Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2012-12

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Wikimedia Highlights from October 2012

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for October 2012, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 08:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

a video I want to contribute

On my user page I put a link to one of my Youtube videos.

Is this allowed?

Because my video was no longer stored on my computer; I only uploaded it to my Youtube channel.

I also don't know if my video would be considered educational enough.

Today's date stamp so this old message will eventually archive: 15:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama campaign

Opened by Kaldari in response to recent freedom of panorama-related DMCA take-downs on Commons. --Nemo 08:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Something similar (banners) is planed on Slovene Wikipedia. We already asked our government if the changes of the current legislation that would enable freedom of panorama in Slovenia would be possible; the proposal was widely supported among the users of the "predlagam.vladi.si" portal, but unfortunately the government did not show any particular interest. It would be of big help (bigger publicity) if the two campaigns could be done simultaneously. --Smihael (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know, something in this regard has already been organised by the Italian Wikipedia (see commons:Category:Freedom of panorama protests). --Eleassar my talk 08:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to change logo from "free" to "community-written", "community-run", "open", "collaborative" etc

Cutting and pasting from the discussion on the English Wikipedia:

w:MediaWiki talk:Tagline

"The community-written encyclopedia"

I'd like to propose changing the every-page tagline "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to "Wikipedia, the community-written encyclopedia". The word "free" has lost much of its meaning nowadays, but "community-written" would give people who land on articles via Google searches a much better clue about what Wikipedia IS, without going as far as saying "anyone can edit" on every article (saying "anyone can edit" might be more inviting of vandalism as well as detracting from aesthetics, but I don't think "community-written" has these problems). Silas S. Brown (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. I've always thought that "free encyclopedia" only adds to the notion of "this is a service that has been provided by the magic pixies who do their work deep below the surface of the earth, far removed from reality". The feedback feature has only strengthened these views. It's always whinging: "why won't you do this? why are you so shit? why wont you fix this article? i hate you!". The real question is, why wont you.... We have GOT to end this stupid dichotomy. It is not editors and readers. We are one in the same (something that i like to dub "edi-readers"). And as such Wikipedia should not present itself as "this is how cool we are and this is our best work and ooo looky at all the stuff we've done. read and be in awe". We should always try to reinforce the fact that we are all part of a community, working together to achieve something great. One of the few things ever that every single person in the world can participate in. How freaking awesome is that?!?!!! The main page must turn into something more suited to newbies. This is the top editing tip of the day. This is the article collaboration of the day. This is the wikipedian of the day telling you their story and what inspires them to continue. This i the sort of stuff we should be stuffing our main page with... i honestly can't see why everyone has such a hard time getting that. Traditions were meant to adapt and evolve people!!!!!!!!
*stands down from the soapbox*
..sorry about that... i just get very passionate about this sometimes... Now going back to your original point, yes, i think that is exactly what we need to help us on this transformation to a much more poeplefriendly wikipedia, rather than a free service from a mysterious entity that works behind the scenes, known (the legend says) as.......... THE WIKIPEDIANS.--Coin945 (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
"Community-written" (like "free") has a distinct problem of definition: of the many ways that people take this, which one is meant? Many people will not even consider the question, but simply presume how ever they conceive of it.
The request here is to change the tag-line, but that is derived from our conception of Wikipedia. (I.e., the slogan.) My preference is "the collaborative encyclopedia", emphasizing the working together ("co-labor"), without implying that anything goes or that everyone has some right to edit. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Wrong forum. The tagline "The Free Encyclopedia" is used on all of the Wikipedias and is part of our branding. Since it is cross-wiki, such a discussion should occur at [[Meta:]]. Personally, I suspect it would require the approval of the Foundation and would not expect them to approve such a change. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how to start a discussion on Meta. There doesn't seem to be a "Wikimedia village pump" anywhere. Silas S. Brown (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
that would be m:Wikimedia Forum. Rd232 talk 22:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • IMO it's not important who writes it, but the access to it. "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we're doing.". It's not important that it's a community who's writing it (well it is, but that's different), but who has the ability to access it. Legoktm (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The word "community" should imply free access, so that wouldn't be lost. But "free" might just mean "our company wants to get more traffic so we put this up". We're missing an opportunity to help people understand at a glance what's really happening. Silas S. Brown (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
How does "community" imply "free"? A community can be closed if it wanted to be. I see your point about free, but I don't follow the continuation of it. I think you're just following down a slippery slope. Legoktm (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Depends if you mean a community or the community - the latter phrase was used by OpenOffice etc Silas S. Brown (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This may be an interesting and even fun discussion (how about "the open encyclopedia", in the sense of open source?), but it's mind-bogglingly unlikely to lead to any change in the slogan. Rd232 talk 22:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

