2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
40 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0

Teofilo
Mexico switched from PD to CC-BY-NC-ND in 2006 (1)
Argentina from CC-BY-SA to CC-BY-NC some time in 2009-2011 (2)
Brazil removed CC-BY-SA altogether from the culture ministry website
in early 2011, in a context where the ministry is planning to reform
the copyright law (3)

Are our definition and our practices around free culture attractive
enough for democratically elected governments ?

My view is that they aren't. They are unnecessarily dry, unhuman,
personality-rights-moral-rights aggressive,
uploader-unfriendly-downloader-friendly.

(1) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Mexico-NIP
(2) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_32#Template:CC-AR-Presidency
(3) http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/02/08/inside-views-brazils-copyright-reform-schizophrenia/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20ip-watch%20%28Intellectual%20Property%20Watch%29

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0

geni
On 5 March 2011 12:29, Teofilo <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Mexico switched from PD to CC-BY-NC-ND in 2006 (1)
> Argentina from CC-BY-SA to CC-BY-NC some time in 2009-2011 (2)
> Brazil removed CC-BY-SA altogether from the culture ministry website
> in early 2011, in a context where the ministry is planning to reform
> the copyright law (3)
>
> Are our definition and our practices around free culture attractive
> enough for democratically elected governments ?

Well the UK is releasing stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Data_in_the_UK

I for one never thought we would get this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ordnance_Survey_1-250000_-_TF.jpg


> My view is that they aren't. They are unnecessarily dry, unhuman,
> personality-rights-moral-rights aggressive,
> uploader-unfriendly-downloader-friendly.

It's legal text. The first two are unavoidable. The licences tend not
to touch personality-rights one way or the other and moral-rights tend
to conflict with how common law thinks contract law should work.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
In reply to this post by Teofilo
I'll ask the same thing here that I asked in the other thread and no one
responded to, which is, can someone please provide some concrete examples of
how this issue affects Wikipedia, rather than discuss the disagreement in
purely abstract and theoretical terms?  Frankly, I have very little idea
what the post below means, which is something I'd like to change as it
sounds somewhat important.

Newyorkbrad

On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Teofilo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Mexico switched from PD to CC-BY-NC-ND in 2006 (1)
> Argentina from CC-BY-SA to CC-BY-NC some time in 2009-2011 (2)
> Brazil removed CC-BY-SA altogether from the culture ministry website
> in early 2011, in a context where the ministry is planning to reform
> the copyright law (3)
>
> Are our definition and our practices around free culture attractive
> enough for democratically elected governments ?
>
> My view is that they aren't. They are unnecessarily dry, unhuman,
> personality-rights-moral-rights aggressive,
> uploader-unfriendly-downloader-friendly.
>
> (1) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Mexico-NIP
> (2)
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_32#Template:CC-AR-Presidency
> (3)
> http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/02/08/inside-views-brazils-copyright-reform-schizophrenia/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20ip-watch%20%28Intellectual%20Property%20Watch%29
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0

MARIA DE LOS ANGELES HERRERA GARCIA

 me gustaria, que me escriban en español ya que el ingles lo entiendo muy poco gracias...

 
 
 
 

 
 




 

> Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 23:04:08 -0500
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0
>
> I'll ask the same thing here that I asked in the other thread and no one
> responded to, which is, can someone please provide some concrete examples of
> how this issue affects Wikipedia, rather than discuss the disagreement in
> purely abstract and theoretical terms? Frankly, I have very little idea
> what the post below means, which is something I'd like to change as it
> sounds somewhat important.
>
> Newyorkbrad
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Teofilo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Mexico switched from PD to CC-BY-NC-ND in 2006 (1)
> > Argentina from CC-BY-SA to CC-BY-NC some time in 2009-2011 (2)
> > Brazil removed CC-BY-SA altogether from the culture ministry website
> > in early 2011, in a context where the ministry is planning to reform
> > the copyright law (3)
> >
> > Are our definition and our practices around free culture attractive
> > enough for democratically elected governments ?
> >
> > My view is that they aren't. They are unnecessarily dry, unhuman,
> > personality-rights-moral-rights aggressive,
> > uploader-unfriendly-downloader-friendly.
> >
> > (1) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Mexico-NIP
> > (2)
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_32#Template:CC-AR-Presidency
> > (3)
> > http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/02/08/inside-views-brazils-copyright-reform-schizophrenia/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20ip-watch%20%28Intellectual%20Property%20Watch%29
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
     
