/archive1 -- /archive2 -- /archive3 -- /archive4 -- /archive5 -- /archive6 -- /archive7 -- /archive8 -- /archive9 -- /archive10 -- /archive11 -- /archive12
Open Proxies
Hi!
I'm Wulfson of Russian WP.
I would like to check whether you could help me with my problem - or if not, whether you could direct me to someone else.
This is an issue of the Meta ban on the use of open proxies (Meta:No open proxies).
The main question is - should we regard this ban as a MUST, as an obligatory rule that must be enforced in every Meta project and in every national language WP? Or does every national WP community decide for itself whether it should enforce it - say, by taking a vote?
I hope my question does not seem ludicrous. A majority of our active community does believe this Rule to be binding upon us, and we are blocking open proxies whenever we can - yet we still have a large enough group of people who do not wish to be restricted by this Rule and who even say we may go against it (or part of it), if we so decide it among ourselves. So they doubt the validity and relevance of our sysops' resolute action against open proxy users (actually, the ones that were blocked were all sockpuppets and/or vandals). They, in particular, refer to the fact that many decent users in Russian regions get access to the web and, accordingly, to WP, through Internet providers which, in their turn, use anonymous proxies to concentrate their web traffic and reduce costs. So they say that, by banning these, we may deprive them of the opportunity to edit WP at all.
Our position, however, is that we (say, the ArbCom) can reasonably consider all such cases, whenever they arise, and take a decision in every individual case (or region by region, if need be).
Question 2 is - what is Jimmy Wales' opinion? The conflicting factions here cite his quotes (or alleged quotes) that seem to disagree.
Finally, Question 3 - can a national language WP community take a vote on a Rule of its own, which does not contradict the Meta Rule yet goes even further, saying that users who persistently use open proxies without any apparent reason (or without a permit from the ArbCom) shall be blocked?
Regards, Wulfson 12:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
"No Open Proxies" is a policy allowing us to simply block an open proxy if it's causing problems.
But of course not all open proxies should be blocked. E.g. for countries that can only reach us via proxies, it wouldn't make sense to block them.
Ant
Which countries are blocked? And why?
Some obvious suggestions about Wikimedia Foundation finances
Hi, I'm almost complete sure these have been brought up and looked into, but then again, as a Six Sigma "Black Belt" it is has been my experience that the "obvious" is sometimes overlooked.
I was reading some of a recent financial statement and was surprised to see ~$45,000 in PayPal fees and ~$76,000 in travel expenses. Am I reading these figures right? Holy cow. Have you negotiated lower than standard rates with PayPal? With the volumes of transactions you do, there must be a way to reduce the overhead of receiving donations. And the travel costs seem quite high as well...
Best Regards, --Aerik 03:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The paypal fees, OH yes we tried ! But with no results. This is why we also have the moneybooker system, which is far less costly, but alas, less known. And I agree, these fees are frankly too high. But we unfortunately have little lever here to negociate.
Travel. Seems high as well, but you must realise travel is not only board (board travel is always related to board job, so does not take into account travel costs to go to a conference, this is taken in charge by the organisations inviting us to talk). It is also all travel done by employees themselves (such as Delphine going to a wikimeet). It is also travel made to meet some potentiel content and business parters (this cost can not really be left aside. If we want to do business deals, we sometimes have to go and visit people. For example, I am invited to a meeting with Unesco people in may, my travel costs will be paid by WMF). Last, in travel is also included the travel support we gave to some people to go to Wikimania (this cost was actually supported by sponsors, but still appear in travel). So, when you add it up, yup, it comes to that amount overall. In all honesty, I do not think it is high. Since I became chair, the board met in Florida in november, in Rotterdam in January and will meet again in March. This is one trip every 2 months, but the amount of work we can get done when face to face is absolutely amazing.
Anthere 08:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes - there are definitely some things that are simply done more effectively in person! On the paypal/moneybooker thing... it looks to me (after only a quick look) like moneybooker moves the fees from the seller to the buyer, basically (?). At any rate - have you looked at direct credit card payment solutions? There are a lot of suppliers, and it looks like many of them are more expensive than paypal... I had a radical idea: Do a press release with a request for quotes for credit card processing suppliers - have them come to you. Someone might choose to take it on at a very low rate for the good PR.
- How about Google Checkout? They are advertising no fees for all of 2007 (http://checkout.google.com/seller/fees.html) and even after than, it may be cheaper than paypal (https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_display-receiving-fees-outside) depending on the volume. OR, maybe Google would be willing to cut you a discount when PayPal wouldn't.
