[Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
79 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Isaac Olatunde
I am not in anyway surprise at this nonsensical behavior of Yann.

This user once posted a misleading information about me and when asked to
correct it they issued a block threat.

It's just terrible.

Isaac

On Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:46 PM David Gerard <[hidden email] wrote:

> Yann, you SERIOUSLY need to back up this claim of "dishonesty" on the
> part of a Wikmedian of long experience.  Your assumption of bad faith
> here is stupendous.
>
> You can't simultaneously complain of the workload, then work this hard
> to drive people away.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 05:10, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > This was reverted. It is a dishonest edit with a misleading summary.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yann
> > Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> > https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> > +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> >
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:59, Andrew Lih <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> >
> > > This episode exposes a policy of Commons that may be unknown to many
> folks
> > > - the precautionary principle.
> > >
> > > It is an explicit exception to assuming good faith, so I noted this on
> the
> > > AGF page on Commons.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&oldid=prev&diff=349650525
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 10:23 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
> > > >
> > > >   *   Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most
> of
> > > the
> > > > Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place
> is
> > > > unfair and nonsense.
> > > >   *   Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to
> > > think
> > > > on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying
> to
> > > > convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't
> know
> > > how
> > > > to communicate and why they must do it.
> > > >   *   The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
> > > > author. Period.
> > > >   *   Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying
> which
> > > is
> > > > the original work is not a good practice.
> > > >   *   Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
> > > > job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this
> can
> > > > take a whole year of volunteer work.
> > > >   *   After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was
> > > able
> > > > to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
> > > >
> > > > Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have
> > > less
> > > > problems.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > Galder
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l <[hidden email]> on
> behalf of
> > > > Vi to <[hidden email]>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
> > > >
> > > > I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete
> images
> > > on
> > > > commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
> > > from
> > > > cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
> > > >
> > > > Vito
> > > >
> > > > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
> [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > ha scritto:
> > > >
> > > > > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons
> interested in
> > > > > having more admins?
> > > > >
> > > > > James
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay
> for
> > > > > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > > > > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > > > > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to
> see
> > > > > > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > > > > > reduced.[1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > > > > > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make
> mass
> > > > > > housekeeping very easy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic
> image
> > > > > > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a
> Commons
> > > hat
> > > > > > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use
> than
> > > > > > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to
> suck
> > > > > > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long,
> that
> > > > > > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > > > > > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive
> short
> > > > > > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the
> useful
> > > > > > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Links
> > > > > > 1.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > > > > > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fae
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
> > > support
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <
> [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with
> the
> > > > > > amount of
> > > > > > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing
> or
> > > > > capable
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all
> > > undeleted.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing
> several
> > > > > > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page
> > > describing
> > > > > > what it
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you
> can
> > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > See:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes
> with
> > > > > > Common's
> > > > > > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to
> promote
> > > > you
> > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > similar.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for
> uploaders,
> > > but
> > > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright
> > > > violating
> > > > > > > > files a
> > > > > > > > > > day:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have
> to
> > > > cope
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and
> after
> > > > some
> > > > > > time -
> > > > > > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves...
> and the
> > > > > other
> > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
> > > > screening
> > > > > > > > uploads
> > > > > > > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> napisał(a):
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Hello all,
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
> > > > Commons
> > > > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia
> > > Commons: a
> > > > > > highly
> > > > > > > > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at
> the
> > > > > > Education
> > > > > > > > > >> Newsletter
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an
> Outreach
> > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and
> comeone
> > > on
> > > > > > Commons
> > > > > > > > > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be
> > > student
> > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some
> > > rather
> > > > > odd
> > > > > > > > > remarks
> > > > > > > > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of
> > > uploaded
> > > > > > > > > copyrighted
> > > > > > > > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco
> that
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > care."
> > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free
> cloud
> > > > > storage
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Thrapostibongles
> > > > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > > > >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >> Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > >> <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > > > > > > > > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> and
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> and
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Amir (he/him)
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > James Heilman
> > > > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > --
> > > -Andrew Lih
> > > Author of The Wikipedia Revolution
> > > US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016)
> > > Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015)
> > > Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM
> > > Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American
> > > University, Columbia University, USC
> > > ---
> > > Email: [hidden email]
> > > WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado
> > > PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Vi to
In reply to this post by Paulo Santos Perneta
Many are.
I've always been in favour of a "do what you think you can do under your
responsibility"-model.

Any steward can do any action, still they don't do what they are not
familiar with. For example I seldom use central notice.