not sure if the person on the street would understand "open" Silas S. Brown (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
To the extent the tag-line reflects the Wikipedia slogan, a change implies changing the slogan. And, yes, this is the wrong forum. Perhaps this discussion should be reconvened at [[Meta:]] ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I suggest the people interested in this discussion to read all archives of w:en:MediaWiki talk:Tagline, its history and all the discussions linked from there. If you want more, come back and I'll link some in other places and languages. After some reiterations, if you're still interested, maybe it will be worth discussing here. --Nemo 11:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
See new section below Silas S. Brown (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Our mission is to make the world's knowledge available to everyone for free. Free as in we don't charge access to the site, free also as in we use an open license that lets anyone reuse our work in anyway that they want, providing they provide attribution and don't claim a less free license on the end result. Being written by a community is much less distinctive or important to our mission. I suspect that every Encyclopaedia of the modern era has been written by a community of writers rather than by one person. Being written by a community of volunteers does separate us from some of our older rivals, but we are not unique in that. Of course we are no longer unique in writing a "free" encyclopaedia, as various rivals have been launched that are also free. As far as I'm aware none of the free English language encyclopaedias are yet comprehensive enough that they could be considered an encyclopaedia rather than incomplete encyclopaedias that are being written. If one were to reach a stage where it could be considered a usable Encyclopaedia rather than a draft encyclopaedia with some complete articles then I'm not sure how long we can reasonably continue to use a strapline that promotes a feature that we pioneered but which is no longer unique to us. But it should be obvious that we can't shift to a strapline that isn't true. Perhaps we could shift to ""Wikipedia, a free and neutral encyclopedia"? WereSpielChequers (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"From Wikipedia" and nothing else?

w:MediaWiki talk:Tagline currently gives only "from Wikipedia" in all languages except English. Only English adds "the free encyclopedia". Removing this will (a) make the languages consistent, (b) avoid giving any false impression by trying to summarise what Wikipedia is in 3 words that will inevitably be misunderstood by some. Silas S. Brown (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Help request to build Template:Help-translation

The following discussion is closed: No templates please. Nemo 07:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

In the Wikikultur project proposal, I would like to encourage people to contribute with translations. To achieve this goal I added a list of unexisting subpage links, with a text "help translate" before a list of language iso code. It seems to work since as I'm writing, translations began in Italiano and Chinese (there's also a French translation, but I did this one myself, so it doesn't really count).

So I thought, ok that's seems to be a good idea, what about templating this list, and improve it ? So here it is, {{Template:Help-translation}} will produce: {{Template:Help-translation}}

Improvements are :

  • a reusable template you should be able to use in any page (it may not work for subpages though, for example for an article Foo/Bar, it may produce links to Foo/it and so on)
  • a more comprehensive list
  • links are labeled in the language itself
  • if a translation subpage exists, it doesn't appear in the list, as it should already appear in the Languages template (those said in my test Chinese translations were given as blue link)

Now, I would like to also localize the Help translate message. So I was wandering if you had suggestions to manage those translations. My main technical problem is that I need to know which language the user would prefer to see. Do you know a way to get this user preference ? The Languages template add a &uselang=xx in the URL, that could be interesting to get it, but the user preferences (if logged) should also be used.

An other problem is that now I have an extremely long list. It would be great to have a box you can extend/reduce, is there any template that do that?

Any feedback is welcome.

