Re: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?

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

Re: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?

David Gerard-2
On 14/11/06, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> (...and perhaps we can make the pertinent point, without whining too
> much, which led some people to consider this option: overwhelming
> copyvios and underwhelming supply of labour.)


I recall that when en:wp was having problems with vandalism of the
Main Page featured article image, Commons admins were remarkably
difficult to find. So some asked "could we have an admin on en: made
an admin on Commons for this reason?" and got back "well, why don't
you make all Commons admins admins on en: first."

Some people in the Commons community seem to want it both ways. Is
Commons an entirely independent project or does it, as a service
project, need to open itself up to administration by people from other
projects to keep up with its actual original purpose?

This discussion appears to demonstrate Commons simply isn't making
admins through its own processes anywhere near fast enough and its
processes need radical revision.


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?

Jan Kulveit
Hi,

On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:30:13AM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
...
> This discussion appears to demonstrate Commons simply isn't making
> admins through its own processes anywhere near fast enough and its
> processes need radical revision.
>
...

for me,  this disscussion again clearly demonstrates the principal
problem that not  everybody understands the mission of Commons in
the same way.
There are basically two main alternatives

A. Commons as free media library. In a way, free counterpart to
stock media agencies and the like. Such libraries have much added value
compared to the "raw material" - description, tagging, categories, some
copyright inspection, possibly some quality checks.

In this case, Commons are viable as an independent project, which may
attract it's own community. Helping to build and improve such library
may be interesting.

B. Commons as a Wikimedia-wide file storage facility. Main requirement
on storage is security (so a file doesn't suddenly disappear) and
maybe ease of access (so any wikimedian can upload a file without much
knowledge of commons).
The "sweet part" is, the file storage is still expected to have some
functions demanding expensive human resources: 1. copyright inspection.
 
In this case, IMO Commons are not viable as independent project.
I can hardly imagine people who would be interested in doing
copyright inspection of what would be, in quality terms, mostly pile
of poorly described rubbish, dumped from Wikipedias in high speed.

As in this alternative commons are IMO not self-sustainable as a
community, Commons tasks would have to be somehow adopted as another
janitorial task by other Wikimedia projects (those with a mission
which is able to attract people).

Jan Kulveit [[User:Wikimol]]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?

Brad Patrick
Commons exists to be a repository for free culture *and* to serve as
an inter-wiki storage medium for *free* media.  it is not a place to
dump stuff, nor is it a place which exists independently of other
wikis.

Copyright violations are not a minor or trivial problem.  They are a
serious problem, for which we are obligated to act when they are
properly brought to our attention.  This is all nothing new.

If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media
in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is
not cool immediately.

-BradP

On 11/14/06, Jan Kulveit <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:30:13AM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
> ...
> > This discussion appears to demonstrate Commons simply isn't making
> > admins through its own processes anywhere near fast enough and its
> > processes need radical revision.
> >
> ...
>
> for me,  this disscussion again clearly demonstrates the principal
> problem that not  everybody understands the mission of Commons in
> the same way.
> There are basically two main alternatives
>
> A. Commons as free media library. In a way, free counterpart to
> stock media agencies and the like. Such libraries have much added value
> compared to the "raw material" - description, tagging, categories, some
> copyright inspection, possibly some quality checks.
>
> In this case, Commons are viable as an independent project, which may
> attract it's own community. Helping to build and improve such library
> may be interesting.
>
> B. Commons as a Wikimedia-wide file storage facility. Main requirement
> on storage is security (so a file doesn't suddenly disappear) and
> maybe ease of access (so any wikimedian can upload a file without much
> knowledge of commons).
> The "sweet part" is, the file storage is still expected to have some
> functions demanding expensive human resources: 1. copyright inspection.
>
> In this case, IMO Commons are not viable as independent project.
> I can hardly imagine people who would be interested in doing
> copyright inspection of what would be, in quality terms, mostly pile
> of poorly described rubbish, dumped from Wikipedias in high speed.
>
> As in this alternative commons are IMO not self-sustainable as a
> community, Commons tasks would have to be somehow adopted as another
> janitorial task by other Wikimedia projects (those with a mission
> which is able to attract people).
>
> Jan Kulveit [[User:Wikimol]]
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
[hidden email]
727-231-0101
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?

David Gerard-2
On 14/11/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Commons exists to be a repository for free culture *and* to serve as
> an inter-wiki storage medium for *free* media.  it is not a place to
> dump stuff, nor is it a place which exists independently of other
> wikis.
> Copyright violations are not a minor or trivial problem.  They are a
> serious problem, for which we are obligated to act when they are
> properly brought to our attention.  This is all nothing new.
> If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media
> in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is
> not cool immediately.


There isn't anyone advocating that; this discussion started with a
Commons admin threatening to block all es:wp users from Commons to
stop copyvios from es:wp, because the Commons admins can't keep up,
evidently because their admin process is strict enough that pretty
much no-one even bothers trying.