Vito

Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 22:28 Paulo Santos Perneta <
[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> Anyone doing Commons stuff has to do have Commons skills. Wikipedia sysops
> are not asked to have them, and do not have them by default.
>
> If Wikipedia sysops that deal with copyright want to be Commons admins,
> they can apply anytime for that role. Otherwise, render to Caesar the
> things that are Caesar's.
>
> Paulo
>
>
> Vi to <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia domingo, 12/05/2019 à(s)
> 21:13:
>
> > Major projects surely deal with a significant amount of uploads in an
> > efficient way.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 17:31 Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > [hidden email]> ha scritto:
> >
> > > I absolutely disagree with this. A Wikipedia sysop do not necessarily
> > has -
> > > and from my experience, most of the time hasn't - the necessary skills
> to
> > > deal with copyright.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > > A domingo, 12 de mai de 2019, 14:35, Vi to <[hidden email]>
> > > escreveu:
> > >
> > > > I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete
> images
> > > on
> > > > commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
> > > from
> > > > cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
> > > >
> > > > Vito
> > > >
> > > > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > ha scritto:
> > > >
> > > > > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested
> > in
> > > > > having more admins?
> > > > >
> > > > > James
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay
> for
> > > > > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > > > > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > > > > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to
> > see
> > > > > > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > > > > > reduced.[1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > > > > > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make
> > mass
> > > > > > housekeeping very easy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic
> image
> > > > > > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a
> Commons
> > > hat
> > > > > > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use
> > than
> > > > > > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to
> > suck
> > > > > > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long,
> > that
> > > > > > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > > > > > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive
> > short
> > > > > > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the
> useful
> > > > > > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Links
> > > > > > 1.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > > > > > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fae
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
> > > support
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with
> > the
> > > > > > amount of
> > > > > > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing
> or
> > > > > capable
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all
> > > undeleted.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing
> > several
> > > > > > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page
> > > describing
> > > > > > what it
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you
> > can
> > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > See:
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes
> > with
> > > > > > Common's
> > > > > > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to
> > promote
> > > > you
> > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > similar.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for
> uploaders,
> > > but
> > > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright
> > > > violating
> > > > > > > > files a
> > > > > > > > > > day:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have
> to
> > > > cope
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and
> after
> > > > some
> > > > > > time -
> > > > > > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and
> > the
> > > > > other
> > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
> > > > screening
> > > > > > > > uploads
> > > > > > > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> napisał(a):
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Hello all,
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
> > > > Commons
> > > > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia
> > > Commons: a
> > > > > > highly
> > > > > > > > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at
> > the
> > > > > > Education
> > > > > > > > > >> Newsletter
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an
> > Outreach
> > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and
> comeone
> > > on
> > > > > > Commons
> > > > > > > > > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be
> > > student
> > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some
> > > rather
> > > > > odd
> > > > > > > > > remarks
> > > > > > > > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of
> > > uploaded
> > > > > > > > > copyrighted
> > > > > > > > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco
> that
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > care."
> > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free
> cloud
> > > > > storage
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Thrapostibongles
> > > > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > > > >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >> Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > >> <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > > > > > > > > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> and
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> and
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Amir (he/him)
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > James Heilman
> > > > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Yann Forget-3
In reply to this post by John Erling Blad
Hi,

Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously
published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
OTRS.

Regards,
Yann Forget
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)



Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 16:56, John Erling Blad <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> I can imagine a bot comparing photos found by Google (ie. comparing
> hashes) but not a system extracting some kind of unique feature that
> says an image is a copyright violation. So how do you imagine ORES
> being used for copyright violations? I can't see how a copyright
> violation would have any kind of feature that is exclusive? The
> argument is quite simple; I as a photographer for a newspaper could
> take the exact same pictures as I as an amateur photographer. (I have
> photographed a lot for various newspapers.) Using the same equipment,
> and me being me, what is different?
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:21 PM Amir Sarabadani <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for
> > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> amount of
> > > material it has to deal with.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Yaroslav
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable
> to
> > > do
> > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > >
> > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > GLAM-related
> > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> what it
> > > > is
> > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> create a
> > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > >
> > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > >
> > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> Common's
> > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> > > project
> > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
> > > > similar.
> > > > >
> > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
> the
> > > > other
> > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> > > files a
> > > > > day:
> > > > >
> > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > >
> > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
> with
> > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
> time -
> > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
> > > issue
> > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
> > > uploads
> > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > [hidden email]> napisał(a):
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hello all,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
> > > > components
> > > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
> highly
> > > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
> Education
> > > > >> Newsletter
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
> project
> > > > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
> Commons
> > > > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
> projects
> > > > and
> > > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather odd
> > > > remarks
> > > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
> > > > copyrighted
> > > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't
> > > care."
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage
> for
> > > > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thrapostibongles
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > >> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > ,
> > > > >> <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > > > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> > > > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Amir (he/him)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

John Erling Blad
Again; what is different between me as a photographer taking pictures for a
newspaper and me as a photograper taking pictures for Commons? Is it the
name written om the lens? The shoes I'm wearing?

There are no difference, this is a fallacy.

John Erling Blad
/jeblad


tir. 14. mai 2019, 05.50 skrev Yann Forget <[hidden email]>:

> Hi,
>
> Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously
> published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> OTRS.
>
> Regards,
> Yann Forget
> Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
>
>
>
> Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 16:56, John Erling Blad <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> > I can imagine a bot comparing photos found by Google (ie. comparing
> > hashes) but not a system extracting some kind of unique feature that
> > says an image is a copyright violation. So how do you imagine ORES
> > being used for copyright violations? I can't see how a copyright
> > violation would have any kind of feature that is exclusive? The
> > argument is quite simple; I as a photographer for a newspaper could
> > take the exact same pictures as I as an amateur photographer. (I have
> > photographed a lot for various newspapers.) Using the same equipment,
> > and me being me, what is different?
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:21 PM Amir Sarabadani <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> for
> > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > amount of
> > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> capable
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > what it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > create a
> > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > Common's
> > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> > > > project
> > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> something
> > > > > similar.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
> > the
> > > > > other
> > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> > > > files a
> > > > > > day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
> > with
> > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
> > time -
> > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
> other
> > > > issue
> > > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
> > > > uploads
> > > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > > [hidden email]> napisał(a):
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hello all,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
> > > > > components
> > > > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
> > highly
> > > > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
> > Education
> > > > > >> Newsletter
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
> > project
> > > > > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
> > Commons
> > > > > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
> > projects
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather
> odd
> > > > > remarks
> > > > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
> > > > > copyrighted
> > > > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
> doesn't
> > > > care."
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
> storage
> > for
> > > > > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thrapostibongles
> > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > >> Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > > ,
> > > > > >> <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > > > > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> > > > > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Amir (he/him)
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Yann Forget-3
The issue is not in that way.
If you published an image exclusively on Commons, then no problem.
If you first publish an image outside Commons, how do we know that you are
the author?
OK, there may be some factors to prove that (consistency of EXIF data,
etc.), but in the absence of EXIF data, we the issue remain.