Kind regards --Psychoslave (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You mustn't use templates, see talk. Nemo 07:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your feed back. I will look at the prefered process to do that as soon as I can. --Psychoslave (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Slovene Wikisource

There's a whole category of the following permissions in the Slovene Wikisource (sl:s:Kategorija:Posebna dovoljenja za objavo - OK), scanned, archived, never confirmed through the OTRS. These were sent to the most notable Slovene authors, received, filled out and marked as OK (Smihael's edit: by the project coordinator). They basically state:

"In the wish that the Wikisource may be completed we ask for permission to choose texts from your oeuvre, retype them and publish them in the Wikisource, where they will be accessible to everyone without a payment, under the condition that they acknowledge the authorship (in the case of a reusage (e.g. in a seminary work) they have to cite the authorship of the original author in the way determined by the original author). For details: CC-BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I, hereby signed, __, the author/legal representative/heir/publisher (encircle the correct choice) agree that the following may be published (under the conditions listed above) in the Wikisource:
  • the whole author's oeuvre
  • the following work:_____
  • the following works:_____
  • all the works published before the year _____ and after the year ____.
I also agree that this confirmation will be published in the Wikisource.
Place and date:_____ Signature:______"

So what should be done about them? Should they be regarded as ok or should all the texts be deleted? --Eleassar (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who holds the main responsibility for this project and I would like to make certain things clear before further debate:
Precisely due to privacy concerns I applied as an OTRS volunteer and insisted to change the procedure, so that OTRS system is now used for the project. Older permissions are OK, but should be moved on OTRS or archived on other secure place. Unfortunately I was very busy with all kinds of school work and my final exams in the past 2 years, so I couldn't do it by myself.
I would also like to point out that the translation above is not accurate; the full text can be found at sl:s:Wikivir:Posebna_dovoljenja_za_objavo/Vzorčno_pismo (*). An important nuance is that it explicitly mentions that text will be uploaded on Wikisource (which does not mean that the permission is given only for publishment in Wikisource, as one might deduce from the English translation provided above), where it will be available to anyone freely (including derivative works under the similar terms of redistribution). Permissions were mainly granted for commercially not-so-interesting works that were previously published only in low circulations and (mainly) never reprinted or are very unlikely to be reprinted in the near future. An important condition for an author to enter the project (they were generally very enthusiastic and honoured about a possibility to make their work easier to access and contribute into a treasury of freely available content) was that the material rights from the publishers were have already expired.
The question therefore is what would be the appropriate place to store these old permissions safely - OTRS or something else. --Smihael (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The translation I have provided is completely accurate. Where do you see an inaccuracy? The link you have provided displays my (urgent) update from today. Where are the readers warned that it will be available to anyone free for any usage including derivative works and the commercial reusage? What kind of license is the following. "For details: CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL." Where is the explicit statement that the text will be published under a free license? The signed statement does not include it and the sent request neither. --Eleassar my talk 21:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to the last version written by me. I added the direct link to this revision. (At the time GFDL was still primarily used at Wikimedia projects; for better clarity we however decided to use CC-BY-SA 3.0 and dual licence works - "oz." is not the same as "or") Smihael (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
You provided the link to the last revision, which was done by me.[1] --Eleassar my talk 22:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Once again, this is the revision I was refering to (written by me and edited by Dbc334 because of smaller grammatical mistakes) and the translation above is not in accordance with it. The link is the same as * above.--Smihael (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
And BTW, there are also plenty of rejected permissions, that were invalid or didn't satisfy the above mentioned criteria but were kept as an evidence to precent from contacting the same author multiple times. In my opinion the best would be to move them to OTRS (or other safe storage too) and make a simple overview of permission statuses in a form of table, which would still be publicly accessible for reference. Smihael (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The fact is that the people who received these messages were nowhere warned that they release their work for any purpose and there was no explicit statement about the license under which they do so. As such, it is just impossible to move them to the OTRS. --Eleassar my talk 22:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