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
On 03/05/11 8:04 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> I'll ask the same thing here that I asked in the other thread and no one
> responded to, which is, can someone please provide some concrete examples of
> how this issue affects Wikipedia, rather than discuss the disagreement in
> purely abstract and theoretical terms?  Frankly, I have very little idea
> what the post below means, which is something I'd like to change as it
> sounds somewhat important.

Of these three I would find the Mexican situation to be of greatest
concern. Mexico already has extraordinarily long copyright terms.  It's
in the ND feature that the potential moral rights problems lie.  When is
a derivative sufficiently different to be defamatory.  What is the
thinking behind adding the ND parameter. Is it some vain attempt to
ensure accuracy, or is there a more insidious reasoning.

NC clauses have always brought out a tone of self-righteousness from
Wikipedia.  In reality we have no control over how content is used
downstream.  Giving assurances that material is fully free does not stop
a downstream user from taking the material and publishing it with his
own copyright statement undeterred by the complaints of a paper tiger.  
NC licences don't bother me.  The most honest thing we can say to is
that there unresolved  issues in a particular case, and it is up to
users to accept a share of the responsibilities for what they use.

For Brazil I would be inclined to take a wait-and-see attitude. Changes
are pending there, and I would prefer to be optimistic.

Ray

> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Teofilo<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> Mexico switched from PD to CC-BY-NC-ND in 2006 (1)
>> Argentina from CC-BY-SA to CC-BY-NC some time in 2009-2011 (2)
>> Brazil removed CC-BY-SA altogether from the culture ministry website
>> in early 2011, in a context where the ministry is planning to reform
>> the copyright law (3)
>>
>> Are our definition and our practices around free culture attractive
>> enough for democratically elected governments ?
>>
>> My view is that they aren't. They are unnecessarily dry, unhuman,
>> personality-rights-moral-rights aggressive,
>> uploader-unfriendly-downloader-friendly.
>>
>> (1) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Mexico-NIP
>> (2)
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_32#Template:CC-AR-Presidency
>> (3)
>> http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/02/08/inside-views-brazils-copyright-reform-schizophrenia/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20ip-watch%20%28Intellectual%20Property%20Watch%29
>


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0

Casey Brown-5
In reply to this post by MARIA DE LOS ANGELES HERRERA GARCIA
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:07 PM, MARIA DE LOS ANGELES HERRERA GARCIA
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>  me gustaria, que me escriban en español ya que el ingles lo entiendo muy poco gracias...

Lo siento pero ésta es una lista de discusión que usa inglés por lo
general.  Si querrías hablar en español, te invito a subscribirse a la
lista de correo de Wikipedia en español:
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikies-l>

¡Espero que esto ayude!
Casey

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0

metasj
In reply to this post by Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Newyorkbrad <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'll ask the same thing here that I asked in the other thread and no one
> responded to, which is, can someone please provide some concrete examples of
> how this issue affects Wikipedia, rather than discuss the disagreement in
> purely abstract and theoretical terms?  Frankly, I have very little idea
> what the post below means, which is something I'd like to change as it
> sounds somewhat important.

This directly affects whether Wikimedians can include government
documents, photos, whitepapers, and other media from these sources...
without having to explicitly ask for a free license case by case (or
department by department).