Regards,
Yann
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)



Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 10:00, John Erling Blad <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> Again; what is different between me as a photographer taking pictures for a
> newspaper and me as a photograper taking pictures for Commons? Is it the
> name written om the lens? The shoes I'm wearing?
>
> There are no difference, this is a fallacy.
>
> John Erling Blad
> /jeblad
>
>
> tir. 14. mai 2019, 05.50 skrev Yann Forget <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously
> > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> > OTRS.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yann Forget
> > Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> > https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> > +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> >
> >
> >
> > Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 16:56, John Erling Blad <[hidden email]> a
> écrit :
> >
> > > I can imagine a bot comparing photos found by Google (ie. comparing
> > > hashes) but not a system extracting some kind of unique feature that
> > > says an image is a copyright violation. So how do you imagine ORES
> > > being used for copyright violations? I can't see how a copyright
> > > violation would have any kind of feature that is exclusive? The
> > > argument is quite simple; I as a photographer for a newspaper could
> > > take the exact same pictures as I as an amateur photographer. (I have
> > > photographed a lot for various newspapers.) Using the same equipment,
> > > and me being me, what is different?
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:21 PM Amir Sarabadani <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> > for
> > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > > amount of
> > > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> > capable
> > > to
> > > > > do
> > > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > > what it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > > create a
> > > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > > Common's
> > > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote
> you
> > > > > project
> > > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> > something
> > > > > > similar.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright
> violating
> > > > > files a
> > > > > > > day:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
> cope
> > > with
> > > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
> some
> > > time -
> > > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
> > other
> > > > > issue
> > > > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
> screening
> > > > > uploads
> > > > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]> napisał(a):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Hello all,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
> Commons
> > > > > > components
> > > > > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
> > > highly
> > > > > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
> > > Education
> > > > > > >> Newsletter
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
> > > project
> > > > > > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
> > > Commons
> > > > > > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
> > > projects
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather
> > odd
> > > > > > remarks
> > > > > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
> > > > > > copyrighted
> > > > > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
> > doesn't
> > > > > care."
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
> > storage
> > > for
> > > > > > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thrapostibongles
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > > > ,
> > > > > > >> <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > > > > > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> > > > > > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Amir (he/him)
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
In this case none of the images and videos were published outside Commons. But there were claims that this were Derivative Works. We are again in the same point: we are asking for uploaders to fulfill something beyond the usual uploading duties.
________________________________
From: Wikimedia-l <[hidden email]> on behalf of Yann Forget <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 6:43 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

The issue is not in that way.
If you published an image exclusively on Commons, then no problem.
If you first publish an image outside Commons, how do we know that you are
the author?
OK, there may be some factors to prove that (consistency of EXIF data,
etc.), but in the absence of EXIF data, we the issue remain.

Regards,
Yann
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)



Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 10:00, John Erling Blad <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> Again; what is different between me as a photographer taking pictures for a
> newspaper and me as a photograper taking pictures for Commons? Is it the
> name written om the lens? The shoes I'm wearing?
>
> There are no difference, this is a fallacy.
>
> John Erling Blad
> /jeblad
>
>
> tir. 14. mai 2019, 05.50 skrev Yann Forget <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously
> > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> > OTRS.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yann Forget
> > Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> > https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> > +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> >
> >
> >
> > Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 16:56, John Erling Blad <[hidden email]> a
> écrit :
> >
> > > I can imagine a bot comparing photos found by Google (ie. comparing
> > > hashes) but not a system extracting some kind of unique feature that
> > > says an image is a copyright violation. So how do you imagine ORES
> > > being used for copyright violations? I can't see how a copyright
> > > violation would have any kind of feature that is exclusive? The
> > > argument is quite simple; I as a photographer for a newspaper could
> > > take the exact same pictures as I as an amateur photographer. (I have
> > > photographed a lot for various newspapers.) Using the same equipment,
> > > and me being me, what is different?
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:21 PM Amir Sarabadani <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> > for
> > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > > amount of
> > > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> > capable
> > > to
> > > > > do
> > > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > > what it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > > create a
> > > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > > Common's
> > > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote
> you
> > > > > project
> > > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> > something
> > > > > > similar.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright
> violating
> > > > > files a
> > > > > > > day:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
> cope
> > > with
> > > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
> some
> > > time -
> > > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
> > other
> > > > > issue
> > > > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
> screening
> > > > > uploads
> > > > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]> napisał(a):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Hello all,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
> Commons
> > > > > > components
> > > > > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
> > > highly
> > > > > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
> > > Education
> > > > > > >> Newsletter
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
> > > project
> > > > > > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
> > > Commons
> > > > > > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
> > > projects
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather
> > odd
> > > > > > remarks
> > > > > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
> > > > > > copyrighted
> > > > > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
> > doesn't
> > > > > care."
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
> > storage
> > > for
> > > > > > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thrapostibongles
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > > > ,
> > > > > > >> <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > > > > > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> > > > > > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Amir (he/him)
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Fæ
In reply to this post by Mister Thrapostibongles
Any image recognition system has the potential to be misused. What we
imagined was flagging images for the later attention of volunteers to
look at.