- Best Regards, --Aerik 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ever give any more thought to Google Checkout? See https://checkout.google.com/seller/npo/ - free for about the next 14 months... I'm not endorsing Google Checkout necessarily, but it could save a lot of money. --Aerik 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
sugestion: creating a Wiki-based family tree site under Wikimedia
such a open-source project is necessary and important. are you guys considering such a project? Acidburn24m 01:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nod. This has already been mentionned (see Proposals for new projects), but did not meet so much support.... Anthere
ComCom
Je ne comprend pas pourquoi on ne peux pas demander le ComCom le suivant:
What does the Wikimedia Foundation do to fight corruption in Wikimedia projects? Is there a place to report corruption? What point of view has the Wikimedia Foundation with respect to the goals stated by Transparency International?
Le page du ComCom dit
Statement of scope: .... Supporting and overseeing communication with the general public.
Ou est-ce que on peut demander cette question? Pourqoui les persons du ComCom peuve directement bourer le question sans dire ou il y a une endroit mellieur pour cette question? Tobias Conradi 84.190.55.228 19:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand this question :(( Can you explain which corruption you are talking about ?
Hello again, Anthere! Can you confirm the Wikinews ArbCom election results so that the users can be officially inducted into the ArbCom? --Thunderhead 21:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- what are we exactly supposed to approve ? ant
- Perhaps I misread the policy, but aren't all arbitration committies to be approved by the Board? Thunderhead 05:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Politique corporative pour l'usage des logos
Sur une page utilisateur, on voit apparaître un logo émis par la fondation. J'ai été tenté de demander au contributeur de virer l'image, mais il n'y a aucun document de la fondation qui prévienne cette utilisation. Est-ce acceptable ?
Les Wikimedia visual identity guidelines se concentrent principalement sur l'utilisation du logo « principal » de WikiMedia. Selon mon interprétation du texte, il faudrait que chaque logo émis par la fondation soit accompagné au minimum du texte « WIKIMEDIA ». Or, Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg, par exemple, ne contient pas ce texte. Il en est ainsi pour plusieurs autres logos émis par la fondation. Est-ce voulu ?
I hereby request permission to alter Wikimedia logos for my own public, non-profit use.
I know that those logos are copyrighted, so I am asking for permission before altering them in any way, or posting these alterations publicly. Also, I was told by a member of the WP Community to ask you, so here I am. I have created a Google Co-op Wikimedia search engine for my own use, and I would like to combine - meaning place side by side in one image - several project logos in order to create a title image to use in place of the default text supplied by Google: "Wikimedia Search". The Search Engine is located here: http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=002002171166015021901%3Aiz3pyuxcryc w:en:User:Alex460, 18:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, specific community logos have been developped specifically for this type of use. You may find the relevant one here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg. YOu are free to use that logo, not the Wikipedia copyrighted logo. Cheers and good luck. Anthere 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your help. The image I have created is posted here: http://pages.burgert.name/WikimediaSearch1.png Alex460; w:en:User:Alex460 07:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikibooks - imprint
Hello, Mrs. Nibart-Devouard,
my name is Gert Blazejewski, I work as administrator for German wikibooks. One of our authors told us recently, that we have Jimbo Wales still called as general contact (pls. have a look at http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Impressum). Now the question is, whether we should change the German Wikibooks - imprint and give your address as general contact address instead of Jimbo Wales. I am not sure in this general legal question. Can you help me? Kind regards, Gert Blazejewski, 2007/04/22.
- hmmmm. I see. I have no idea where that phone number goes. No idea what the address is (not the official one in any cases), and the email is wikia type. Ouch. At the same time, I do think the contact should be someone actually in the office (which is the case of neither JImbo, nor I). Let me check with other board members how we fix that. Thank you for mentionning it. It is not really a legal issue proper, but definitly an organizational issue :-) Anthere 22:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Administrator permissions on ro.Wikibooks
Hi, my name is Emily, I am administrator on ro.wikipedia and I require administrator permissions for ro.wikibooks, because I want to correct the mistakes, translate the interface, do some cleaning and add new content, considering that the two admins of ro.wikibooks were not active in the last months. Thank you, Emily
- Please make this request here. Thanks, Yonatanh 15:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Edition war
Hello, I have been blocked by a steward (guillom for 1 day.because I added a paragraph on Nicolas Sarkozy's french wikipedia page about his position on software pattern which is very particular. No other french politician has been telling such things about that. All other politicians which expressed themselves about that. Can you talk with the steward who blocked me about this issue ?
