer fork)

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:
>> Or, perhaps, we could consider that if there are no indisputably reliable
>> sources about a living person, we should not have an encyclopedia article on
>> that person until such reliable sources are available. Or is that too
>> difficult a concept to grasp?
>>
>> Loosening our "reliable sources" criteria is all well and good when
>> considering something like Pokemon or Star Wars characters, but we're
>> talking about the lives and reputations of real people, and I am vehemently
>> opposed to weakening the criteria for biographical sources.
>>
>> What we write appears on one of the most popular Internet sites in the
>> world, and there is a moral and ethical imperative for us to be responsible
>> and prudent when talking about real people. Yes, that means accepting only
>> sources which are clearly reliable to support information of a negative
>> nature.
>
> You have my full and unreserved support in this.

It all sounds reasonable as a general concept, yes, but as far as I can
tell it is actually irrelevant to the main problem here. We have a
source that according to everyone who's familiar with the field is
reliable, but which is being stigmatized by the fact that it happens to
be in a blog format. This is not a question of loosening standards as
far as _reliability_ is concerned since the problem with the source is
not its reliability but rather its format.

Also, adding "or is that too difficult a concept to grasp?" is a pretty
lame means of argument, implying that anyone who disagrees is simply too
stupid to understand the obvious correctness of the position. I'm hoping
that this is not part of what you're giving full and unreserved support to.


body:
On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Surely the issue is whether people should be allowed to comment on
> articles about themselves, regardless of whether or not they are
> banned? What is more important: allowing individuals to notify us
> about errors in articles about themselves or maintaining our block
> policy regardless of everything else?
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)

OTRS, oversight, mail admins, mail arbcom. Why let them post on-wiki? If
that is desired, change the policy to say-so.

- Denny


from_name: Kat Walsh

body:
On 3/28/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> As I feared would be the case, this new foundation policy has become a
> call to arms by deletionists to institute a massive removal of all fair
> use content on all Wikimedia projects.  I don't know if this was the
> intent, but on at least en.wikibooks, the most active bureaucrat there
> has demanded that all fair use content be eliminated from Wikibooks. And
> has used this policy to strength his own counter claim that we should
> never have allowed fair use onto that project in the first place.
>
> With statements like "By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an
> unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an
> EDP, or shall be deleted." seem to imply that unless you have already
> "approved" an EDP (whatever that means.... and the process of approval
> is certainly vague here) that all fair use can be retroactively deleted.
>
> Wikibooks has had an unofficial policy about fair use for more than a
> year now, and it has been used as a guideline.  Because of the earlier
> discussion about fair use that was started by Kat (before this policy
> was written), this same bureaucrat on Wikibooks also deleted and rewrote
> the fair use policy to simply say that fair use was banned, presuming
> authority on the part of the WMF.
>
> If this really is the intent of the WMF, I wish you would have just come
> out and said it simply:  "All fair use is banned."  I know that if this
> tactic were to be tried on Wikipedia that you would have an uproar from
> many users like has never been seen before.  But because this is a
> smallish project with only a handful of users who set policy, it makes
> it easier for some users to wildly mis-interpret what has been said.
>
> -- Robert Horning

No, it's not a call to ban all fair use. But it *is* certainly a call
to minimize it as much as possible and to treat it as inferior to free
content -- and an individual project is more than welcome to decide
that it does not want to use fair use at all. If Wikibooks does not
need it then by all means it should remove it; most of the Wikibooks I
have seen don't need non-free media as illustration, but perhaps there
are others that do. (And looking back now Greg has posted -- going by
the subject matter of the book is an interesting idea.)

Actually I find that people have been reading all sorts of things into
the resolution -- I have been throwing up my hands in frustration at
some corners of en.wikipedia proclaiming that because fair use was not
banned entirely it must mean we wanted more of it. The policy should
not actually be much of a change of anything, just set out a bit more
formally.

The basic idea is that this is what we have adopted as the definition
of free content; projects should treat everything else as very much
inferior to it, and use things outside that definition only where it
is not reasonably possible to avoid it.

-Kat

--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone


body:
jayjg wrote:
> Blogs are *by definition* public diaries, almost always maintained by
> individuals as expressions of their personal views. In contrast,
> websites in general are often maintained by news organizations, other
> publications, corporations, universities, non-profit organizations,
> etc. The number of general websites having some sort of editorial
> oversight is vastly higher than the number of blogs having some sort
> of editorial oversight.

Could you cite that?

The problem here IMO is that we're trying to prohibit sources that are
unreliable self-published vanity twaddle and we're using the word "blog"
as a shorthand to describe that sort of source. The result is a
significant number of editors who take this literally and conclude that
all blogs must therefore fit the bill, skipping the part where they
critically evaluate the individual sources. It may well be a very tiny
baby in a vast sea of bathwater but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be
looking for ways to avoid throwing it out.


body:
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>
>> As I feared would be the case, this new foundation policy has become a
>> call to arms by deletionists to institute a massive removal of all fair
>> use content on all Wikimedia projects.
>>
>
> No, only for content claimed to be fair use but which actually is not.
> The resolution explictly acknowledges that projects can host fair use,
> but only if they develop an specific policy and show that an image is
> covered by it.
>
> So if it's claimed to be fair use, and it actually qualifies for fair
> use, content won't be removed.
>
I'm arguing here that it is being used to advance the cause of those who
desire all fair use eliminated, even if that isn't the intention, and
the interpretations of this policy are beginning to have some wide
ranging impact on individual projects.
>> I don't know if this was the
>> intent, but on at least en.wikibooks, the most active bureaucrat there
>> has demanded that all fair use content be eliminated from Wikibooks. And
>> has used this policy to strength his own counter claim that we should
>> never have allowed fair use onto that project in the first place.
>>
>
> Each project can take its own decisions. But arguing in general is no
> good, can you provide specific examples of images you think they are
> needed, and that fair use is justified, so we can analyze the
> justification?
>
>
>
This isn't just arguing about specific images about if the fair use is
allowed or not.  This is a call to completely eliminate all fair use on
Wikibooks until the policy permitting it is established, and only
allowing fair use after that policy has been accepted.... with a threat
that such a policy would never be developed anyway.  It is also a call
to completely eliminate every single fair use image that currently
exists on Wikibooks based completely upon this new policy from the WMF.
I am arguing that such a radical change is not the intention and that we
need to step back and come up with something a little more reasonable.