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?

Brad Patrick
Or, the es.wp users are all not aware of the restrictions on what is
acceptable. Your earlier post appeared to support the es.wp position.
This is a problem that should be handled at the source, not creating
better tools to fix what should not be happening in the first place.
If, say, 90% of the material being uploaded is against the grain, why
should we not try to fix the problem at the source?  We are clearly
not doing a good enough job explaning what is okay and what is not if
this kind of situation has evolved.

On 11/14/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 14/11/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Commons exists to be a repository for free culture *and* to serve as
> > an inter-wiki storage medium for *free* media.  it is not a place to
> > dump stuff, nor is it a place which exists independently of other
> > wikis.
> > Copyright violations are not a minor or trivial problem.  They are a
> > serious problem, for which we are obligated to act when they are
> > properly brought to our attention.  This is all nothing new.
> > If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media
> > in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is
> > not cool immediately.
>
>
> There isn't anyone advocating that; this discussion started with a
> Commons admin threatening to block all es:wp users from Commons to
> stop copyvios from es:wp, because the Commons admins can't keep up,
> evidently because their admin process is strict enough that pretty
> much no-one even bothers trying.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
[hidden email]
727-231-0101
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Brad Patrick
On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media
> in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is
> not cool immediately.
>
Of course we advocate housing copyrighted media in commons.  Commons
is not limited to public domain material.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?

geni
In reply to this post by Brad Patrick
On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Or, the es.wp users are all not aware of the restrictions on what is
> acceptable.

On en.pedia we have tried asking, explaining, pleading, beging and
threatening and still the copyvios come.

Rather a lot of the internet doesn't care about copyright. They want
their image of dancing pigs and will lie to us to get it.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?

Birgitte_sb
In reply to this post by Brad Patrick
Is it 90%?  I haven't seen anyone actually define what
the problem is on foundation-l at least.  Is it images
with no info, or false info?   Or is just that the new
users aren't using Commons category system unrelated
to copyright?  I tried to read the Commons-l archive
to catch up, but I am still unclear on what scope of
the problem is.  Does anyone actually have numbers?  

Without really knowing the situation, I would say that
I believe all communities struggle to keep up on these
things.  Everyone has backlogs they are working
through and these things happen in cycles.  One month
you make great progress, another month things are
overwhelming and ground is lost.  Perhaps threatening
drastic action is a good way to draw attention and
hopefully solutions when the situation gets
particularly bad.  However I think it would really be
useful to talk about the real numbers in this
situation. How much worse is it than what others are
dealing with?

Birgitte SB

--- Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Or, the es.wp users are all not aware of the
> restrictions on what is
> acceptable. Your earlier post appeared to support
> the es.wp position.
> This is a problem that should be handled at the
> source, not creating
> better tools to fix what should not be happening in
> the first place.
> If, say, 90% of the material being uploaded is
> against the grain, why
> should we not try to fix the problem at the source?
> We are clearly
> not doing a good enough job explaning what is okay
> and what is not if
> this kind of situation has evolved.
>
> On 11/14/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 14/11/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Commons exists to be a repository for free
> culture *and* to serve as
> > > an inter-wiki storage medium for *free* media.
> it is not a place to
> > > dump stuff, nor is it a place which exists
> independently of other
> > > wikis.
> > > Copyright violations are not a minor or trivial
> problem.  They are a
> > > serious problem, for which we are obligated to
> act when they are
> > > properly brought to our attention.  This is all
> nothing new.
> > > If there are Wikimedians who are advocating
> housing copyrighted media
> > > in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get
> clear on why that is
> > > not cool immediately.
> >
> >
> > There isn't anyone advocating that; this
> discussion started with a
> > Commons admin threatening to block all es:wp users
> from Commons to
> > stop copyvios from es:wp, because the Commons
> admins can't keep up,
> > evidently because their admin process is strict
> enough that pretty
> > much no-one even bothers trying.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> >
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> >
>
>
> --
> Brad Patrick
> General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> [hidden email]
> 727-231-0101
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?

Erica Flynn
In my opinion there are 2 basic problems with images:
1. Image copyright and various Wikimedia policies are very complicated. Most
people have no understanding of them or don't even know they exist.
2. (A lesser problem), people who just upload pictures of themselves for the
heck of it, with or without malicious intent. This includes vandals and
people who want a free webhost.

I'm an admin on en:wp and have done a fair share of image cleanup. But even
after reading the image policy pages multiple times, I still feel like I
only have maybe a 40% grasp on all the concepts. I don't think we can or
should make image policy "simpler" (for legal or whatever other
reasons), and I don't have any quick answers. We just have to remain
vigilant and fix the problems as they arise. That said, if anyone has ideas
I'm all ears. The image delete backlogs are always huge.