My discussion page : http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_Utilisateur:Le.iota
Can you please discuss with Guillom about this issue ?
TUM logo
The logo is in the public ___domain in Germany because of its ordinary and average design: design patent law (Geschmacksmustergesetz) applies as a lex specialis in such cases. Please refer your lawyers to BVerfG, 26. Januar 2005, Az. 1 BvR 1571/02, GRUR 2005, 410 – „Laufendes Auge“. I guess the logo is not registered as a design patent? Then there are no copyright-like restrictions on it. We use very many logos in the German wikipedia under this provision. The logo should also be in the PD anywhere else (except UK and other countries with sweat of the brow jurisdiction or provisions for "typographic copyright"), since it consists solely of design of letters, which is not copyrightable, see en:WP:PD#Fonts. --rtc 02:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- contrary to what you say, the logo is a registered trademark. This is not an argument to delete it though. However, the argument that it is not copyrightable does not seem to be widely accepted. And definitly not accepted by TUM. Anthere 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that I was talking about w:design patent registration, not about w:trademark registration. I don't claim that the logo wasn't registered as a trademark. The argument about its copyrightability has been given in a very clear and unambigous wording by Germany's constitutional court; if it is not widely accepted then only because people don't know the decision. Please at least give the lawyer a hint about the decision I cited—I assume that he didn't know it. Further, I guess if TUM were explained the background of the PD status and that their interests are in no way affected by this status, then they wouldn't be so negative about the logo, if the trademark restrictions were pointed out more clearly on the logo's image description page. As a first step, and since we are using so many logos under this provision, I have suggested in the German wikipedia to change the logo template to include more explicit information about the PD status and said restrictions. It goes without saying that we shall respect your decisions, but I hope we can improve the situation for the other logos before it comes to further office actions. --rtc 21:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Nod. All this is noted. Mindspillage will follow up on this, as she is more versed in legal considerations than myself. Best Anthere
- Please note that I was talking about w:design patent registration, not about w:trademark registration. I don't claim that the logo wasn't registered as a trademark. The argument about its copyrightability has been given in a very clear and unambigous wording by Germany's constitutional court; if it is not widely accepted then only because people don't know the decision. Please at least give the lawyer a hint about the decision I cited—I assume that he didn't know it. Further, I guess if TUM were explained the background of the PD status and that their interests are in no way affected by this status, then they wouldn't be so negative about the logo, if the trademark restrictions were pointed out more clearly on the logo's image description page. As a first step, and since we are using so many logos under this provision, I have suggested in the German wikipedia to change the logo template to include more explicit information about the PD status and said restrictions. It goes without saying that we shall respect your decisions, but I hope we can improve the situation for the other logos before it comes to further office actions. --rtc 21:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Conférences grand-public à Rennes les 4,5,et 6juillet : s'il vous plait, venez !
Bonjour, La région Bretagne organise les "Etes TIC de Bretagne" les 4,5 et 6 juillet à Rennes. Michel Briand et moi sommes les principaux concepteurs du programme dans lequel le grand-public pourra gratuitement assister à trois conférences.
Voici les intervenants pressentis :
- WIKIPEDIA : le savoir par tous et pour tous -> Mme Nibart-Drouard responsable du board de Wikipedia (Monde)
- web 2.0 et journalisme citoyen -> Carlo Revelli (fondateur AGORAVOX)
- Les enjeux de la gouvernance de l'internet -> M.Benhamou, représentant de la France au sommet mondial de la société de l'information et à l'Internet Gouvernance Forum.
Sinon j'ai une conférence sur "Mondes virtuels/mondes réels : stratégies", avec des professeurs de San José fondateurs du projet Library 2.0 dans second life (500 professeurs actifs, 6 campus virtuels véritablement utilisés en contexte de cours dans les universités) mais il faut faire la conférence depuis second life et techniquement c'est peu fiable...Je vais tenter de la faire à Aix dans le cadre du séminaire upfing.
Pour avoir un aperçu des "Champs Libres" dans lesquels se trouve la grande salle de conférence : [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/ortille/158917359/]
Je vous sollicite donc urgemment pour intervenir à la date du 5 juillet 2007 de 16h15 à 17h30.