I guess I'm also saying that if this is the intention of the WMF to
force such radical elmination of current fair-use images in those
projects that havn't yet formalized an EDP, that some reasonable time
ought to be granted to projects to decide the fate of these images.
Giving us a deadline for deletion of images to be March 23rd  of this
year just doesn't seem to me as reasonable... or even to have
established a policy by that date when we just found out about this
foundation policy in the first place.

BTW, if you want to read what I think are reasonable images where fair
use should be allowed, see
http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Fair_use_policy&oldid=809803

The policy that I was trying to draft on Wikibook was to permit very
specific categories of images, and all other fair use was to be
eliminated.  If you wanted an additional fair-use category of images on
the project, the policy needed to be explictly ammended as a policy
change.  If you want me to show you a specific image to argue and debate
over, I can, but that is not why I'm bringing this issue to the
attention of those who read this mailing list.  I should note that the
alternative policy is to simply ban fair use altogether, not to expand
and allow much more premissive fair use.
>> With statements like "By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an
>> unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an
>> EDP, or shall be deleted." seem to imply that unless you have already
>> "approved" an EDP (whatever that means.... and the process of approval
>> is certainly vague here) that all fair use can be retroactively deleted.
>>
>
> It means each project has 1 year to develop its exemption policy, and
> check that images will be covered under it. There?s plenty of time to
> work on it.
>
I read it originally as March 23rd, 2007, and I'm pretty sure that is
what was being interpreted elsewhere.  That is a more reasonable
deadline to review this concept and establish such policies.  As one of
the admins who will have to somehow implement this policy on a local
level, this is a concern to me.  I certainly hope that the arguments and
discussions on writing this policy don't take more than a year to
develop, but I've seen some policy discussions go on that long before.
What will happen when this deadline is reached will be interesting.

With two competing policies on Wikibooks at the moment and strong
defenders (and admins) advocating each policy, this may not be something
so simple to resolve.... particularly when there doesn't seem to be too
much middle ground here.  And those advocating a ban on fair use have no
incentive to give up their position as a delay until 2008 is sufficient
to achieve their goals.

-- Robert Horing


from_name: Jossi Fresco

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On Mar 28, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Marc Riddell wrote:

>> No. Dead people should be treated with equal respect to living ones.
>
> I agree. And the key word, I believe, that should guide any Article
> on any
> person - living or dead - is RESPECT.

The problem, Marc, is how do you enforce respect? We have seen it
again and again and more so as Wikipedia becomes such a prominent web
destination. It is soooo tempting to the anon visitor, seeing the
article about this "Professor John P. Smith", which the anon knows,
to add these "tidbits" of information from the local weekly, just for
fun.

It is only when the shit hits the fan that we act and promptly remove
that information.

I have seen these discussions too many times: "The Washinton Post has
run a story in 1978 in which person X, that is a detractor of Y, says
of Y 'he is a [expletive] abuser, and he poured chemicals on Z', so
we should mention detractor's opinion in the article about Y because
it has been published in a reliable source". Of course, that story
has only appeared once, no scholars studying Y or other mainstream
press has picked up and reprodduced X's viewpoints of Y, but
nonetheless, editors push for its inclusion in a BLP on the basis of
the argument "it has been published in a reliable source".

IMO, WP:BLP needs more teeth than it has now. Maybe a more stringent
application of NOR and V is now due.

-- Jossi


from_name: Robert Horning

body:
effe iets anders wrote:
> Although a few people asked, you didnt give examples of when a
> Wikibooks should *need* to use Fair Use. Please note that a rationale
> is obliged. Could you give a few examples of images where there is
> absolutely no possibility that there will come no free substitute of
> it? (As you brought it yourself on this list... now i have been made
> curious :) ) Thanks.
>
> Lodewijk
>
OK, here is a very clear cut example:

A Wikibook about stamp collecting, where you give clear examples of
specific postage stamps and talk about their historical significance and
value as a collector.  The one and only way you can obtain images about
the stamps is to use them under fair use principles, as they are
copyrighted images.  And such commercial publications, including printed
books about stamps, have been made using this sort of fair use as
justification for their use.

There are also several Wikibooks that discuss learning foreign
languages, and I think it is very reasonable to use flags of the
countries where those languages are spoken as elements in the cover
images of those books.  Flags can also be protected by things like crown
copyright, and in most cases can only be used under fair use principles.

There are also several Wikibooks that are "how to use..." books that go
into specifics about learning to use several software applications,
including commercial products like Microsoft Office.  Screenshots of
these programs are not permitted on Commons, and are integral to
explaining how to use the features of this software that simply can't be
done with words alone.

I could go on here with several other examples, but this is just an
initial start.  I think there are very legitimate applications of fair
use within Wikibooks and eliminating fair use will certainly hurt the
project... but that is something I would argue within the realm of
trying to determine policy on Wikibooks.

Again, I'm just saying that this is a call to eliminate fair use based
on this policy from the WMF, and that doesn't seem to be justified or
reasonable.

-- Robert Horning


from_name: geni

subject: [Foundation-l] Language Prevention Committee created

body:
On 3/28/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why?
>

Because we are going to have have a hard time claiming a release was
legit if it was writen in a language the person could not read.
--
geni


from_name: GerardM

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old (was New language)

body:
Hoi,
It is extremely unlikely to get a tag for this version of Belarus claiming
that it is an old version of Belarus as the aim of it is that it is in
competition with the official orthography. It is also not a historic version
because it aims to be actively used and aims to replace the official
orthography.

These things will get you some really negative reactions..

Thanks,
    GerardM

PS I have asked people who also write on these mailing lists and it is not
likely that a request will be rewarded.