A simple image hash might just be the basis for identifying potential
close matches to previously deleted files or derivatives of existing
Commons hosted files. These benefits could be delivered without any
reliance on external databases.

The Article 17 aspect is from my perspective a large tangent. The WMF
opposing those systems does not stop us from using automation and
databases to identify potential copyright issues for our own purposes.

Fae

On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 20:44, Mister Thrapostibongles
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Fae,
>
> I think that what you are describing is essentially the sort of mechanism
> that would be mandated by Article 17 on the proposed new European copyright
> directive.  Since the Foundation has explicitly opposed that, see their
> blog post
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/03/26/european-parliament-limits-internet-freedom-in-controversial-copyright-vote/
> I
> presume that they will not permit the use of such an automated system on
> their projects.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 12:41 PM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > reduced.[1]
> >
> > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > housekeeping very easy.
> >
> > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
> > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> >
> > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> >
> > Links
> > 1.
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for
> > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > amount of
> > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > what it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > create a
> > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > Common's
> > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> > > > project
> > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
> > > > > similar.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
> > the
> > > > > other
> > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> > > > files a
> > > > > > day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
> > with
> > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
> > time -
> > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
> > > > issue
> > > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
> > > > uploads
> > > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > > [hidden email]> napisał(a):
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hello all,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
> > > > > components
> > > > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
> > highly
> > > > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
> > Education
> > > > > >> Newsletter
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
> > project
> > > > > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
> > Commons
> > > > > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
> > projects
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather odd
> > > > > remarks
> > > > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
> > > > > copyrighted
> > > > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't
> > > > care."
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage
> > for
> > > > > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thrapostibongles
> > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > >> Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > > ,
> > > > > >> <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > > > > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> > > > > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Amir (he/him)
> > > _______________________________________________
> > [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Andy Mabbett-2
In reply to this post by Yann Forget-3
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously
> published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.

Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?

Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should
publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons

> I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> OTRS.

Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would
gather support.

[snip quote of the entire thread to date]

Will *everyone* please stop doing that?

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Andy Mabbett-2
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
> On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 05:10, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > This was reverted. It is a dishonest edit with a misleading summary

On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 17:46, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yann, you SERIOUSLY need to back up this claim of "dishonesty" on the
> part of a Wikmedian of long experience.  Your assumption of bad faith
> here is stupendous.

I too would like to see Yann's justfictation for this claim; and for
his on-wiki post threatening Andrew with a block.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Philip Kopetzky
In reply to this post by metasj
I really think that the main problem here is not automation but the problem
Asaf pointed out: A small circle of people dictating the rules and who's
allowed to participate and who isn't. Automation just perpetuates the cycle
of those same people being in control of those processes.

On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 17:08, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I love this thread.  Thank you to all participating in it...
>
> Also: speeding these things with automation is also much easier once there
> is a quarantine where anyone can see flagged material without being an
> admin!   SJ
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 7:39 AM John Erling Blad <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > This is wrong: "The upload system allow you to upload something if you
> > are the author. Period."
> >
> > The system as it is now will allow anyone to upload a file given (s)he
> > has the necessary rights. That does not imply the uploader being the
> > author of the material.
> >
> > Note that verifying whether the uploaded material already exist out on
> > the web must be done before the file is made public, otherwise any
> > attempt on detecting a copyviolation will fail. That would imply that
> > a copyvio algorithm must be automated. The questionable material could
> > still be uploaded, but then a permission should be forwarded to OTRS.
> > Also, a report from the copyvio algorithm should be stored with the
> > uploaded material, as it is impossible to retrace the detection after
> > the material is made public.
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 4:23 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
> > >
> > >   *   Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of
> > the Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place
> is
> > unfair and nonsense.
> > >   *   Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to
> > think on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying
> > to convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't
> know
> > how to communicate and why they must do it.
> > >   *   The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
> > author. Period.
> > >   *   Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which
> > is the original work is not a good practice.
> > >   *   Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
> > job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can
> > take a whole year of volunteer work.
> > >   *   After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was
> > able to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
> > >
> > > Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have
> > less problems.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Galder
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Wikimedia-l <[hidden email]> on behalf
> > of Vi to <[hidden email]>
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
> > >
> > > I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images
> > on
> > > commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
> > from
> > > cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
> > >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested
> in
> > > > having more admins?
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > > > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > > > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > > > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to
> see
> > > > > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > > > > reduced.[1]
> > > > >
> > > > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > > > > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make
> mass
> > > > > housekeeping very easy.
> > > > >
> > > > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > > > > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons
> > hat
> > > > > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use
> than
> > > > > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to
> suck
> > > > > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long,
> that
> > > > > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > > > > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive
> short
> > > > > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > > > > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> > > > >
> > > > > Links
> > > > > 1.
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > > > > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> > > > >
> > > > > Fae
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani <[hidden email]
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
> > support
> > > > for
> > > > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with
> the
> > > > > amount of
> > > > > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> > > > capable
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all
> > undeleted.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing
> several
> > > > > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page
> > describing
> > > > > what it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you
> can
> > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > See:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes
> with
> > > > > Common's
> > > > > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to
> promote
> > you
> > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> > > > something
> > > > > > > > similar.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders,
> > but on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright
> > violating
> > > > > > > files a
> > > > > > > > > day:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
> > cope
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
> > some
> > > > > time -
> > > > > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and
> the
> > > > other
> > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
> > screening
> > > > > > > uploads
> > > > > > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> napisał(a):
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Hello all,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
> > Commons
> > > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia
> > Commons: a
> > > > > highly
> > > > > > > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at
> the
> > > > > Education
> > > > > > > > >> Newsletter
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an
> Outreach
> > > > > project
> > > > > > > > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone
> > on
> > > > > Commons
> > > > > > > > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be
> > student
> > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some
> > rather
> > > > odd
> > > > > > > > remarks
> > > > > > > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of
> > uploaded
> > > > > > > > copyrighted
> > > > > > > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > care."
> > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
> > > > storage
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Thrapostibongles
> > > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > and
> > > > > > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > > >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >> Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > >> <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > > > > > > > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> > > > > > > > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Amir (he/him)
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > James Heilman
> > > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Asaf Bartov
You are right, Asaf. It seems that getting the sysop bit is much harder now
than it used to be in the past, possibly due to many situations of
inexperienced sysops causing havoc in Commons. OTOH, any
destructive/untrustworthy account, such as "Daphne Lantier"/INC, can easily
get the flag by being overactive in the usual tasks, and even get a motion
by some of the most established sysops of Commons toward forgiveness and
tolerance of plainly destructive behavior, for all the "good work" it also
did there.