Le reste du programme est en cours d'élaboration sur un wiki. Le programme s'articule autour d'une rencontre des laboratoires francophones de recherche sur les usages (notamment avec Serge Proulx), de rencontres sur l'économie du web 2.0 et de rencontres sur les pratiques collaboratives. Les rencontres ont lieu en matinée et 9 ateliers ont lieu les après midis des 4 et 5. Deux soirées (carrefour des possibles et projets innovants en Bretagne) sont programmés les 4 et 5 au soir.
Ce serait un véritable honneur pour nous que vous acceptiez de venir présenter Wikipédia lors d'une de nos conférences pleinières !
Au fait, permettez-moi de me présenter : http://www.web2bretagne.org/wiki/HugAubin.
Bonjour Anthère,
- Le sujet est la "rule of shorter term", suivant laquelle quand une oeuvre artistique n'est plus protégée dans son pays de première publication, les pays signataires du traité de Berne le considèrent comme également domaine public, sauf disposition législative contraire.
- Les USA ayant été considérés comme n'applicant pas la "rule of shorter term", Commons n'admet pas de travaux tombés localement dans le domaine public avant la limite légale US.
- Suite à une contestation de ma part, j'ai souligné qu'il n'y avait pas de raison de dire que la "rule of shorter term" ne s'applique pas aux USA. La situation aux USA a été examinée un peu plus sérieusement, et la conclusion est ... qu'il n'y a rien de très conclusif ;o)
- Du coup, il y a un débat pour savoir l'attitude à adopter sur Commons, y compris la possibilité de risquer un procès aux USA...
Je pense qu'il vaut mieux que tu y jettes un oeil. Michelet-密是力 10:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Si tu as besoin d'éléments d'analyse ou de contexte, je suis plus facilement joignable sur fr:utilisateur:Michelet ou commons:user:Micheletb Michelet-密是力 16:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC) et si tu es de passage à Paris on pourra toujours en discuter autour d'un pot - je n'ai guère l'occasion de passer à Clermont Ferrand :(
Having spoken with a member of Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. board it seems the best to communicate the consensus of the Wikimedia projects and especially of Commons via foundation-l to inform the WMF board about the opinion of the communities. For the small German Wikisource Community I can already communicate the clear consensus that the texts of authors like Karl Kraus or Kurt Tucholsky (which are as scanned books on Commons and as E-texts on German Wikisource) should remain on Wikimedia servers. The active users of Wikisource-de have voted for the option #3 in the "opinion section" on Commons. Best regards --Histo 14:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The discussion on Portuguese Wikisource is still ongoing, but apparently this is resulting on a consensus to keep all texts on this situation. All of these is going to receive a copyright disclaimer on their talk page (example) with instructions if a successor claims for copyright (the second paragraph of the header on s:pt:Wikisource:Violações de direitos autorais is specially devoted to it). The listing is still on the beginning, but in some weeks all talk pages from these problematic PD works can be listed on the category s:pt:Categoria:!Obras protegidas por direitos autorais nos Estados Unidos if in any time any emergency action is needed (but please, if Foundation receive any copyright claims on these works from pt.ws, send a friendly-warning before going to do some type of delete action, to make way to "move" from pt.ws to some external site). 555 17:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I thought there was an agreement. But apparently, there is not. I am not sure board members will agree on this topic anytime soon. I fear I will have no answer for you. I'll try to remember your warning 555, but usually, I am not the person doing the office action. You should mention it to Cary perhaps. Cheers Anthere 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Lupo's analysis
Florence, the board's non-response you posted and removed at the commons makes me suspect that the board maybe didn't quite understand where the problem is. (Complying with the laws of all countries is probably not what anybody would want, we'd end up using the maximum of the Mexican term of 100 years after an author's death or of the U.S. term of 95 years since publication. That's excessive.)
Let me try to put together an executive summary:
The problem arises in the context of public ___domain works hosted on Wikimedia servers. The public ___domain is different in different countries: a work may be in the public ___domain in one country, but may still be copyrighted in another country. Because the U.S. does not implement the rule of the shorter term, foreign works that are in the public ___domain in many foreign countries where copyright expires 70 years after an author's death are still copyrighted in the U.S. (where a copyright term of 95 years since the first publication applies for works published before 1978), if they were still copyrighted in their foreign source country on January 1, 1996.