Free culture movements can influence some of the world's largest
publishers, including governments and government printing offices
around the world.  Some of them have moved towards a free license and
then moved away towards a more restrictive one.  Other governments
have long held a commitment to public domain, but have moved away from
that position in recent years.  If we find a way to address the
concerns of these groups within free licensing regimes, those streams
of knowledge will be freely available from their inception.

SJ


> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Teofilo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Mexico switched from PD to CC-BY-NC-ND in 2006 (1)
>> Argentina from CC-BY-SA to CC-BY-NC some time in 2009-2011 (2)
>> Brazil removed CC-BY-SA altogether from the culture ministry website
>> in early 2011, in a context where the ministry is planning to reform
>> the copyright law (3)
>>
>> Are our definition and our practices around free culture attractive
>> enough for democratically elected governments ?
>>
>> My view is that they aren't. They are unnecessarily dry, unhuman,
>> personality-rights-moral-rights aggressive,
>> uploader-unfriendly-downloader-friendly.
>>
>> (1) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Mexico-NIP
>> (2)
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_32#Template:CC-AR-Presidency
>> (3)
>> http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/02/08/inside-views-brazils-copyright-reform-schizophrenia/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20ip-watch%20%28Intellectual%20Property%20Watch%29
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>



--
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0

Nikola Smolenski-2
>> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Teofilo<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>> Mexico switched from PD to CC-BY-NC-ND in 2006 (1)
>>> Argentina from CC-BY-SA to CC-BY-NC some time in 2009-2011 (2)
>>> Brazil removed CC-BY-SA altogether from the culture ministry website
>>> in early 2011, in a context where the ministry is planning to reform
>>> the copyright law (3)

And do we have any knowledge on why did this happened?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0

metasj
In reply to this post by MARIA DE LOS ANGELES HERRERA GARCIA
Esto es acerca de políticas de los gobiernos y derechos de autor para
publicaciones oficiales.  Los gobiernos de varios países han cambiado
de licencias libres[1] a las más restrictivas.  Por ejemplo, México
dejó de usar "dominio público" en 2006.

SJ

[1] http://freedomdefined.org/Definition/Es


On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:07 PM, MARIA DE LOS ANGELES HERRERA GARCIA
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>  me gustaria, que me escriban en español ya que el ingles lo entiendo muy poco gracias...
>
>
>
>> Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 23:04:08 -0500
>> From: [hidden email]
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0
>>
>> I'll ask the same thing here that I asked in the other thread and no one
>> responded to, which is, can someone please provide some concrete examples of
>> how this issue affects Wikipedia, rather than discuss the disagreement in
>> purely abstract and theoretical terms? Frankly, I have very little idea
>> what the post below means, which is something I'd like to change as it
>> sounds somewhat important.
>>
>> Newyorkbrad
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Teofilo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Mexico switched from PD to CC-BY-NC-ND in 2006 (1)
>> > Argentina from CC-BY-SA to CC-BY-NC some time in 2009-2011 (2)
>> > Brazil removed CC-BY-SA altogether from the culture ministry website
>> > in early 2011, in a context where the ministry is planning to reform
>> > the copyright law (3)
>> >
>> > Are our definition and our practices around free culture attractive
>> > enough for democratically elected governments ?
>> >
>> > My view is that they aren't. They are unnecessarily dry, unhuman,
>> > personality-rights-moral-rights aggressive,
>> > uploader-unfriendly-downloader-friendly.
>> >
>> > (1) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Mexico-NIP
>> > (2)
>> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_32#Template:CC-AR-Presidency
>> > (3)
>> > http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/02/08/inside-views-brazils-copyright-reform-schizophrenia/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20ip-watch%20%28Intellectual%20Property%20Watch%29
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>



--
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0

Pedro Sanchez-2
In reply to this post by Nikola Smolenski-2
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 1:18 AM, Nikola Smolenski <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Teofilo<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>> Mexico switched from PD to CC-BY-NC-ND in 2006 (1)
>>>> Argentina from CC-BY-SA to CC-BY-NC some time in 2009-2011 (2)
>>>> Brazil removed CC-BY-SA altogether from the culture ministry website
>>>> in early 2011, in a context where the ministry is planning to reform
>>>> the copyright law (3)
>
> And do we have any knowledge on why did this happened?
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