On 3/28/07, Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
>
> Berto 'd Sera wrote:
>
> > Both domains seem to be up and running, Brion has been quick :)
> >
> > http://be-x-old.wikipedia.org
> > http://be.wikipedia.org
>
> Note that there is an IETF mailing list and IANA registration
> authority for "language subtags", as specified in RFC 4645, 4646,
> and 4647.  These RFC are updating RFC 3066, which is the
> Internet's equivalent to ISO 3166.
>
> For example, the German spelling reform of 1996 created a need in
> some instances to tell the old spelling (following Duden's
> dictionary from 1901) apart from the new one (after the 1996
> reform).  Thus, the language subtags de-1901 and de-1996 have been
> registered as official code names for the two German
> orthographies.
>
> This is to say that there is a way to register an official subtag
> for "old" Byelorussian (instead of the inofficial be-x-old), if
> the speakers of that language can agree on a suitable subtag.  As
> always, your chances to succeed are greatest if you are well
> prepared and already have a consensus within your community.
>
> IANA registry,
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry
>
> IETF mailing list,
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
>
> --
>   Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
>   Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
geni wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 28/03/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Although a few people asked, you didnt give examples of when a
>>> Wikibooks should *need* to use Fair Use. Please note that a rationale
>>> is obliged. Could you give a few examples of images where there is
>>> absolutely no possibility that there will come no free substitute of
>>> it? (As you brought it yourself on this list... now i have been made
>>> curious :) ) Thanks.
>>>
>> Use of logos and example adverts in a book about advertising?
>>
>>
>
>
> There are PD logos and adverts around.
>
>
For everything that you want to talk about?  If you are going to use an
example of logos, sure, you can find *an example* of a PD logo.  But
even the WMF logo is not public domain.... it isn't even a free content
license.  The only way you can use the WMF logo in a Wikimedia project
(in an article or book module) is under fair use concepts.  Of course
such a fair use application would have to be in context.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blog Entries (Bauer fork)

body:
On Mar 28, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:

> Your implication that she is always a reliable source about publishing
> is as misguided as the assertion you are arguing against, that she
> never is. A big problem is that you fail to distinguish that for which
> she is a reliable source.
>

Her claims on matters related to publishing are sufficiently
significant that they can reasonably be reported. Where there is
disagreement, they should be clearly attributed to her point of view.
> Her blog is *always* a great source for her opinion. It may or may not
> be a reliable source for fact, and is probably not most of the time,
> no matter how often she's actually right.

And her opinion on publishing matters is worth including. One such
notable opinion is "Barbara Bauer is a fraud."

> As to your point about where her words are published, yes it does make
> a difference. When what she says comes from an interview and is
> published by an intermediary, we have that intermediary's reliability
> to hang our hat on. When what she says is delivered in a lecture, we
> have the host's reliability to hang our hat on.

Nonsense. When I invite a speaker to the University of Florida to
give a lecture at a conference, I don't intend our invitation to be a
warranty of their factual accuracy. Nor do we offer such a warranty
when and if we post the transcript or video of the lecture on our
website, or even in our journal. All we do is vouch for the accuracy
of the transcription and claim to its significance in some fashion.

In the case of Teresa Nielsen Hayden, though, that significance is no
longer in doubt.

There are two questions that matter here.

1) Is Teresa Nielsen Hayden a source worthy of citing in matters
related to publishing?
2) Does Making Light definitely contain material by her?

The answer to both is unquestionably yes. Here endeth the discussion.

-Phil


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 3/28/07, Omegatron <omegatron+wikienl at gmail.com> wrote:
> "From Wikipedia, an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of
> typewriters"?

I kind of like that idea. I think we should do something centralised,
because if we don't, 30 different Wikipedia subgroups will all decide
that *they're* going to do something. Better one gag than 30.

Steve


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia, the encylopedia that anyone can't edit

body:
I would tend to agree.  The "stable versions" feature should make a lot
of this unnecessary.  But now that we have the ability to make
semi-protection time limited, this should likely be the default attempt.

bobolozo wrote:
> We now have about 1500 articles in
> Category:Semi-protected, which new editors and IP
> addresses can't edit.  I picked a few at random, and
> most I checked were entirely uncontroversial articles
> which had briefly had some trouble from an IP address,
> which was over months ago and there was no reason to
> believe it would ever occur again.
>
> This is in violation of one of our basic principles.
>
> Would it not make more sense for admins to be expected
> to automatically make this sort of semi-protection
> have a time limit, assuming there was no reason to
> believe the article was a permanent vandal magnet?
>
> An ever growing list of permanently semi-protected
> articles is not what we want, especially given that
> it's happening out of sheer laziness.
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
> (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
> http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Denny Colt

body:
On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Isn't this list for such discussions? I was under the impression that
> you were asking for a clarification or specification of policy?

I was and am. I was just re-reverted for removing the Brandt comments on his
talk page, and RV'd it back out again. I don't want to get into an edit war
on this, but I don't understand why out-of-policy permission is granted to
banned users to freely post under their own name.

You are right to say that there are other mechanisms (and that we
> should encourage the use of these), but if the user uses the on-wiki
> method, I don't see why we should ignore their suggestions for the
> sake of maintaining policy.
>
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)

We don't have to *ignore* it, but we shouldn't interact/endorse them, or
support them by proxy. Isn't that a policy violation to post on behalf of a
banned user? Isn't reposting a banned users contribution... the same thing?
Banned people can address whatever they want via OTRS, oversight, etc.

I am saying that if we are going to turn a blind eye to this for the loudest
people, we need to do it for all banned people, and put it in the policy as
that is what practice is. If that is NOT accepted, that we don't let banned
people post with a nudge and wink, lets say so.

--
- Denny


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Simetrical

subject: [Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [20769] trunk/phase3/includes

body:
On 3/28/07, nickj at svn.wikimedia.org <nickj at svn.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Log Message:
> -----------
> PHPDocumentor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhpDocumentor] documentation tweaking stuff.