Paulo



Asaf Bartov <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia segunda, 13/05/2019
à(s) 15:51:

> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 1:10 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > As a Commoner, I can tell we certainly are, James, please apply here:
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators
> >
> > Even if your sysop actions are rather occasional or seasonal, or focused
> on
> > a certain topic, like mine, all help is very much welcomed there.
> > rg/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>, <mailto:
> > [hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> That has not been my experience.  I recently wanted to help reduce the
> load, in my volunteer capacity, by becoming a Commons admin focused on
> undeletion requests (which ties in with my volunteer work as an OTRS agent,
> and would save me and Admins the time of filing and handling a COM:UDR
> request).  Despite my thousands of contributions to Commons, my track
> record in the movement, and my understanding of copyright, a small majority
> opposed. Some of them specifically said they don't want admins focused on a
> certain topic, and others wanted to see me active in deletion discussions
> (specifically) before they would consider accepting my help.  This does
> suggest there is a certain reluctance to give the admin bit even to very
> low-risk volunteers like me.
>
> I certainly did not feel my help was welcomed.
>
>    A.
> --
> Asaf Bartov <[hidden email]>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Mister Thrapostibongles
Nah, of course they do. We are using filters at the Portuguese Wikipedia
since 2009, and I can say, without blinking, that if it was not for
filters, IPs would have ceased to be allowed to edit at all there for good
now, so much it is the amount of IP vandalism that they automatically catch
and block... per hour. With some false positives in the middle, of course,
but nothing is perfect.

Best,
Paulo

Mister Thrapostibongles <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia
segunda, 13/05/2019 à(s) 20:44:

> Fae,
>
> I think that what you are describing is essentially the sort of mechanism
> that would be mandated by Article 17 on the proposed new European copyright
> directive.  Since the Foundation has explicitly opposed that, see their
> blog post
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/03/26/european-parliament-limits-internet-freedom-in-controversial-copyright-vote/
> I
> presume that they will not permit the use of such an automated system on
> their projects.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 12:41 PM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > reduced.[1]
> >
> > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > housekeeping very easy.
> >
> > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
> > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> >
> > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> >
> > Links
> > 1.
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> for
> > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > amount of
> > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> capable
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > what it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > create a
> > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > Common's
> > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> > > > project
> > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> something
> > > > > similar.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
> > the
> > > > > other
> > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> > > > files a
> > > > > > day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
> > with
> > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
> > time -
> > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
> other
> > > > issue
> > > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
> > > > uploads
> > > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > > [hidden email]> napisał(a):
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hello all,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
> > > > > components
> > > > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
> > highly
> > > > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
> > Education
> > > > > >> Newsletter
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
> > project
> > > > > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
> > Commons
> > > > > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
> > projects
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather
> odd
> > > > > remarks
> > > > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
> > > > > copyrighted
> > > > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
> doesn't
> > > > care."
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
> storage
> > for
> > > > > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thrapostibongles
> > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > >> Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > > ,
> > > > > >> <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > > > > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> > > > > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Amir (he/him)
> > > _______________________________________________
> > [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Yann Forget-3
In reply to this post by Andy Mabbett-2
Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]> a
écrit :

> On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously
> > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
>
> Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?
>
> Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should
> publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
>

Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course.
AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to
Flickr before importing to Commons.
This is the primary evidence when images are deleted as copyright violation.
Others may be watermarks, copyright mentions in EXIF data, etc.

> I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> > OTRS.
>
> Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would
> gather support.


This is simply a consequence of the above.
If images of professional quality are imported to Commons after being
published elsewhere, their copyright status will be questioned,
and rightly so. Now if these images are only published on Commons, fine,
but the objective of a professional is to sell his images, not to give them
away for free.
In addition, many professionals use stock image agencies (Getty, etc.),
which often requires exclusivity, and therefore prevent publication under a
free license.

Regards, Yann
PS: I am probably one of the most inclusive admins on Commons (or less
strict regarding copyright issues), so if you think yelling at me would
solve the issue, you are mistaken. I really want Commons to improve, and I
am open to critics, that's why I come here to discuss, but do not shoot the
messenger.

--
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk


 Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Lane Rasberry
I see the problem as lack of access to basic training information.

It appears that the team doing the uploads failed to comply to wiki
publishing norms. I do not see this as a problem between editors and
moderators, but rather as being between who editors versus our rules.