2006 had a cabinet change, new president, new offices, etc.
This happens every 6 years, and each cabinet decides how to publish
their own materials

Having a more business background than previous goverments may have
influenced the change

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0

Birgitte_sb
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge




----- Original Message ----
> From: Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Sun, March 6, 2011 3:54:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian
>governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0
>
> On 03/05/11 8:04 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> > I'll ask the same thing here  that I asked in the other thread and no one
> > responded to, which is, can  someone please provide some concrete examples
of

> > how this issue affects  Wikipedia, rather than discuss the disagreement in
> > purely abstract and  theoretical terms?  Frankly, I have very little idea
> > what the post  below means, which is something I'd like to change as it
> > sounds somewhat  important.
>
> Of these three I would find the Mexican situation to be of  greatest
> concern. Mexico already has extraordinarily long copyright  terms.  It's
> in the ND feature that the potential moral rights problems  lie.  When is
> a derivative sufficiently different to be  defamatory.  What is the
> thinking behind adding the ND parameter. Is it  some vain attempt to
> ensure accuracy, or is there a more insidious  reasoning.

ND also rules out translations

Birgitte SB



     

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0

metasj
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Birgitte SB <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]>
>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Sun, March 6, 2011 3:54:11 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian
>>governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0
>>
>> On 03/05/11 8:04 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
>> > I'll ask the same thing here  that I asked in the other thread and no one
>> > responded to, which is, can  someone please provide some concrete examples
> of
>> > how this issue affects  Wikipedia, rather than discuss the disagreement in
>> > purely abstract and  theoretical terms?  Frankly, I have very little idea
>> > what the post  below means, which is something I'd like to change as it
>> > sounds somewhat  important.
>>
>> Of these three I would find the Mexican situation to be of  greatest
>> concern. Mexico already has extraordinarily long copyright  terms.  It's
>> in the ND feature that the potential moral rights problems  lie.  When is
>> a derivative sufficiently different to be  defamatory.  What is the
>> thinking behind adding the ND parameter. Is it  some vain attempt to
>> ensure accuracy, or is there a more insidious  reasoning.
>
> ND also rules out translations

(I always thought this was a weakness of the original ND idea.  There
were a few long debates within CC about whether to enable translation,
or to have a separate translation-specific flag, which faded out.)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0

Ray Saintonge
On 03/07/11 11:27 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Birgitte SB<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: Ray Saintonge<[hidden email]>
>>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List<[hidden email]>
>>> Sent: Sun, March 6, 2011 3:54:11 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian
>>> governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0
>>>
>>> On 03/05/11 8:04 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
>>>> I'll ask the same thing here  that I asked in the other thread and no one
>>>> responded to, which is, can  someone please provide some concrete examples
>> of
>>>> how this issue affects  Wikipedia, rather than discuss the disagreement in
>>>> purely abstract and  theoretical terms?  Frankly, I have very little idea
>>>> what the post  below means, which is something I'd like to change as it
>>>> sounds somewhat  important.
>>> Of these three I would find the Mexican situation to be of  greatest
>>> concern. Mexico already has extraordinarily long copyright  terms.  It's
>>> in the ND feature that the potential moral rights problems  lie.  When is
>>> a derivative sufficiently different to be  defamatory.  What is the
>>> thinking behind adding the ND parameter. Is it  some vain attempt to
>>> ensure accuracy, or is there a more insidious  reasoning.
>> ND also rules out translations
> (I always thought this was a weakness of the original ND idea.  There
> were a few long debates within CC about whether to enable translation,
> or to have a separate translation-specific flag, which faded out.)