My impression is that we're officially using Doxygen, not phpDoc.


from_name: William Pietri

body:
jayjg wrote:
> If a blog owner says something
> damaging or defamatory, and we compound that by repeating it, the odds
> of everyone being sued over it go up significantly. Organizations with
> legal advisors (e.g. newspapers, corporations) do their best to avoid
> that in the first place.
>

Again, I'm not talking about some random Livejournal user. I'm talking
about an expert whose opinion is relevant to the topic, even if it is
negative. Newspapers certainly do not do their best to avoid publishing
things like that just because of the risk of suit. Corporations might,
but as I said, they aren't publishing to advance public understanding;
their job is to increase shareholder value.

If you have evidence of publishers being successfully sued for
good-faith quoting of expert opinion in ways that make it obvious that
it is not fact but opinion, please let us know.

Thanks,

William


from_name: Keith Old

subject:
[WikiEN-l] blogs vs websites - (was Bauer DRV question -
	history)

body:
On 3/28/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/27/07, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The issue is self-published sources.  It's really the same if you blog
> or it
> > you use a vanity press.  It's the preponderance of blogs that causes
> them to
> > be singled out. It's a readily available medium, and anyone can register
> a
> > blog and spout off on whatever topic they want.  The main issue is "be
> > careful with self-published material"...whether it is a blog, a non-blog
> > webpage, or a book published by a vanity press.
>
> Being careful with it is a fine admonision, but a lot of people take
> it too far.  A lot of writers and pundits both blog and do columns and
> so forth.  If they do a print publication column, what's the
> difference between that and a blog?  One level of editing, maybe, but
> not much.
>
> The prior people in thread noting that it's hard to tell the
> difference between a serious ongoing business and vanity publishing
> site.  Even without getting your own server and learning FrontPage (or
> HTML / CSS / etc for the hardcore), there are plenty of options for
> putting info out there that look independent and professional but
> aren't.
>
> And there are a lot of amateurish looking professional sources.  Not
> everyone spends time making their website pretty as opposed to doing
> stuff.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Folks,

As well, a growing number of news sites have blogs as well as traditional
newspaper stories. The line between news items and blog items is fast
diminishing.

We should bear this in mind when considering reliable sources. The common
sense judgement that we should always use is how reliable is this
information likely to be.

Regards

*Keith Old*


from_name: Silas Snider

body:
On 3/28/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Isn't this list for such discussions? I was under the impression that
> > you were asking for a clarification or specification of policy?
>
>
> I was and am. I was just re-reverted for removing the Brandt comments on his
> talk page, and RV'd it back out again. I don't want to get into an edit war
> on this, but I don't understand why out-of-policy permission is granted to
> banned users to freely post under their own name.
>
>
>
> You are right to say that there are other mechanisms (and that we
> > should encourage the use of these), but if the user uses the on-wiki
> > method, I don't see why we should ignore their suggestions for the
> > sake of maintaining policy.
> >
> > Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>
>
>
> We don't have to *ignore* it, but we shouldn't interact/endorse them, or
> support them by proxy. Isn't that a policy violation to post on behalf of a
> banned user? Isn't reposting a banned users contribution... the same thing?
> Banned people can address whatever they want via OTRS, oversight, etc.
>
> I am saying that if we are going to turn a blind eye to this for the loudest
> people, we need to do it for all banned people, and put it in the policy as
> that is what practice is. If that is NOT accepted, that we don't let banned
> people post with a nudge and wink, lets say so.
>

I would note that this is especially important in this case, when
Daniel Brandt was banned partially for being disruptive about his own
page.

Sincerely,
Silas Snider

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silas Snider is a proud member of the Association of Wikipedians Who
Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category
of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad
Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist
(AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD) , and the Harmonious
Editing Club of Wikipedia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


from_name: jayjg

body:
On 3/28/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, bobolozo <bobolozo at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > The thing is, what percentage of blogs are reliable
> > sources?  .1%?  .01%?  There are millions of blogs,
> > and maybe 1 in 1000 or 10,000 are by notable people,
> > the rest are by random college students and teenagers
> > and various others who are writing for their friends
> > and family members to read.
>
>
> The real thing is, what percentage of *websites* are reliable sources?
> .1%?  .01%?  There are tens of millions of websites, and maybe 1 in 1,000 or
> 10,000 are by notable people, the rest are by random college students and
> teenagers and various others who are writing for their friends and family
> members to read.
>
> --
> - Denny

Blogs are *by definition* public diaries, almost always maintained by
individuals as expressions of their personal views. In contrast,
websites in general are often maintained by news organizations, other
publications, corporations, universities, non-profit organizations,
etc. The number of general websites having some sort of editorial
oversight is vastly higher than the number of blogs having some sort
of editorial oversight.

Jay.


body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Brandt&limit=500&action=history

So multiple people have RV'd back in his comments. Is this appropriate?

- Denny


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blog Entries (Bauer fork)

body:
On 3/28/07, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 28, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:
>
> > Your implication that she is always a reliable source about publishing
> > is as misguided as the assertion you are arguing against, that she
> > never is. A big problem is that you fail to distinguish that for which
> > she is a reliable source.
> >
>
> Her claims on matters related to publishing are sufficiently
> significant that they can reasonably be reported. Where there is
> disagreement, they should be clearly attributed to her point of view.
> > Her blog is *always* a great source for her opinion. It may or may not
> > be a reliable source for fact, and is probably not most of the time,
> > no matter how often she's actually right.
>
> And her opinion on publishing matters is worth including. One such
> notable opinion is "Barbara Bauer is a fraud."
>
> > As to your point about where her words are published, yes it does make
> > a difference. When what she says comes from an interview and is
> > published by an intermediary, we have that intermediary's reliability
> > to hang our hat on. When what she says is delivered in a lecture, we
> > have the host's reliability to hang our hat on.
>
> Nonsense. When I invite a speaker to the University of Florida to
> give a lecture at a conference, I don't intend our invitation to be a
> warranty of their factual accuracy. Nor do we offer such a warranty
> when and if we post the transcript or video of the lecture on our
> website, or even in our journal. All we do is vouch for the accuracy
> of the transcription and claim to its significance in some fashion.
>
> In the case of Teresa Nielsen Hayden, though, that significance is no
> longer in doubt.
>
> There are two questions that matter here.
>
> 1) Is Teresa Nielsen Hayden a source worthy of citing in matters
> related to publishing?
> 2) Does Making Light definitely contain material by her?
>
> The answer to both is unquestionably yes. Here endeth the discussion.