Wikimedia projects already have an low quality standard. The two most
common complaints that Wikipedia gets are #2 Wikipedia publishes low
quality content and #1 Wikipedia's quality standards are too high. I see
this issue as a complaint for us to lower quality.

The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to
communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With
our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal
compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in
case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of
these already reasonable expectations.

If anyone wants to meet professional Wikimedia colleagues for institutional
partnerships then here is a Wikimedia community organization which supports
Wikimedians in Residence with a monthly online meetup and some conversation
space.
WREN - Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network



On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:46 AM Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]> a
> écrit :
>
> > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was
> previously
> > > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> >
> > Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?
> >
> > Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should
> > publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
> >
>
> Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course.
> AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to
> Flickr before importing to Commons.
> This is the primary evidence when images are deleted as copyright
> violation.
> Others may be watermarks, copyright mentions in EXIF data, etc.
>
> > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> > > OTRS.
> >
> > Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would
> > gather support.
>
>
> This is simply a consequence of the above.
> If images of professional quality are imported to Commons after being
> published elsewhere, their copyright status will be questioned,
> and rightly so. Now if these images are only published on Commons, fine,
> but the objective of a professional is to sell his images, not to give them
> away for free.
> In addition, many professionals use stock image agencies (Getty, etc.),
> which often requires exclusivity, and therefore prevent publication under a
> free license.
>
> Regards, Yann
> PS: I am probably one of the most inclusive admins on Commons (or less
> strict regarding copyright issues), so if you think yelling at me would
> solve the issue, you are mistaken. I really want Commons to improve, and I
> am open to critics, that's why I come here to discuss, but do not shoot the
> messenger.
>
> --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
>
>  Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
Sorry Lane... which " wiki publishing norm" did we fail?

Thanks
________________________________
From: Wikimedia-l <[hidden email]> on behalf of Lane Rasberry <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:01 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

I see the problem as lack of access to basic training information.

It appears that the team doing the uploads failed to comply to wiki
publishing norms. I do not see this as a problem between editors and
moderators, but rather as being between who editors versus our rules.

Wikimedia projects already have an low quality standard. The two most
common complaints that Wikipedia gets are #2 Wikipedia publishes low
quality content and #1 Wikipedia's quality standards are too high. I see
this issue as a complaint for us to lower quality.

The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to
communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With
our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal
compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in
case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of
these already reasonable expectations.

If anyone wants to meet professional Wikimedia colleagues for institutional
partnerships then here is a Wikimedia community organization which supports
Wikimedians in Residence with a monthly online meetup and some conversation
space.
WREN - Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network



On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:46 AM Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]> a
> écrit :
>
> > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was
> previously
> > > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> >
> > Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?
> >
> > Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should
> > publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
> >
>
> Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course.
> AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to
> Flickr before importing to Commons.
> This is the primary evidence when images are deleted as copyright
> violation.
> Others may be watermarks, copyright mentions in EXIF data, etc.
>
> > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> > > OTRS.
> >
> > Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would
> > gather support.
>
>
> This is simply a consequence of the above.
> If images of professional quality are imported to Commons after being
> published elsewhere, their copyright status will be questioned,
> and rightly so. Now if these images are only published on Commons, fine,
> but the objective of a professional is to sell his images, not to give them
> away for free.
> In addition, many professionals use stock image agencies (Getty, etc.),
> which often requires exclusivity, and therefore prevent publication under a
> free license.
>
> Regards, Yann
> PS: I am probably one of the most inclusive admins on Commons (or less
> strict regarding copyright issues), so if you think yelling at me would
> solve the issue, you are mistaken. I really want Commons to improve, and I
> am open to critics, that's why I come here to discuss, but do not shoot the
> messenger.
>
> --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
>
>  Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Lane Rasberry
wiki norms which seem to have been transgressed -

   - recognition that the program and submitted content was unusual and
   extraordinary
   - lack of on-wiki documentation of program
   - lack of links between submitted content and on-wiki documentation
   - lack of small pilot before collecting the attention of many new
   Wikimedia contributors doing something unusual
   - failure to tag participants in the program as being connected to the
   program and its documentation

It is not the fault of your program and organization that you did not do
these things. The documentation for all this should have been in place from
~2013, because this situation happens repeatedly. Unfortunately we as a
movement are losing tremendous value in institutional engagement and
donations for lack of documentation. I would guess that in the United
States we identify hot leads for about 10 organizations to pay their staff
to do wiki programs which have a salary cost of US$50,000 in addition to
the value of their media contributions. Globally the amount of content lost
for lack of documentation could be 1 million / year, when conceivably we
could stop a lot of this loss with a one-time investment in training
material development.

Programs have to follow rules. The rules are not published but lots of
people know them. It seems like as a movement we prefer the damage of
opportunity costs in favor of risky or more expensive administrative
development. I feel like if somehow you had connected to a guide for what
to do, then with preparation none of these problems would have happened.

I do not blame the moderators. If these moderators had not reached this
decision, then almost any other moderator would have reached the same
decision. The moderators are well trained and precise in the sense that
they tend to uniformly make the same evaluations in situations. Besides the
reviewers that you saw issue judgement, at least 5 times as many people
reviewed the case and declined to comment or make their presence known.
Those quiet people agreed with the discussion.

You and everyone else deserve clear documentation and guidance. For our
inability to create this and deliver it to you, I apologize and have
regret.

