Mailing List Archive

Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of Commons
[foundation-l added back to cc: as well as commons-l]


2009/6/15 Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com>:

> Sysops on Commons arent just handed the tools they first must seek a level
> of trust from the community that trust is because there are times when a
> person must act in the interest of Commons. As a long term sysop on Commons
> and one the higher end contributors sysops do have a level of authority and
> need to exercise their judgement more frequently without discussion then
> other larger projects (like de,en) one the problems is that at times there
> arent the experienced people around to enable a thorough discussion before
> acting.
> This is a particluar problem with local copyright issues as an Australian I
> got a good understand of OZ law and know where to get more info, I also
> gained a fair understanding of US over time and out of necessity but I have
> a very limited smattering of it for elsewhere when there is the necessity to
> make a move if I cant get independent opinions/help then I would defer to
> safest solution for Commons


Yeah. The problem is that to be an admin on Commons requires you to be
a copyright law edge-cases nerd way beyond the point where any
reasonable person would just say "bugger it, just sue me." And the
persistence to deal with, what is it, 10%? of uploads being
unacceptable for one reason or another.

So you'll get people - and it's fewer and fewer - who tend to be
interested in Commons as a standalone project and are
indifferent-to-hostile to the service project angle.

The bureaucratic obstructionism - not active hindering (well, maybe
just a bit), just passive not-caring - accorded the recent Pikiwiki
problems is a perfect recent example.

Possible solution: active recruitment drive on client wikis of
underrepresented languages. Get interested sysops on those wikis to go
through suitable training to become Commons.

This requires setting out precisely what a Commons admin needs to
know. Establish clear and somewhat objective criteria for Commons
admins.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of Commons [ In reply to ]
2009/6/15 Rama Neko <ramaneko@gmail.com>:

> The "service project angle" worries me too. I have noticed that many
> articles of Wikipedia, the service project that makes it easier to
> find media in Commons by providing encyclopedic context to our
> content, utterly lack the proper links to our galleries and
> categories.
>        Furthermore, I sometimes have the feeling that contributors of
> Wikipedia expect us to host all sorts of unacceptable media in return
> of the service that they provide; while we of course appreciate the
> service projects, this is a problem, particularly when these files are
> copyright violations.
> In the particular case of Pikiwiki, it would of course be very
> caricatural to say that all their images are copyvios. There are lots
> of out-of-scope party snapshots, too.


I'd hope this isn't a summary of the views of other Commons admins.

Anyone else? Or is the Commons admin community this insular and derisive?


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of Commons [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Stan Shebs<stanshebs@earthlink.net> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/6/15 Rama Neko <ramaneko@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>>        Furthermore, I sometimes have the feeling that contributors of
>>> Wikipedia expect us to host all sorts of unacceptable media in return
>>> of the service that they provide; while we of course appreciate the
>>> service projects, this is a problem, particularly when these files are
>>> copyright violations.

I don't have this feeling. There's some misunderstanding, though,
with different conversations happening on different wikis. A better
facility for discussion pages that are not tied to a particular wiki
(or are replicated on more than one) would help mediate this.

>>> In the particular case of Pikiwiki, it would of course be very
>>> caricatural to say that all their images are copyvios. There are lots
>>> of out-of-scope party snapshots, too.

Fuzzy party pictures are an icon of the times.


David Gerard writes:
>> Anyone else? Or is the Commons admin community this insular and derisive?

Yikes. I find the Commons community to be rewardingly inclusive...

> I don't know if this makes me insular and derisive, but as a casual
> onlooker to the Pikiwiki episode, I do worry that there is an attempt to
> strongarm Commons into accepting material that would not normally be
> able to get in. It worries me because if Commons loses its reputation as
> a reliable source of free media, the that loss effectively contaminates
> everything in the project - potential users will be unsure if my own
> photos were really self-made, or I'm putting free licenses on material
> that is not mine to give away.

Absolutely. This is a contamination problem that affects most online
media sites. (Jamendo is one I can think of off-hand that does the
cleanest job of trying to confirm licensing of its free works)


> For projects that have committed to only using Commons for media, the
> pressure to accept borderline material is going to be intense, and it's
> always going to be a secondary concern that the files are going to be a
> problem for other clients of Commons. Projects experiencing that kind of
> pressure should maybe consider re-instituting local uploads, which

Actually, I would be content with a less-free repository for media not
suitable for commons but still of use to at least one page on one
Wikimedia project -- I would like to be able to monitor (and pressure
to become totally free) all 'local upload' materials on a single wiki.
The technical advantages of having a single way to call a file from
multiple namespaces would still apply, but there could be strong
pressure to replace any non-free media with free media ... while
releasing some of this kneejerk pressure on Commons.