Not really. Blogs have no editorial oversight, and their contents are
ephemeral - that is, they can change without notice, leaving evidence
of that change.

Jay.


from_name: Andrew Whitworth

subject: [Foundation-l] Banning Fair Use

body:
From: Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net>
>As I feared would be the case, this new foundation policy has become a call
>to arms by deletionists to institute a massive removal of all fair use
>content on all Wikimedia projects.  I don't know if this was the intent,
>but on at least en.wikibooks, the most active bureaucrat there has demanded
>that all fair use content be eliminated from Wikibooks. And has used this
>policy to strength his own counter claim that we should never have allowed
>fair use onto that project in the first place.

As the most active of the three bureaucrats on that project, I can only
assume Robert is talking about me. This is a gross miscategorization of my
words and actions, and should not be used to cause alarm among foundation
members.

After reading the resolution, I suggested in a local forum that we needed to
finalize our EDP policy proposal (which is an "unofficial" de facto standard
at the moment), we needed to increase our monitoring and tagging of fair use
images, and we needed to educate administrators about the use and misuse of
fair use media. I specifically called for people not to delete any fair use
media until our EDP policy was finalized, and so far no images have been
deleted because of this.

>... unless you have already "approved" an EDP (whatever that means.... and
>the process of approval is certainly vague here)

It's not vague at all, en.wikibooks has a method for approving new policy,
and we are employing that method now to our own EDP. Again, no cause for
alarm here.

>Because of the earlier discussion about fair use that was started by Kat
>(before this policy was written), this same bureaucrat on Wikibooks also
>deleted and rewrote the fair use policy to simply say that fair use was
>banned, presuming authority on the part of the WMF.

A mistake on my part, which I personally reverted when I learned of my
errors. I had been under the impression that Kat's essay carried more weight
then it actually did, and that the forthcoming WMF resolution would be
significantly more restrictive about fair use then our previous policy on
the matter was. I was right, and there are significant restrictions on it.

>But because this is a smallish project with only a handful of users who set
>policy, it makes it easier for some users to wildly mis-interpret what has
>been said.

And it is also easy for people like this to wildly misinterpret the actions
of their fellow wikimedians. It's easier to raise alarm if you lie and say
that our project is going to hell in a hand basket. It's harder to raise
that alarm when you admit that our project is functioning normally, and is
making a community effort to meet the expectations of the WMF resolution.

In the future, if you are going to lie about me, do it in private so I dont
need to call you out about it in public. It's just rude.

--Andrew Whitworth (b:User:Whiteknight)

_________________________________________________________________
Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon.
http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglinemarch07


subject: [Foundation-l] Banning Fair Use


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
on 3/28/07 10:27 AM, Andrew Gray at shimgray at gmail.com wrote:

> Basically, we have an issue with the biographies of living people
> where - by the simple act of repeating published and verifiable
> information - we can give a vastly misleading impression about them;
> we report their drunk-driving conviction at 19 in the same tone and
> length as we report their Nobel prize. Oh, it's verifiable and true...
> but should we be publishing it? Editorial common sense says, perhaps,
> no.

My own thinking begins with why is the person being included in the
encyclopedia in the first place? Was it because of their work in a
particular field? - Contributions to the world at large? - Notorious acts of
criminal behavior? What? Let the substance of the Article be guided by these
criteria.

And, if other publications wish to publish personal information, so be it;
that is their purpose for being - let WP stay with it's own.

Another thought: After this person dies would it then be fair game to add
all of the personal stuff? And, would it now be OK to do so? And if so, why
so?

Marc Riddell


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 28/03/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> I would tend to agree.  The "stable versions" feature should make a lot
> of this unnecessary.  But now that we have the ability to make
> semi-protection time limited, this should likely be the default attempt.

Someone want to file a bug request? "Make semiprotection default to
one week rather than indefinite." No other interface changes, just
that if you do it as fast as possible it's one week rather than
indefinite.

- d.


body:
On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This discussion isn't about allowing certain banned users to continue
> editing, it is about not reverting particular kinds of edits
> regardless of whether the user is banned or not (the argument being
> that to revert the edits doesn't benefit Wikipedia and expends energy
> unnecessarily).
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)

Actually thats exactly it. People edit warred with me to ensure brandt's
words stayed up. I don't understand why he gets a free pass, as Erica said.
Either all banned users should, or none. If they want to contribute... use a
different name. If we KNOW it's them, rv them as policy says. If that isn't
right, change the policy.

- Denny


from_name: Yury Tarasievich

body:
On 28/03/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> It is extremely unlikely to get a tag for this version of Belarus claiming

Just leave them at the existing tag and let them be, that's what I'd ask.

---


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blog Entries (Bauer fork)

body:
On 3/28/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
> jayjg wrote:
> >> There are two questions that matter here.
> >>
> >> 1) Is Teresa Nielsen Hayden a source worthy of citing in matters
> >> related to publishing?
> >> 2) Does Making Light definitely contain material by her?
> >>
> >> The answer to both is unquestionably yes. Here endeth the discussion.
> >>
> >
> > Not really. Blogs have no editorial oversight, and their contents are
> > ephemeral - that is, they can change without notice, leaving evidence
> > of that change.
> >
>
> What sort of editorial oversight do you believe is in place for an
> interview in a normal publication?

The fact checker checks that you said it; the editor decides whether
or not the magazine or newspaper will fact a lawsuit if they print it.
The latter, in my view, is fairly criticial.

> As to the latter, there's no technical barrier for web publishers of any
> sort, blogs or magazines. The main protection is convention; in both
> realms it is customary to note changes on the page, and you risk
> ridicule if you don't do that. But the original text is not sacrosanct.

It's better than nothing, though.