It can be clearly seen that the licence was explicitly mentioned; take this file for an example. The problem is with files were only the lower part is scanned. --Smihael (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Where exactly is the statement about the license? "For details: CC-BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL." (in the text) is not the same as "I release this work under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL". (nowhere in the text) Where is the warning and the statement that they release their work for any purpose and that they do so irrevocably? --Eleassar my talk 22:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
They agree to publish it on such terms that heir works will be published on Wikisource (in introduction it is presented as a source of free texts, in the meaning free as in speech) where they will be accesible to anyone freely (as in without payment), given that in case of modifications (e.g. scholar works) the original author is attributed in the exactly the same way as the original author has prescribed. In other words your work will be available (this is the function of: For details see) under the terms of CC-BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL. ("'objavimo na Wikiviru, kjer bodo dostopna vsakomur brez plačila, pod pogojem, da prizna avtorstvo (pri morebitni uporabi dela (npr. v seminarski nalogi) mora navesti izvirnega avtorja na način, ki ga določi izvirni avtor). Za podrobnosti: CC-BY-SA 3.0 oz. GFDL.") It is true that however they were not explicitly warned about commercial usage (but text doesn't say in any way anywhere that such usage is disallowed). Even if you have look at the other early OTRS cases you will see that they don't go in such details. The reference letter on Commons has also undergone several modifications and was improved over the time. Smihael (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
This is not the same as stating "your work may be used by anyone for any purpose" and they never explicitly expressed their agreement to such a publishment. These texts can't be licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL, because these are specially made licenses and can't be just derived from an explanation like you have just provided. --Eleassar my talk 22:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Clarity of the agreement is problematic, I agree but users were aware of all the implications, and were provided with links with lengthier explanations. I will refrain from commenting here, at least until someone else expresses a constructive opinion on the matter. --Smihael (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Users were not necessarily aware of all the implications, because these were not presented to them in a clear way. They also never made a statement that they publish their work under the CC-BY-SA 3.0, GFDL, or any other free license. As for the constructive opinion, do you want to say that my opinion is not constructive, just because I've pointed out that there could be (and probably is) a legal problem? --Eleassar my talk 09:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The Wikisources should be mimicking the process Commons:Commons:OTRS as the minimum and as much as possible (local laws may impose extra conditions) as it is an approved and working process; and I know that in enWS that is what we utilise. In these letters if the licence conditions were mentioned, and hopefully linked, and the the approval was returned with that knowledge and the identified works mentioned then it would seem that approval has been granted. That said, if someone came back to us and disputed their approval, then I would think that following a review that a prudent action for a disputed approval is to retract the work (case by case basis). I would think that we would leave existing works as they are currently hosted with the appropriate approval in OTRS ("grandfather"), and that we can improve the process for any future requests. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that the license conditions were not mentioned and not discussed at all (it was only stated: "for details CC-BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL", and this sentence was all about the licensing, no mention what they encompass). The returned approvals do not mention any license explicitly and do not show that the author would agree with the conditions of the license or with publication of his personal e-mail and other personal information online. There is also no reason to assume these permission were really granted by the author; it's quite possible they were made by students themselves if this was needed. --Eleassar my talk 09:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
They were linked and described. Authors agreed on disclosure of this piece of their personal information with "Poleg tega se strinjam, da bo to potrdilo zaradi evidence javno objavljeno na Wikiviru." --Smihael (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
As stated for the n-time, there was no statement in the sent or the received letter that the release of their works allows the usage to anyone for any purpose, including commercial purpose and derived works. It's unreasonable to expect people to click the links stating "for details on license see [X]"; most people just don't read details about licensing (perhaps you do). There was also no explicit statement about the license under which they publish their work. Was it published under the GFDL or the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license? Because these licenses differ substantially and the sole sentence was used in the sent letter and stated "for details: GFDL or CC-BY-SA 3.0". Also, even if they gave consent to publish their permission in the Wikisource, they have not agreed to have their e-mail and other personal data published there. --Eleassar my talk 09:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As per Billinghurst, deletions would be premature at this point in time. Authors clearly expressed their will for works to be published and it would be against their statements to delete works they published under the terms of CC-BY-SA 3.0. To elaborate on "CC-BY-SA 3.0 oz. GFDL":