In a similar vein, I'd like a wiki quarantine where I could post
material that is mostly free but contains some non-free parts (a logo
or something that needs removal) -- to allow a community of editors to
see and revise it to make it freely available, without reinventing
tools such as revision control, RC, &c.

The idea of all of this would be to move towards 100% free projects
and contents, but without the strain imposed by the current sharp
edge.

> allows for more gradual migration of material as it is determined to
> meet Commons' standards, and takes away the pressure on Commons admins
> to make snap decisions on tricky copyright issues.

Right. Except there's no need to tie the advantages of gradual
migration tot eh dsiadvantages and duplicated effort of local
upload...


SJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of Commons [ In reply to ]
What if there were two image spaces?




________________________________
From: Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 8:06:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of Commons

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Stan Shebs<stanshebs@earthlink.net> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/6/15 Rama Neko <ramaneko@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>> Furthermore, I sometimes have the feeling that contributors of
>>> Wikipedia expect us to host all sorts of unacceptable media in return
>>> of the service that they provide; while we of course appreciate the
>>> service projects, this is a problem, particularly when these files are
>>> copyright violations.

I don't have this feeling. There's some misunderstanding, though,
with different conversations happening on different wikis. A better
facility for discussion pages that are not tied to a particular wiki
(or are replicated on more than one) would help mediate this.

>>> In the particular case of Pikiwiki, it would of course be very
>>> caricatural to say that all their images are copyvios. There are lots
>>> of out-of-scope party snapshots, too.

Fuzzy party pictures are an icon of the times.


David Gerard writes:
>> Anyone else? Or is the Commons admin community this insular and derisive?

Yikes. I find the Commons community to be rewardingly inclusive...

> I don't know if this makes me insular and derisive, but as a casual
> onlooker to the Pikiwiki episode, I do worry that there is an attempt to
> strongarm Commons into accepting material that would not normally be
> able to get in. It worries me because if Commons loses its reputation as
> a reliable source of free media, the that loss effectively contaminates
> everything in the project - potential users will be unsure if my own
> photos were really self-made, or I'm putting free licenses on material
> that is not mine to give away.

Absolutely. This is a contamination problem that affects most online
media sites. (Jamendo is one I can think of off-hand that does the
cleanest job of trying to confirm licensing of its free works)


> For projects that have committed to only using Commons for media, the
> pressure to accept borderline material is going to be intense, and it's
> always going to be a secondary concern that the files are going to be a
> problem for other clients of Commons. Projects experiencing that kind of
> pressure should maybe consider re-instituting local uploads, which

Actually, I would be content with a less-free repository for media not
suitable for commons but still of use to at least one page on one
Wikimedia project -- I would like to be able to monitor (and pressure
to become totally free) all 'local upload' materials on a single wiki.
The technical advantages of having a single way to call a file from
multiple namespaces would still apply, but there could be strong
pressure to replace any non-free media with free media ... while
releasing some of this kneejerk pressure on Commons.

In a similar vein, I'd like a wiki quarantine where I could post
material that is mostly free but contains some non-free parts (a logo
or something that needs removal) -- to allow a community of editors to
see and revise it to make it freely available, without reinventing
tools such as revision control, RC, &c.

The idea of all of this would be to move towards 100% free projects
and contents, but without the strain imposed by the current sharp
edge.

> allows for more gradual migration of material as it is determined to
> meet Commons' standards, and takes away the pressure on Commons admins
> to make snap decisions on tricky copyright issues.

Right. Except there's no need to tie the advantages of gradual
migration tot eh dsiadvantages and duplicated effort of local
upload...


SJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of Commons [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Geoffrey Plourde<geo.plrd@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What if there were two image spaces?
>

Veering slightly OT, but this is easier said than done.

-Chad

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance of Commons [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:22 PM, David Gerard<dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/6/15 Rama Neko <ramaneko@gmail.com>:
>
>> The "service project angle" worries me too. I have noticed that many
>> articles of Wikipedia, the service project that makes it easier to
>> find media in Commons by providing encyclopedic context to our
>> content, utterly lack the proper links to our galleries and
>> categories.
>>        Furthermore, I sometimes have the feeling that contributors of
>> Wikipedia expect us to host all sorts of unacceptable media in return
>> of the service that they provide; while we of course appreciate the
>> service projects, this is a problem, particularly when these files are
>> copyright violations.
>> In the particular case of Pikiwiki, it would of course be very
>> caricatural to say that all their images are copyvios. There are lots
>> of out-of-scope party snapshots, too.
>
>
> I'd hope this isn't a summary of the views of other Commons admins.
>
> Anyone else? Or is the Commons admin community this insular and derisive?
>
>
> - d.
>
I hope that this isn't the view of admins outside the Commons community.


Seriously with this kind of discussion we end up nowhere. Perhaps it
would be more useful to actually get to the points of problem or just
stop discussing at all.


Bryan

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l