> To overcome this would it be sufficient in your eyes to cite from the
> Internet Archive or WebCite?

The odds of either of them actually catching some change on an
individual blog are very, very low.

Jay.


from_name: Anthony

subject: [Foundation-l] Foundation Licensing Policy

body:
On 3/27/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
> >On 3/27/07, Ed Sanders wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_VII
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Only the images on that page which identify a specific part of the game
> >>being discussed should be sued, as such they would also fall under
> >>"identifying protected works".
> >>
> >>
> >What about the copyrighted text which is used?
> >
> So where does fair use, in the most normal application of the term, end
> and questionable fair use begin?
>
Huh?  What does this have to do with fair use?

I have no idea what the term "questionable fair use" means.

Anthony


subject: [Foundation-l] Banning Fair Use

body:
From: "Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell at gmail.com>
>Can you explain for us why Wikibooks needs fair use? I'm not sure I
>see as much of as a use case as I do for Wikipedia. Can you provide
>some pointers?

There are certainly some examples, more wide-spread then you might imagine.
We have several books devoted to the use of particular software packages,
many of which are copyright. Screenshots of these programs, which are an
invaluable learning aide, are fundamental to these books. For some programs
there are free alternatives whose screenshots can be reasonably substituted
for the copyrighted versions (albeit with some explanation as to the
disparity), but for other programs, there are no such equivalents.

Other books, such as art or history books tend to make use of fair use
images as well. We dont have nearly as many art or history books as we have
computer software books, however.

>At most it would seem to me that it would be something that should
>only be permitted by exception on a book by book basis based on the
>subject matter of the book.

It's a matter that has been discussed on our project. We have toyed with the
idea that each book could have it's own localized policy documents dealing
with issues like this. Many authors tend to overexaggerate their own need
for special exceptions, however, and so we have generally not followed that
path.

>The prospects of printing wikibooks is probably much greater, to the
>complications and harm from using non-free images is also probably
>greater. This should cause us to consider more carefully.

This is precisely the reason why I have personally called for a reduction in
fair use, long before the WMF resolution on the issue. Wikibooks in my
experience is more oriented towards printing and distributing then wikipedia
is, for instance. Readers in areas that dont allow fair use are at a
distinct disadvantage because they cannot usually print or distribute our
books. Some books are at a disadvantate without fair use, however, and we
need to weigh these issues carefully.

--Andrew Whitworth (b:User:Whiteknight)

_________________________________________________________________
Watch free concerts with Pink, Rod Stewart, Oasis and more. Visit MSN
Presents today.
http://music.msn.com/presents?icid=ncmsnpresentstagline&ocid=T002MSN03A07001


subject: [Foundation-l] Banning Fair Use


body:
Denny Colt wrote:
>
> Actually thats exactly it. People edit warred with me to ensure brandt's
> words stayed up. I don't understand why he gets a free pass, as Erica said.
> Either all banned users should, or none. If they want to contribute... use a
> different name. If we KNOW it's them, rv them as policy says. If that isn't
> right, change the policy.
>

As somebody who restored (to the talk page) Brandt's comment on the most
recent Brandt AfD, I'd advocate the latter. To me, a ban should be
*permission* (and perhaps encouragement) to revert on site, but not an
absolute requirement.

In the case of the comment on his AfD, it was more or less civilly
stated and a useful contribution to the discussion (mainly, IMHO, in
that kept people from speculating endlessly on what his views might be).
A policy that forces editors to make things unambiguously worse should
be changed, if only to prevent similarly endless discussion on when to
apply IAR and how this place is going to hell in a handbasket.

William


from_name: Philip Sandifer

body:
On Mar 28, 2007, at 11:57 AM, jayjg wrote:

> Blogs are *by definition* public diaries, almost always maintained by
> individuals as expressions of their personal views. In contrast,
> websites in general are often maintained by news organizations, other
> publications, corporations, universities, non-profit organizations,
> etc. The number of general websites having some sort of editorial
> oversight is vastly higher than the number of blogs having some sort
> of editorial oversight.

Editorial oversight is not the holy grail or magic bullet, though.

An example. I work on a peer reviewed online journal, ImageTexT. We
publish good stuff.

Let us now imagine two circumstances.

1) ImageTexT publishes an article by a graduate student repudiating a
major book of comics scholarship.
2) The author of that major book posts on his blog repudiating his
own book.

Which source is the better one for us to use?

#2. No question. No doubt. Because #2 is an unquestionable
significant event.

The remote possibility of a change to the blog is, well, remote. And
if the author of the blog decides to retract their words WE CHANGE
THE ARTICLE. It's easy for us to do that. It's easy for us to have
articles that are based on the most up-to-date information available.

Really, this is ridiculous. Yes, given the choice between a blog and
a print newspaper source that give the exact same information, we
should pick the latter. But the use of blogs as sources where
authorship is verified and the author is an important figure in the
field is straightforward. Anyone trying to raise controversy about
this is serving only to drag us into a morass of nitpicking and white
line distinctions that is fundamentally alien to the process of
writing a good encyclopedia.

-Phil


subject: [WikiEN-l] BLP - a case study

body:
On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:11 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:

>
> This is realistic, but accepts the premise that Wikipedia will
> always be second-rate, since "anyone can edit". And the premise
> that we cannot make and enforce policy with respect to regular
> editors.

I think you misunderstand the argument David is making here, which is
along the lines of "if a reasonable person with knowledge of the
topic of the article would be surprised to see something not
mentioned, we should mention it."