We have chosen a CC licence as we wanted authors to be informed as precisely and clearly as possible, what it means to publish a work under a copyleft licence (The chosen CC licence is completely compatible to GFDL, which was the only licence used by the Foundation back then, and therefore it is permissible to use CC licensed works on Wikimedia projects against appropriate citation). However, due to the guidelines of Wikimedia Foundation every edit on Wikisource (and other sister-projects) was automatically made available under the terms of the GFDL licence (the usual warning message before saving page - in 2009 it was something like that: "By clicking save button you agree to release your contribution under the GFDL").

To put it more precisely, oz. (short for oziroma) in this case therefore, does not mean "or" but it plays the role of "more specifically" (it means works are given to the project of collaboration between Slovene Wikisource and Pedagogical Faculty in Ljubljana under CC licence with intention to publish them on Wikisource, where they will be published under the terms of GFDL licence).

The licences were briefly described (with additional examples) and authors have been provided with hyper-links, which is in fact lot more than any other user sees when contributing Wikipedia ("By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.").

I hope this explains the situation.

P.S.: Eleassar, please stop trolling. "Poleg tega se strinjam, da bo to potrdilo zaradi evidence javno objavljeno na Wikiviru." (or in English: I also agree that this acknowledgement will be publicly kept for evidence on the Wikisource.), clearly says the data will be published (personal data - name and email - are obviously integral part of the acknowledgement). Again, we switched to OTRS to handle tickets without disclosure of personal data. I don't see it as a conflict of interests if I confirm (or rejected) a ticket sent to OTRS by someone else for the project where I voluntary (without any payment) helped the participants with technical aspects of digitalisation.

Best regards, --Smihael (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the e-mail and other personal data are not an integral part of the acknowledgement, unless this is explicitly written and agreed upon. If you disagree, we may also ask the Slovene Information Commissioner. As to your wish to "have the authors informed as precisely and clearly as possible", you've evidently failed if different interpretations are possible and such long treatises must be written post festum to clarify the situation. It's strange that you say the works were given to the Pedagogical Faculty under the CC license and then published in the Wikisource under the GFDL license. I don't understand how this is legally possible. As to your request for me to "stop trolling", you should first understand that I am acting in good faith and don't want to have illegal content published in the Wikimedia projects. Please, assume good faith. Regards, --Eleassar my talk 10:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Her opinion has no meaning for Wikisource, as it is hosted in the USA. Moreover, at least the name is part of the acknowledgement - without a name how could one give a permission to publish his works. The works themselves were published under CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence (which is also explicitly stated; for example see s:sl:Po hiši praznično diši), but any further edits are GFDL licensed. --Smihael (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The name is part of the acknowledgment, the e-mail and other data are not. The data may be hosted in the USA, but I'm sure there are agreements regarding such issues between the two countries, and the publishers come from Slovenia. So I think the commissioner would have the authority to have a look at this, and if you agree, we may ask her to clarify the situation. What do you say?
After I've had a look at the category containing these works, I can say that the works are sometimes published under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, sometimes under no specified license.
How could any further edits be GFDL licensed? What's your opinion that the two licenses are completely compatible based upon? The two licenses are not compatible (see here), so all such material does not respect the sharealike clause and must be deleted. (I actually did not know there was such material, so thanks for bringing this issue to my attention.)
Also, where is the statement that the author agrees with the publication as CC-BY-SA instead of GFDL?
What can we base the good-faith opinion that the signed person is the only copyright holder upon? Until now, there was no statement about this.
And most importantly, these people were never explicitly warned that they publish their work to be available to anyone for any usage, that they do so irrevocably, and they have never stated that they release their work under a specific license, which they have read and understood.
In short, besides the illegal publication of personal data, it's clear that these permissions have no sound legal basis and would not stand a test in any court. --Eleassar my talk 12:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you expect? To censor their names, mails and other data they put into the acknowledgements with black ink? True, they have not been explicitly warned about that (but they have been warned that their work might be altered and shared under alike conditions, which is the main idea of CC licence*); but is any other user who contributes to Wikipedia or any other sister project warned? All they see is:

By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

(with links) and no-one seems to be concerned about that.

The incompatibility case you've mentioned here is irrelevant. Here it goes the other way around - from CC (source text) to GFDL+CC (source text + editorial commits).

As concerned the pages with no header: I already deleted those with absolutely no data (if you go through my deletions, you'll notice there have been quite a lot of such cases), but there are still some remaining pages with no header but OTRS template (with ticket ID). You can help to add/fill headers with the relevant data (title, author, licence).

Instead of trying to find n-excuses to delete the entire project (which of course demands less effort), inform yourself about the project first and help our efforts to tag all pages appropriately.

I also suggest to move this discussion to the local Village pump. You've made some important remarks, pointed out some problems that can be solved without deleting (not at last, we still have the contact data and can contact authors to verify their statements) and I think it would be better, if other active contributes can see them (in our native language) and improve project accordingly.

* In short: CC is not all about allowing commercial usage. The main idea is remix concept (I suggest reading Free culture by L. Lessig), commerical usage is just one of the implications.