Translation is an important problem, and it is also key to making
material available in less developed languages. Linked with moral rights
it gives too much leeway to those who would claim that a given
translation is defamatory.

It makes me wonder whether big copyright holders would be willing to
give free, translation specific licences into the less common
languages.  They would not want a situation where the free material ends
up being translated back into the original language, but the laughable
quality of that kind of effort may be enough to prevent it.

This may not satisfy the purists, but it would move things in the right
direction.

Ray

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0

Pharos-3
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Translation is an important problem, and it is also key to making
> material available in less developed languages. Linked with moral rights
> it gives too much leeway to those who would claim that a given
> translation is defamatory.
>
> It makes me wonder whether big copyright holders would be willing to
> give free, translation specific licences into the less common
> languages.  They would not want a situation where the free material ends
> up being translated back into the original language, but the laughable
> quality of that kind of effort may be enough to prevent it.
>
> This may not satisfy the purists, but it would move things in the right
> direction.
>
> Ray

I believe this is actually the case in the People's Republic of China,
where translations into national minority languages are explicitly
allowed as an exception under the copyright law.

Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Editor Survey, 2011

Mani Pande
In reply to this post by Birgitte_sb
Hello Everyone,

It is with great pleasure that I would like to inform you that we are in
the process of the launching Wikipedia's second editor survey. The
survey is a redo of the UNU-Merit Survey that the foundation had
conducted last year. The survey covers a variety of topics, but its
primary goal is to understand the needs and participation of the editing
community. You can read more about the objectives of the survey in the
FAQ section in strategy wiki.  The survey will launch in the first week
of April.

If you have more questions about the survey, you can check out the FAQ
space on strategy wiki at:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_survey_feedback_FAQ

If you have any additional questions, please feel free to email me at
[hidden email].

We have also created a space for providing feedback after the survey
launches here: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_survey_feedback

Thanks
Mani

Mani Pande, PhD
Head of Global Development Research
Wikimedia Foundation
Twitter: manipande
Skype: manipande



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Editor Survey, 2011

MZMcBride-2
Mani Pande wrote:
> It is with great pleasure that I would like to inform you that we are in
> the process of the launching Wikipedia's second editor survey. The
> survey is a redo of the UNU-Merit Survey that the foundation had
> conducted last year. The survey covers a variety of topics, but its
> primary goal is to understand the needs and participation of the editing
> community. You can read more about the objectives of the survey in the
> FAQ section in strategy wiki.  The survey will launch in the first week
> of April.

I looked at the survey that's currently being translated:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Editors_Survey_2011/Translation/en

How was this survey written? Who wrote it? Do the author(s) have any
background in surveying?

It seems very long and overly complex. Some of the questions it asks seem
unnecessary given that you could query the information based on the user
providing the input. Will the username of the person being surveyed be
recorded and stored? If so, for how long? (I know you talked about releasing
only anonymized data, but I imagine plenty of people would like to know how
many people such as sysadmins or those administering the survey will have
access to this data and for how long, if it's being stored at all.)

The survey also seems to use some language that won't translate very easily
(if at all) into other languages. Terminology and phrasing are particularly
important in surveying, so this seems more important than it typically would
be.

If a user starts the survey, gets bored, and doesn't finish it, will the
results be partially saved?

Can a user choose not to answer particular questions? For example, if a user
did not want to answer the gender question, can it simply be skipped? If it
can be skipped, is this recorded as a skip ("I choose not to answer")?

What survey software is going to be used to conduct the survey (and where
will it be hosted)? I remember one of the past surveys used some
particularly bad software that wouldn't allow simple user behavior, such as
hitting the back button on your browser.

Is the survey software smart enough to not ask questions if a previous
question has been answered in a particular way? For example, if a user
answers "no" to participating in future surveys, will the software still ask
for an e-mail address?

Why is it an option to choose "unregistered user" if the survey is only
being provided to registered users?

Certain terms in the draft are in bold (e.g., "Global South"). Will these be
in bold/highlighted in the published survey? If so, why?