-Phil


from_name: Chaz B

body:
On 3/28/07, bobolozo <bobolozo at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- "Daniel P. B. Smith" <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com>
> wrote:
> > > bobolozo wrote:
> > >> We now have about 1500 articles in
> > >> Category:Semi-protected, which new editors and IP
> > >> addresses can't edit.  I picked a few at random,
> > and
> > >> most I checked were entirely uncontroversial
> > articles
> > >> which had briefly had some trouble from an IP
> > address,
> > >> which was over months ago and there was no reason
> > to
> > >> believe it would ever occur again.
> > >>
> > >> This is in violation of one of our basic
> > principles.
> >
> > What basic principle is that? I thought Wikipedia's
> > basic principles
> > were a) to be free (as in freedom), and b) to be an
> > encyclopedia.
> > Everything else is a means to that end, not a "basic
> > principle."
> >
> > Anyone _can_ edit any Wikipedia article, because
> > anyone can create an
> > account. And the account name can be pseudonymous.
> >
> > And, anyone _can_ edit any WIkipedia article,
> > because they are all
> > licensed under the GFDL. What they cannot do is:
> >
> > Edit a Wikipedia article
> > --without creating an account
> > --and host that edited version
> > --on the Wikipedia website
> > --in the main namespace.
>
> Try making a new account and editing a semi-protected
> article and see what happens.

While it's true that newly registered editors can't edit semi-protected
articles, I'm sure that Daniel is aware of this. I agree with him that it's
not really violating basic principles by placing reasonable limits
on editing .1% of our articles. I also agree that it would make sense to
modify the protection defaults so that admins don't inadvertently
semi-protect articles longer than intended.

ChazB


list: commons-l

from_name: Pedro Sanchez

subject: [Commons-l] COM:FP and QI problems

body:
On 3/28/07, nilfanion wiki <nilfanion at googlemail.com> wrote:
> This stems from discussion in the Commons IRC channel last night, and has my
> own thoughts expanded somewhat.
>
> Both of the procedures are somewhat broken, they basically come down to the
> opinions of the reviewers. I feel the current system somewhat
> disenfranchises people who are not regulars; both when nominating imagery or
> when commenting on nominees. Part of this is it is *extremely vague* what
> the two processes actually want.
>
> Ignoring the difficulties that multiple languages bring lets compare the
> English-language guidance for the three processes of interest to
> English-language contributors: 1. Commons FPC, 2. Commons QI and 3. the
> English WP FPC.
>
> Firstly, COM FPC. It has two sections providing information to help people
> inexperienced with the process:
> [[COM:FPC#Guidelines for nominators]] and [[COM:FPC#Guidelines for
> Evaluating Photographs]].
>
> The first gives *very* brief details about what sort of imagery is expected
> and the second drones on and on about technical details. This makes it hard
> for new users to begin participating in either side of the process. A lot of
> the votes are [[w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] or [[w:WP:ILIKEIT]], which isn't
> objective - and leads to inconsistency (it depends who votes and what they
> like). For example, images of animals taken in a zoo are frowned by some
> regulars upon *merely* for being in a zoo. It is not clear from the criteria
> why it is a big deal, or if it should be a big deal. Likewise, if you have a
> stunning picture of an unidentified beetle, it will fail for being
> unidentified - it is not clear from the guidance *why*.
>
> Next, COM QI. This process is designed to be below FP - and is treated that
> way. Unlike FPC it has a whole page giving useful guidance on the sort of
> things that should be expected of a QI at [[Commons:Quality images
> guidelines]]. These focus solely on the technical stuff, which seems
> reasonable as QI is about the technical quality of the imagery first and
> foremost.
>
> Finally, en FPC which I'm using this for comparative purposes here. Compared
> to its counterpart on Commons, enwp FPC seems a much more hospitable
> environment for new contributors. There is clear guidance on what is
> expected at [[w:WP:WIAFP]]. The comments tend to be significantly more
> wordy. Even more positively, when images show flaws regulars there will
> often upload edited versions. Currently there are 46 images on COM FPC and
> 36 on enwp FPC. Over 12 of the en nominations have multiple images, but I
> only count about 5 versions with edits on COM FPC.
>
> My conclusion from all this is that enwp FPC is a more collegial process
> than Commons. Of course its not perfect, but there are clearly lessons to
> learn which we should apply. The fact it is English-only and we are
> multilingual is a hindrance for us, but we can work with that. One thing I
> noticed, and I think is bizarre is the following. On enwp FPC there is a
> section [[w:WP:FPC#Is my monitor calibrated correctly?]] This gives
> instructions to on how to carry out gamma correction; which is of key
> importance before you can assess technical quality. COM:QI uses one of the
> image on its guidelines page. COM FPC doesn't even mention it.
>
> Actually, after an examination of what we "on paper" want from QIC and FPC,
> I believe QIC has the more concrete definition and it is *harsher*. This is
> clearly back to front. QI is the lesser of the two simply because of
> inconsistency in review; its process is designed that way.
>
> Anyway, that's my thoughts on the problems as they currently exist with
> these processes. Now what to do about them?
>
> Firstly, lets get Featured picture *criteria* analogous to en's WIAFP.
> Obviously our requirements are different (encyclopedic value isn't a major
> issue), but a set of concise, precise criteria makes it easier for all
> people with any interest in the process. I'll expand on my thoughts as to
> what we should include further on. The guidance for monitor calibration
> should be copied across ASAP for the obvious reasons.
>
> Secondly, reform is needed in how FP works. If the criteria become more
> transparent and less precedent based, that encourages a broader community
> giving input. Basically, we want positive feedback given and when a minor
> fix is possible, for example reducing noise, ideally it should be carried
> out by a reviewer; and the other voters would then review the edit. As well
> as improving the atmosphere on the process - it will also improve the
> quality of the output.
>
> QIC is in better shape, but needs simplification and clarification. Is it
> only about technical quality? If so it should say that. If not what else
> matters? If it is only about technical content, should we really expect
> everything to be *perfect* - what is reasonable leeway? How about some
> enforcement of consistency allow a transparent method of review for
> uploaders to say "I disagree with the review by X, I think it was a QI".
>
> As for FPC: Here's my thoughts as to initial criteria - in no order of
> importance.
> 1. Technical quality. Any FP should be able to pass the QI guidelines on
> this front, and probably held to even tighter rules. It might be worth
> explicitly stating low-resolution is bad.
> 2. Licensing. We don't actually *say* the image must be free. If we do, we
> might actually get the reviewers investigating that properly...
> 3. A good caption: at a minimum the info needed for a POTD description. If
> geo-data would be helpful, it should be included.
> 4. Value of image. We want to reward good images of difficult subjects and
> we should probably give really hard subjects a bit of leeway on technical
> quality to get it.
> 5. Neutrality and accuracy. This would be particularly relevant to maps and
> similar images, but would be true for photographs too. In general, the image
> should not promote a specific agenda or POV.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Nilfanion
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
Thing is that QI was supposed to be a little less strict than FPC to
encourage people

== Purpose ==

    The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people (...)
While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images
loaded into Commons, Quality images
**** sets out to identify and encourage users efforts in providing
quality images to Commons.***

Additionally quality images should be a place to refer other users to
when explaining methods for improving an image.
=======================
Yet QIC is very discouraging. IF an user doesn't like the image, they
get struck down, usually they point "it has X technical error" but
they don't suggest how to fix it /avoid it.