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:13 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sorry Lane... which " wiki publishing norm" did we fail?
>
> Thanks
> ________________________________
> From: Wikimedia-l <[hidden email]> on behalf of
> Lane Rasberry <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:01 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
>
> I see the problem as lack of access to basic training information.
>
> It appears that the team doing the uploads failed to comply to wiki
> publishing norms. I do not see this as a problem between editors and
> moderators, but rather as being between who editors versus our rules.
>
> Wikimedia projects already have an low quality standard. The two most
> common complaints that Wikipedia gets are #2 Wikipedia publishes low
> quality content and #1 Wikipedia's quality standards are too high. I see
> this issue as a complaint for us to lower quality.
>
> The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to
> communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With
> our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal
> compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in
> case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of
> these already reasonable expectations.
>
> If anyone wants to meet professional Wikimedia colleagues for institutional
> partnerships then here is a Wikimedia community organization which supports
> Wikimedians in Residence with a monthly online meetup and some conversation
> space.
> WREN - Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:46 AM Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]> a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was
> > previously
> > > > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> > >
> > > Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?
> > >
> > > Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should
> > > publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
> > >
> >
> > Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course.
> > AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to
> > Flickr before importing to Commons.
> > This is the primary evidence when images are deleted as copyright
> > violation.
> > Others may be watermarks, copyright mentions in EXIF data, etc.
> >
> > > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed
> by
> > > > OTRS.
> > >
> > > Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would
> > > gather support.
> >
> >
> > This is simply a consequence of the above.
> > If images of professional quality are imported to Commons after being
> > published elsewhere, their copyright status will be questioned,
> > and rightly so. Now if these images are only published on Commons, fine,
> > but the objective of a professional is to sell his images, not to give
> them
> > away for free.
> > In addition, many professionals use stock image agencies (Getty, etc.),
> > which often requires exclusivity, and therefore prevent publication
> under a
> > free license.
> >
> > Regards, Yann
> > PS: I am probably one of the most inclusive admins on Commons (or less
> > strict regarding copyright issues), so if you think yelling at me would
> > solve the issue, you are mistaken. I really want Commons to improve, and
> I
> > am open to critics, that's why I come here to discuss, but do not shoot
> the
> > messenger.
> >
> > --
> > > Andy Mabbett
> > > @pigsonthewing
> > > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >
> >
> >  Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> > https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> > +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Lane Rasberry
> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> 206.801.0814
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
Thanks Lane for the clarification. I disagree on some points, but it is useful to read the points.

Galder
________________________________
From: Wikimedia-l <[hidden email]> on behalf of Lane Rasberry <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:34 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

wiki norms which seem to have been transgressed -

   - recognition that the program and submitted content was unusual and
   extraordinary
   - lack of on-wiki documentation of program
   - lack of links between submitted content and on-wiki documentation
   - lack of small pilot before collecting the attention of many new
   Wikimedia contributors doing something unusual
   - failure to tag participants in the program as being connected to the
   program and its documentation

It is not the fault of your program and organization that you did not do
these things. The documentation for all this should have been in place from
~2013, because this situation happens repeatedly. Unfortunately we as a
movement are losing tremendous value in institutional engagement and
donations for lack of documentation. I would guess that in the United
States we identify hot leads for about 10 organizations to pay their staff
to do wiki programs which have a salary cost of US$50,000 in addition to
the value of their media contributions. Globally the amount of content lost
for lack of documentation could be 1 million / year, when conceivably we
could stop a lot of this loss with a one-time investment in training
material development.

Programs have to follow rules. The rules are not published but lots of
people know them. It seems like as a movement we prefer the damage of
opportunity costs in favor of risky or more expensive administrative
development. I feel like if somehow you had connected to a guide for what
to do, then with preparation none of these problems would have happened.

I do not blame the moderators. If these moderators had not reached this
decision, then almost any other moderator would have reached the same
decision. The moderators are well trained and precise in the sense that
they tend to uniformly make the same evaluations in situations. Besides the
reviewers that you saw issue judgement, at least 5 times as many people
reviewed the case and declined to comment or make their presence known.
Those quiet people agreed with the discussion.

You and everyone else deserve clear documentation and guidance. For our
inability to create this and deliver it to you, I apologize and have
regret.

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:13 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sorry Lane... which " wiki publishing norm" did we fail?
>
> Thanks
> ________________________________
> From: Wikimedia-l <[hidden email]> on behalf of
> Lane Rasberry <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:01 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
>
> I see the problem as lack of access to basic training information.
>
> It appears that the team doing the uploads failed to comply to wiki
> publishing norms. I do not see this as a problem between editors and
> moderators, but rather as being between who editors versus our rules.
>
> Wikimedia projects already have an low quality standard. The two most
> common complaints that Wikipedia gets are #2 Wikipedia publishes low
> quality content and #1 Wikipedia's quality standards are too high. I see
> this issue as a complaint for us to lower quality.
>
> The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to
> communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With
> our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal
> compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in
> case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of
> these already reasonable expectations.
>
> If anyone wants to meet professional Wikimedia colleagues for institutional
> partnerships then here is a Wikimedia community organization which supports
> Wikimedians in Residence with a monthly online meetup and some conversation
> space.
> WREN - Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:46 AM Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]> a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was
> > previously
> > > > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> > >
> > > Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?
> > >
> > > Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should
> > > publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
> > >
> >
> > Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course.
> > AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to
> > Flickr before importing to Commons.
> > This is the primary evidence when images are deleted as copyright
> > violation.
> > Others may be watermarks, copyright mentions in EXIF data, etc.
> >
> > > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed
> by
> > > > OTRS.
> > >
> > > Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would
> > > gather support.
> >
> >
> > This is simply a consequence of the above.
> > If images of professional quality are imported to Commons after being
> > published elsewhere, their copyright status will be questioned,
> > and rightly so. Now if these images are only published on Commons, fine,
> > but the objective of a professional is to sell his images, not to give
> them
> > away for free.
> > In addition, many professionals use stock image agencies (Getty, etc.),
> > which often requires exclusivity, and therefore prevent publication
> under a
> > free license.
> >
> > Regards, Yann
> > PS: I am probably one of the most inclusive admins on Commons (or less
> > strict regarding copyright issues), so if you think yelling at me would
> > solve the issue, you are mistaken. I really want Commons to improve, and
> I
> > am open to critics, that's why I come here to discuss, but do not shoot
> the
> > messenger.
> >
> > --
> > > Andy Mabbett
> > > @pigsonthewing
> > > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >
> >
> >  Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> > https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> > +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Lane Rasberry
> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> 206.801.0814
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