A question about a user's sexual orientation is conspicuously missing (given
that several other questions reference sexual orientation). Was this an
intentional omission? If so, why?

Is there a concern that a question such as "Do you know whether the
Wikimedia Foundation that runs Wikipedia is a nonprofit or for-profit
organization?" might have biased results given that the survey introduction
specifically notes that the Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit
[organization]?

Some questions will presumably have a long list of possible answers (e.g.,
"What is/are your primary language(s)?"). Will the order of these possible
answers be alphabetical, based on referring wiki (put English at the top for
users who come from the English Wikipedia), or something else?

Will referring site be tracked (assuming this survey is conducted on a
separate domain)?

Is there a reason only Wikipedia is being targeted? It seems to me that
figuring out why other projects have such lower rates of participation would
be pretty important/valuable information, for example. And is there a reason
the page at the strategy wiki isn't more clear about the fact that this is
limited to a specific wiki family (i.e., "Editor survey feedback" vs.
"Wikipedia editor survey feedback")?

Who will be in charge of determining which data is released and how? If a
data trend is embarrassing to the Wikimedia Foundation, there might be an
incentive to not release that data. Is there a way to combat this? Who has
final say over what information is released?

Apologies for the slew of questions. I skimmed the FAQ, but didn't see any
of these answered. If I've simply missed some of these answers and they're
posted elsewhere, feel free to just drop a link as a reply. :-)

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Editor Survey, 2011

Keegan Peterzell
Mani, meet MZMcBride.  MZMcBride, meet Mani.

--
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Editor Survey, 2011

Guillaume Paumier-3
In reply to this post by Mani Pande
Hi,

Le lundi 07 mars 2011 à 16:28 -0800, Mani Pande a écrit :
>
> It is with great pleasure that I would like to inform you that we are in
> the process of the launching Wikipedia's second editor survey. The
> survey is a redo of the UNU-Merit Survey that the foundation had
> conducted last year.

I realize it's a detail, but for the sake of accuracy (and so people
don't wonder about a more recent survey they haven't heard of): the
UNU-Merit survey was conducted in late 2008, not in 2010.

http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2009/04/16/first-preliminary-results-from-unu-merit-survey-of-wikipedia-readers-and-contributors-available/

As a sidenote, I agree a FAQ about the survey would be useful (and would
be a good time investment). MZMcBride did half the work already by
asking the questions :)

--
Guillaume Paumier


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Editor Survey, 2011

Guillaume Paumier-3
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
Hi,

Le jeudi 10 mars 2011 à 02:00 -0500, MZMcBride a écrit :
>
> Apologies for the slew of questions. I skimmed the FAQ, but didn't see any
> of these answered.

I've added some of these questions to the FAQ page; I cherry-picked
those that I thought would be really "frequently asked", based on my
personal experience with Wikimedians.

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_survey_FAQ

Questions I left out seemed to be (constructive) feedback rather than
common questions, so they should probably go on the feedback page:

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_survey_feedback

--
Guillaume Paumier


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Editor Survey, 2011

KIZU Naoko
Thank you Guillaume,

and all those who are in charge, please give a look to translators-l
archives (if possible, join it)! There our volunteer translators are
looking forward replies for more accurate translations.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Guillaume Paumier
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Le jeudi 10 mars 2011 à 02:00 -0500, MZMcBride a écrit :
>>
>> Apologies for the slew of questions. I skimmed the FAQ, but didn't see any
>> of these answered.
>
> I've added some of these questions to the FAQ page; I cherry-picked
> those that I thought would be really "frequently asked", based on my
> personal experience with Wikimedians.
>
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_survey_FAQ
>
> Questions I left out seemed to be (constructive) feedback rather than
> common questions, so they should probably go on the feedback page:
>
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_survey_feedback
>
> --
> Guillaume Paumier
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子
member of Wikimedians in Kansai  / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12