Notice that this "dislike" often has to do with artistic/composition
merits instead of techcnical details like Dschwen has pointed me out
recently.

It's like a roulette, you're up to the luck of the guy who reviews you
(unless you want to contest the decision and get into a review ).

Basically, QIC has become a "passes if has not a single techcnical
flaw" kind of thing, which isn't what it's meant to be. We have
guidelines, yes, but they're taken as word set on stone, and even
thought minor flaws could be overlooked according to criteria (well it
used to say so), common sense has gone away and as I wrote somewhere,
review has become just a checklist on techical aspects.

Now examples from current page:

=== Subjectivity examples===

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Squirrel_closeup_profile.gk.jpg
[APROVED]
:: Got approved: "Review DOF could be higher, but ear, eye, and
whiskers are reasonably sharp."

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Kittyplya03042006.JPG [REJECTED]
:: Some noise, extremely low DOF, eyes out of focus --Dschwen 07:41, 7
March 2007

So, is low DOF good or bad?

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Allens_swamp_monkey.jpg [REJECTED]
::Composition good. Lighting bad - green colour cast (even a green
shadow on the monkeys arm), low light on face. Not quite in focus (or
is that camera movement - only 1/100th shutter speed)
* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Red-necked_wallaby.gk.jpg [APPROVED]
Review I doubt the species identification, (...) I like hte composition

Hey, so, what about the techcnical aspects? Aren't those taken into
account? If tech aspects are important, why does it matter HERE the
taxonomy for animals, (it makes sense for FPC though)

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Scandinavian_grey_wolf_Canis_lupus_.jpg
: [APPROVED] Review Very good.
:::(More subjective I like it/ don't like it)

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Electricity_pylon_power_outage.jpg
: [REJECTED] Review weak composition
:: ok, composition is important

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Seagull_flying_%284%29.jpg
: [APPROVED] Review Unfortunate framing, (...) Gets my blessing for QI though.
:: So weak composition is not important here?

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:WPKiW_-_Brama_do_ZOO.JPG
: [REJECTED]  Review Needs to be rotated counter-clockwise. (it's
about 2? tilted)

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NYCSub_7_car_exterior.jpg
: [APROVED] Review The distortion is a bit disturbing, but apart from
that very nice.

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sydney_night_6.jpg
: [REJECTED] Review Too much perpective distortion, easily fixed

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NYC_wideangle_south_from_Top_of_the_Rock.jpg
: [APPROVED] Review Although not photographically perfect (some signs
of compression or diffraction), the composition and angle are
ASTOUNDING

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Foz_do_Arelho_MAR07-1.JPG
: [REJECTED] (from review) "but there is considerable chrominance
noise on the beach and there are precedences of QI declines for that."

* http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Wellington_Wind_Turbine.jpg

So I'm getting a lot of mixed signals here, is a small tilt/distortion
enought to reject an image or not? IS a noisy image rejected or not,
since I see last two are similar wrt noise

* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Irritator_dinosaur.png
: [APPROVED] Review I don't have the courage to say "no" to this guy...

A quote from Dschwen:
"Exactly, we have stricter rules in the technical department. QI
should be a reliable source for high quality images which are up to a
given technical standard. No matter how you turn it, this picture is
lacking in size and sharpness, especially if you consider that most of
it is dead area. FP is a different game, they are way stricter in
terms of subject matter and composition. --Dschwen 16:06, 28 March
2007 (UTC)"

So why some images which aren't photographically perfect are approved
and why others not?
And if I were not to assume good faith I would ask "why some regulars
are usually cut more slack than newcomers?"

I say the reason for this uneveness is that images are reviewed by a
single person, and it depends on the reviewer standards. In all case,
very discouraging, defeating the purpose of this, making people walk
away and turning this into WP:OWNED.

But before someone says, "Hey! you can appeal and there's a 2 week
process for that!" I have another batch of comments about the
reviewing process but I'll save those for the next time.

P.S.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Goettingen_StMichael_Oct06.jpg

* Nomination Church in G?ttingen. --Dschwen
* Review a clear image-LadyofHats 04:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    * For me - bad perspective. Lestat 19:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
          o Please remember, that this is not FP. You are probably
alluding to the wide-angle effect. Whether this is bad is probably a
matter of personal taste. There are no obvious flaws such as tilt in
the picture. --Dschwen 18:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


from_name: Łukasz Garczewski

subject: [Foundation-l] Communications Projects Group

body:
On 3/28/07, Cary Bass <cbass at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Call for volunteers:
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation is looking for volunteers to contribute to
> forming a Communications Projects Committee, for the purpose of acting
> on specialized communications requests, such as researching press lists,
> analyzing media coverage, as well as other functions not presently
> covered under ComCom.

Great to see this is getting off the ground. To all those of you who
do not have any experience with Wikimedia committees - try it, it's
rewarding, fun and gives you real influence over a part of the
organization. Note, however, that it is also hard work. :)

On a side note: Cary & Sandy (and the committee, once it's formed) -
try making the shortened name a bit more 'readable', ComProjCom is a
bit longish and complicated. E.g. 'CPCom' (like SPCom) or ComPCom
(might be too similar to ComCom).

--
?ukasz 'TOR' Garczewski