Best regards, --Smihael (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It always seems weird to follow the debates in English on the international forum where only Slovenes participate and where topics that concern Slovenes only are discussed. In a recent similar case when Slovene Information Commissioner restricted searching by names in the national text corpus I have asked my colleagues abroad for their opinion[2] and found out that they hadn't experienced anything similar in their countries, though the jurisdiction there doesn't differ from the Slovene. The strange compulsive deleting passion practiced by Eleassar corresponds to the destroying of basic national linguistic services executed by the obsessive Slovene Information Commissioner, the devastation that has no parallels abroad. An accidental non-Slovene reader of this debate should know that some of my fellow countrymen enjoy extremely in a scribal interpretation of laws. I wouldn't speculate about possible additional personal motifs for such a destructive behaviour, but I would just remark that it is supported by the traditon of scribal, legalistic manner among the population and—above all—by the lack of common sense. The mental basis for such an attitude is far away from the culture that made Wikimedia projects possible and is dangerous for its future. I wonder how Eleassar doesn't realize, in spite of numerous argumented protests on Slovene Wikipedia Village pump (here and here and on Wikisource), that he is advocating for the principles fundamentally different from those shared by the international wiki community and that he is acting hostile towards the very purpose of Wikipedia and its sister projects: sharing information not deleting it.
The fact that nobody else in the Wikimedia community (with the exception of billinghurst) wanted to get involved into this debate shoud be a sufficient sign to return this exotic sub-Alpine scribal case on a local ground and simply vote against Eleassar's cultural sabotage on Wikipedia, on Wikisource, and on Wikimedia Commons. --Hladnikm (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, perhaps you should focus on the matter instead of the user. The issues I have exposed have not been appropriately addressed. I'd be glad if some other user besides the two involved comments on this case. It's not an effort to sabotage the "Slovene cultural heritage", but to preserve the principles of Wikipedia (to offer free works and only free works) as well as the principles of the Slovene law. The publication you have afforded yourself is just the opposite of this. I understand that you disagree with the current Slovene copyright act and the decision of the commissioner, but this page and the disrespect of Wikipedia policies and copyright law is just not the right forum and the right way to resolve this. You're more than welcome to publish any work, but only as long as the law and the rules of Wikimedia projects are respected. Regards, --Eleassar my talk 21:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, there are a number of components to this matter

  1. There is a permissions system issue. slWS that does not seem to follow the methodology that broader community and the Foundation has established. I would think that it is advisable that all permissions should be in the OTRS system; they do not belong on wiki. OTRS is a record system, and it is overviewed by the whole community. I would suggest that all slWS permissions be migrated to the system.
  2. There is the process issue that one party has said that it is sufficient, and another has said that it is. When two parties disagree, continuing to heatedly debate it back and forth doesn't work. Bring in some knowledgeable and non-partisan people to review and give advice.
  3. The deletions discussion is completely premature. Have the review, see what it reports. It will come to one of three decisions, okay, undecided/seek clarification, or not okay. Only then should we have a deletions discussion, as then it is informed.
  4. Put your philosophical view points aside, this should be managed as a legal issue first.

I think that it is now at the stage that you get this reviewed, and it probably via Requests for comment and move the discussion there and seek that independent comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I'll do so. --Eleassar my talk 10:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

WT10

Wiktionary turns ten on 12/12/12. Any chance the WMF will do anything to mark it? It's not nearly as significant as WP10, I suppose, but I don't think it should just be ignored. (Not sure if this is the right forum for this.) --Yair rand (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from November 2012

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for November 2012, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 20:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Unsign for translation

I would like to Un-sign for the translation project, but i wasn't able to do it. can somebody please help?--EsB (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If you mean the translation notifications, you have to use Special:TranslatorSignup. Note that if you've had problems with duplicates from Translation Notification Bot (sorry!) you should probably ignore them, this is fixed now. --Nemo 11:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Renaming the Local Embassy

The following is a proposal I've drafted over on the English Wikipedia's Village Pump.


The Local Embassy is an unfortunately-named apparatus designed to facilitate aid to "international users". There are a myriad of reasons why this "embassy" ought to be renamed or wholly remodeled; although this is evidently a Wikimedia project and could be extended to other wikis, change regarding this should be initiated here.

  • The main page could be of some assistance to users, I suppose, but there is really no introduction to the page or explanation of what precisely it is. All that exists is a blurb that says "this is not a real embassy", but it's written in English and in all probability will be ignored by someone desperately needing consular assistance.
  • The amount of queries regarding diplomatic services on the talk page, plus an earlier proposal to rename the page, greatly outweighs any requests for assistance.
    • Most English Wikipedia editors can speak English fluently, at any rate, and probably don't need a great deal of assistance if they come from countries where the vernacular is not English.
  • And now to the page's biggest problem—the name. Something entitled "Embassy" is inevitably going to draw the attention of certain persons searching for help with passports, visas, etcetera. They often reveal a load of personal information, as well.
  • The page receives slight but reasonable amounts of traffic; these rarely extend to the talk page, which receives ery few. Given that the content on the project page itself can be helpful, deleting the entire "embassy" probably isn't the best solution.
  • The last proposal to rename or to delete the entity never got anywhere because it didn't receive enough feedback, and essentially died on Wikimedia.