John Erling Blad
In reply to this post by Yann Forget-3
To quote what you said

> > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> > OTRS.

This is not about previous publishing, this is about the person
publishing a photo.

Problems with previous publishing is not special in any way for
professional photographers vs amateur photographers. If a photo is
previously published it _may_ be an indication of a copyvio, but it
can also clarify the matter as the previous published photo may carry
a byline stating the name of the photographer.
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 6:44 AM Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> The issue is not in that way.
> If you published an image exclusively on Commons, then no problem.
> If you first publish an image outside Commons, how do we know that you are
> the author?
> OK, there may be some factors to prove that (consistency of EXIF data,
> etc.), but in the absence of EXIF data, we the issue remain.
>
> Regards,
> Yann
> Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
>
>
>
> Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 10:00, John Erling Blad <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> > Again; what is different between me as a photographer taking pictures for a
> > newspaper and me as a photograper taking pictures for Commons? Is it the
> > name written om the lens? The shoes I'm wearing?
> >
> > There are no difference, this is a fallacy.
> >
> > John Erling Blad
> > /jeblad
> >
> >
> > tir. 14. mai 2019, 05.50 skrev Yann Forget <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously
> > > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> > > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> > > OTRS.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Yann Forget
> > > Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> > > https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> > > +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 16:56, John Erling Blad <[hidden email]> a
> > écrit :
> > >
> > > > I can imagine a bot comparing photos found by Google (ie. comparing
> > > > hashes) but not a system extracting some kind of unique feature that
> > > > says an image is a copyright violation. So how do you imagine ORES
> > > > being used for copyright violations? I can't see how a copyright
> > > > violation would have any kind of feature that is exclusive? The
> > > > argument is quite simple; I as a photographer for a newspaper could
> > > > take the exact same pictures as I as an amateur photographer. (I have
> > > > photographed a lot for various newspapers.) Using the same equipment,
> > > > and me being me, what is different?
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:21 PM Amir Sarabadani <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> > > for
> > > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > > > amount of
> > > > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> > > capable
> > > > to
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > > > what it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > > > create a
> > > > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > > > Common's
> > > > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote
> > you
> > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> > > something
> > > > > > > similar.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright
> > violating
> > > > > > files a
> > > > > > > > day:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
> > cope
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
> > some
> > > > time -
> > > > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
> > > other
> > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
> > screening
> > > > > > uploads
> > > > > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]> napisał(a):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Hello all,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
> > Commons
> > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
> > > > highly
> > > > > > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
> > > > Education
> > > > > > > >> Newsletter
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
> > > > project
> > > > > > > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
> > > > Commons
> > > > > > > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
> > > > projects
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather
> > > odd
> > > > > > > remarks
> > > > > > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
> > > > > > > copyrighted
> > > > > > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
> > > doesn't
> > > > > > care."
> > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
> > > storage
> > > > for
> > > > > > > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Thrapostibongles
> > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >> Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > >> <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > > > > > > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> > > > > > > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Amir (he/him)
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Vi to
In reply to this post by Yann Forget-3
Il giorno mar 14 mag 2019 alle ore 15:46 Yann Forget <[hidden email]> ha
scritto:

> Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]> a
> écrit :
>
> > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was
> previously
> > > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> >
> > Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?
> >
> > Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should
> > publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
> >
>
> Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course.
> AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to
> Flickr before importing to Commons.
>

For EU citizens upload at Flickr could actually reduce our
GDPR-responsibility as platform.

Il giorno mar 14 mag 2019 alle ore 16:03 Lane Rasberry <
[hidden email]> ha scritto:

>
>
> The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to
> communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With
> our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal
> compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in
> case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of
> these already reasonable expectations.
>

+10

Il giorno lun 13 mag 2019 alle ore 21:42 Isaac Olatunde <
[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> Not all local sysops have a strong knowledge of image licensing and I think
> allowing local sysops not familiar with image licensing and how Commons
> community works in general to delete\undelete files would be
> counterproductive.
>

I still think they can just left performing actions at their own
responsibility.

Il giorno mar 14 mag 2019 alle ore 15:25 Paulo Santos Perneta <
[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> Nah, of course they do. We are using filters at the Portuguese Wikipedia
> since 2009, and I can say, without blinking, that if it was not for
> filters, IPs would have ceased to be allowed to edit at all there for good
> now, so much it is the amount of IP vandalism that they automatically catch
> and block... per hour. With some false positives in the middle, of course,
> but nothing is perfect.


 I agree, but most of abusefilter effectiveness lies in 'block' option,
which is not so common among wikis.

Vito
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
1234