Erica
User:Fang Aili on various Wikimedia




On 11/14/06, Birgitte SB <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Is it 90%?  I haven't seen anyone actually define what
> the problem is on foundation-l at least.  Is it images
> with no info, or false info?   Or is just that the new
> users aren't using Commons category system unrelated
> to copyright?  I tried to read the Commons-l archive
> to catch up, but I am still unclear on what scope of
> the problem is.  Does anyone actually have numbers?
>
> Without really knowing the situation, I would say that
> I believe all communities struggle to keep up on these
> things.  Everyone has backlogs they are working
> through and these things happen in cycles.  One month
> you make great progress, another month things are
> overwhelming and ground is lost.  Perhaps threatening
> drastic action is a good way to draw attention and
> hopefully solutions when the situation gets
> particularly bad.  However I think it would really be
> useful to talk about the real numbers in this
> situation. How much worse is it than what others are
> dealing with?
>
> Birgitte SB
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by geni
geni wrote:

> On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Or, the es.wp users are all not aware of the restrictions on what is
>> acceptable.
>
> On en.pedia we have tried asking, explaining, pleading, beging and
> threatening and still the copyvios come.
>
> Rather a lot of the internet doesn't care about copyright. They want
> their image of dancing pigs and will lie to us to get it.
>
Now *that* is a mixed metaphor!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_pigs

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (581 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by Anthony DiPierro
Anthony wrote:
> On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media
>> in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is
>> not cool immediately.
>>
> Of course we advocate housing copyrighted media in commons.  Commons
> is not limited to public domain material.
>

... permission to stab him, please?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (581 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?

James Hare
Technically, anything that isn't public domain is copyrighted. Even if it's
GFDLed.

But generally in a Wikimedia context, when people say "copyrighted" they're
referring to the icky all-rights-reserved stuff.

On 11/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Anthony wrote:
> > On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media
> >> in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is
> >> not cool immediately.
> >>
> > Of course we advocate housing copyrighted media in commons.  Commons
> > is not limited to public domain material.
> >
>
> ... permission to stab him, please?
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Alphax (Wikipedia email)
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

> Anthony wrote:
>  
>> On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>    
>>> If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media
>>> in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is
>>> not cool immediately.
>>>
>>>      
>> Of course we advocate housing copyrighted media in commons.  Commons
>> is not limited to public domain material.
>>
>>    
>
> ... permission to stab him, please?
Hoi,
All if not most material is copyrighted PD is not. We want material on
Commons that is Freely licensed which is a separate thing. So close but
no cigar.
Thanks,
   GerardM
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by James Hare
On 11/14/06, James Hare <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Technically, anything that isn't public domain is copyrighted. Even if it's
> GFDLed.
>
> But generally in a Wikimedia context, when people say "copyrighted" they're
> referring to the icky all-rights-reserved stuff.
>
And therein lies one of the big problems, as what constitutes "the
icky all-rights-reserved stuff" is much harder to define and explain
to people than "copyrighted media".

Simply referring to "the icky all-rights-reserved stuff" as
"copyrighted" only serves to confuse people more.  I hope that's not
what was happening here.

Anthony

> On 11/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Anthony wrote:
> > > On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >> If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media
> > >> in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is
> > >> not cool immediately.
> > >>
> > > Of course we advocate housing copyrighted media in commons.  Commons
> > > is not limited to public domain material.
> > >
> >
> > ... permission to stab him, please?
> >
> > --
> > Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> > Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> > "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> > Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?

Brad Patrick
I was sloppy and using shorthand.  Commons has differently licensed
material on it than PD alone, however, we are restrictive in which
licenses are acceptable.  That should not be controversial, even to
you, Anthony.

On 11/15/06, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 11/14/06, James Hare <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Technically, anything that isn't public domain is copyrighted. Even if it's
> > GFDLed.
> >
> > But generally in a Wikimedia context, when people say "copyrighted" they're
> > referring to the icky all-rights-reserved stuff.
> >
> And therein lies one of the big problems, as what constitutes "the
> icky all-rights-reserved stuff" is much harder to define and explain
> to people than "copyrighted media".
>
> Simply referring to "the icky all-rights-reserved stuff" as
> "copyrighted" only serves to confuse people more.  I hope that's not
> what was happening here.
>
> Anthony
>
> > On 11/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Anthony wrote:
> > > > On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >> If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media
> > > >> in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is
> > > >> not cool immediately.
> > > >>
> > > > Of course we advocate housing copyrighted media in commons.  Commons
> > > > is not limited to public domain material.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ... permission to stab him, please?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> > > Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> > > "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> > > Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
[hidden email]
727-231-0101
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?

Anthony DiPierro
On 11/15/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I was sloppy and using shorthand.  Commons has differently licensed
> material on it than PD alone, however, we are restrictive in which
> licenses are acceptable.  That should not be controversial, even to
> you, Anthony.

No, it isn't.  What's controversial is which licenses are indeed acceptable.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l