Currently, the Local Embassy is in need of a rename and some revisions. I would suggest renaming the page "Interlingual coordination". Although kind of bulky, redirects could be created featuring names more accessible to non-English speakers; as mentioned above, "international editors" on Wikipedia are likely fluent in that particular tongue. At any rate, a change will be preferential to the status quo regarding the project.

Thanks for any comments you may have; I'm most active on en-Wiki, but will gladly respond here to any comments or concerns. dci | TALK 00:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Moved from Meta:Babel. πr2 (t • c) 04:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Can't log on to Russian Wikipedia

Hope this is the right place to report this. I'm having problems with my global log-in in accessing the Russian Wikipedia site. If I go there, it doesn't log me in automatically, and I get an error message (in Russian) if I try to log in manually. I don't speak Russian, but it seems to be some blacklist preventing user names of four words or more. Is this something specific to Russian, or something more general? I need the log-in for automated edits from Commons when renaming files.Optimist on the run (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your name is on the blacklist. You can take a look here. --Kolega2357 (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I presume you don't mean just me personally - just any user with four words or more. Is there any reason for this? As I said, it screws up global log-in and prevents images I rename being fixed.Optimist on the run (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Optimist, this is just a guess, but on the page linked by Kolega, the "four words" item occurs in a section that says something about "new accounts." I wonder if the four-word limit is only for accounts that are not yet confirmed/autoconfirmed? I don't know what the autoconfirmation threshold is on ru-wiki, but presumably you could try making 10 or 15 dummy edits, wait 10 days or so, and see if you are able to edit.
I realize this isn't optimal -- I'm as mystified as you are, just speculating here. -Pete F (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I can't even log in to make dummy edits :-( Optimist on the run (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Optimist, I am one of bureaucrats of ru-wikipedia. You can create account there with arbitrary name and let me know, I will rename it to your's one. --Levg (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll do that and drop a note on your talk page.Optimist on the run (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Curious - I've just gone to ru-wiki and found myself logged in. I'm using a different machine than I was before, so it may be a cookie issue, or perhaps a temporary glitch. I'll try it on my home PC tonight and see if it makes any difference.Optimist on the run (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
No misteries, they've removed the rule.[3] --Nemo 08:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
And quoted this discussion in the edit summary. Apteva (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

WMF Wiki

Please participate in the discussion about the wikimediafoundation.org home page and the wiki's purpose in general at Foundation_wiki_feedback#Purpose_of_wmf:Home.  ℳono  18:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Unattached accounts

Resolved.

···Vanischenu「mc|Talk」 21:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

case 1

I don't remember me having any edit on kmwiki, but there are edits in my contribs there. I cannot even see the language used and has never heard of it before.

I saw this first when looking at my global contribs where I saw it colored red and saying unattached account. Seeing that, I clicked on the link to go to the page on that wiki which unintentionally made it attached.

Look carefully, the edit was made on 17:01, 11 October 2012 and the account was created on 13:53, 18 December 2012. This is too much!···Vanischenu「mc|Talk」 14:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That is odd, so I looked into it. The kmwiki database has a rev_user of 0 for the edit, so it's possible that edit was imported from somewhere? I'm not sure about the history of km.wikipedia.org.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CSteipp (talk • contribs) 01:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This is exactly what happened: see here. It was transwikied (=imported). πr2 (t • c) 02:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! That means there was nothing to worry. I am feeling relieved. Thank you. (I wonder why only two edits are shown in the history). ···Vanischenu「mc|Talk」 21:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There were only two revisions because not all revisions need to be imported. When you go to Special:Import, it asks you whether you want to import all revisions or only the latest one(s). I believe that the second edit in the history you linked to was the act of importing the page. πr2 (t • c) 21:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Well explained. Thank you! Happy Christmas.···Vanischenu「mc|Talk」 00:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Case 2

You know, there are some (very few) people who have been brought in such a way that they will always be honest and good hearted. I found such a person and was successful in making them interested to join Wikipedia. And what's next, an account with username parabola was created (at commons) and attempted to merge, only to realize that such an account was already taken by another one in some other wikis here. This is frustrating!···Vanischenu「mc|Talk」 14:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is sometimes frustrating that the amount of letter combinations is limited and that two peopleon this world go for the same name, but I am sure you can find another suitable name that is not taken yet. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Unified_login and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unified_login --Malyacko (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Helpful and perfect answers.···Vanischenu「mc|Talk」 21:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

quotes

An IP quoted the following at English wp Help Desk,

You retards need to learn how to run your site properly

Thank you!···Vanischenu「mc|Talk」 14:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

We are learning as fast as we can! Rich Farmbrough 13:30 23 December 2012 (GMT).
:) Happy Christmas!···Vanischenu「mc|Talk」 00:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Idea for new project: Wikirate

As an extension of the "fair trade" idea that was started decades ago, I would like to see all products and services, companies and organizations, public officials and governments, all facets of our civilization, get rated for their overall effects on our world.

Imagine a world where a shopper is able to scan a product on a shelf with their phone and have an accurate "environmental / sociological effect" or "moral" rating of that product displayed so that the shopper can make an informed decision about whether or not to buy it. Imagine a world where sociological impact / moral ratings actually guided consumer decisions to the extent that transnational corporations actually started caring about the impacts they had and actually started caring about the ratings they'd receive by Wikirate Groups, and, as such, actually started adjusting their operations so as to effect the world positively overall rather than negatively. Imagine a world where people were no longer misled by sound-byte statements of politicians or governments but could actually check up on the extent of the moral weight / sociological impact of their governments' policies.

For the first time in human history, I think the technological and sociological context of our civilization is such that we have the potential to reverse the historical trend by which those least responsible for systemic injustice have suffered most by it.

Help change the world for the better by working on Wikirate Groups Wikimedia Project:

Wikirate

How would you determine whether something has a good "sociological effect" while being objective? What if some people think it's unethical but others think it is ethical? πr2 (t • c) 21:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Many Wikirate groups using a sociological perspective would present facts and analysis in a documentary fashion that does not suggest that any particular sociological effect is inherently good or bad. Whether or not the sociological effect is itself a good or bad effect would be left for members to vote their conscience on after considering the research and analysis presented. That being said, not all Wikirate groups would use a sociological perspective. One Wikirate group would focus on a ethics-based, while another a humanitarian-based, or another a environmental-effects-based, or another faith-based perspective, etc., all of which I think would be equally valid. Please join the discussion here: Talk:Wikirate

Staff/Board and policy discussion pages

Do specific staff or nominated members of the board keep tabs on policy discussion pages? It seems to me that they should because important matters may be raised there. I raise this because my (admittedly minor) comment Talk:Privacy policy#Cookies has drawn no response in six weeks. Rich Farmbrough 13:30 23 December 2012 (GMT).

Hi, Rich. I know that some of them have these pages watchlisted, but they tend to have tons to do and I'm sure that when other things are going on material can be overlooked. It's probably a good idea to ping them when dropping an important question on a policy page, or if you drop one that isn't answered, to nudge them. MediaWiki 1.19 changed the cookie expiry rate. I'm not 100% sure what we do about something like that when it makes a Board approved policy out of date - I'll see what I can figure out. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposals: Family tree wiki

Recently the proposal for Rodovid, a family-tree wiki, was revived. There are also pages for other such wikis, including WeRelate, Familypedia, and WikiTree. WeRelate seems to be the largest of these. There seems to be already a lot of support for Wikimedia host one of these, but over the past few years discussion began to stagnate. Please take a look, and indicate your opinions. -- YPNYPN ✡ 21:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "There seems to be already a lot of support for Wikimedia host one of these"? Quotes welcome. --Malyacko (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Look at the support section of Rodovid. -- YPNYPN ✡ 14:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

When Wikipedias contradict each other

Where can I report contradictions in facts on different language Wikipedias? For example, the page about "Montevideo" in the Swahili WP says it means "I see/saw a mountain" (« Jina la "Montevideo" lamaanisha "Naona mlima" ») but the English Wikipedia says that this is "rejected by the majority of experts". πr2 (t • c) 06:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you leave a note on the talk page of whichever article you think is wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2012-12&oldid=24955953"