The rule of the shorter term is a non-mandatory provision in the Berne Convention saying that if the copyright on a work has expired in its source country, other countries are allowed to also consider the work to be in the public ___domain. Notwithstanding Michelet's rather singular opinion above, there is strong evidence that the U.S. does not implement this rule: the U.S. grants all eligible works the copyright exclusively under the U.S. copyright law.
The WMF and its servers are in the U.S. They are subject to U.S. law. It is believed that this means that any content hosted on Wikimedia servers must be legal to publish in the U.S.
The commons therefore has the policy (commons:Commons:Licensing) that works that are used without a license but under a "public ___domain" claim must be in the public ___domain in both the source country of the work and in the U.S. However, as one can see, any attempt to enforce that policy is highly unpopular.
People would prefer to apply only the law of the source country, ignoring U.S. law for non-U.S. works. The dispute is ultimately about whether this is allowed.
Since public ___domain works are not licensed, the licensing resolution doesn't help at all to resolve that question.
The problem does not only affect the Commons, but also all the other Wikimedia projects, in particular the non-English ones. As I understand it, local projects would like to apply only their local laws, ignoring U.S. copyright law with its rather inconvenient copyright restorations.
This gives rise to a set of questions that the Board should seek to answer in a resolution on minimum requirements for hosting.
- Is it true that any content hosted on Wikimedia servers must be legal to publish in the U.S.?
- If the answer to that question is "no", we can stop right there. Local non-English Wikimedia projects could decide to apply only their local foreign laws, ignoring U.S. law, and the Commons could also change its public ___domain requirements to consider only the law of the source country. (For the commons, however, there'd still be the problem that e.g. an image that was in the public ___domain only in Switzerland could be hosted, but couldn't be used on any other Wikimedia project.) The commons would still need to tag images better to avoid that such "claimed public ___domain" images were used on projects where these images are not in the public ___domain under the local laws, but that's a perennial problem that we already have.
- If the answer is "yes":
- May local non-English Wikimedia projects still make an exception to that rule by applying only their local laws?
- I don't know if that'd even be possible. Maybe one could argue that since such non-English projects are clearly targeted at non-U.S. markets, the fact that the servers are in the U.S. is incidental and of no importance, and that the non-English projects may use the laws of their target countries instead. But again, I have no idea whether that'd be sound. Note, however, that if such an exception is not possible, there might be an increased incentive to fork for local projects, using servers based in their jurisdiction.
- Confirm whether or not the WMF (and thus the Wikimedia projects) considers the U.S. to apply the rule of the shorter term.
- If the WMF is prepared to defend the argument that the U.S. would need to apply that rule (following maybe Michelet's reasoning, for which there is no external confirmation, though), local projects again could operate basically under their local laws, and the commons also could consider only the source country of a "public ___domain" work. Otherwise, local projects (and the commons for "public ___domain" works) need to apply at least the local laws plus the U.S. copyright law. Take note of William F. Patry's comments on the U.S. and the rule of the shorter term.
- Is the Commons' rule for public ___domain works "a work must be in the public ___domain in its source country and in the U.S." good enough?
- Or does the Board really want the Commons to apply the rule "the work must be in the public ___domain in all countries"? Careful there; see above. The commons would also no longer be able to host pre-1923 U.S. works (which are not in the public ___domain in some other countries), it could no longer host many reproductions of old art (Bridgeman v. Corel doesn't apply everywhere), it couldn't host U.S. governmental works anymore (may in theory be copyrighted outside the U.S.), and so on. (I really don't think you'd want that.)
I truly think the WMF should clarify these points in a resolution on hosting. I know the WMF has traditionally avoided giving concrete guidelines, but as the operator of the servers and as the service provider, the WMF should at the very least have some very basic guidelines as to what content it is legally prepared to host.
It is clear to me that these are difficult questions that should not be decided without qualified legal advice. (The "choice of law" problem for copyright on the Internet, is, AFAIK, still subject to intense debate by scholars.) But eventually, the WMF should decide what its policies on these matters are.
As an interim solution, I personally (if I were on the Board) would push for a binding resolution requiring all projects to identify and tag "public ___domain" content they host that is not in the public ___domain in the U.S. since the U.S. does not apply the rule of the shorter term. This basically concerns all those foreign works that were still copyrighted in their source country (or source countries) on the URAA date, which is January 1, 1996 for most countries.
I would (were I a Board member) also continue to push for actually getting these issues sorted out properly, and then to have them published in a Board resolution.
I hope you don't consider my comments here presumptuous. If the Board should have been aware of all this, I humbly ask you to accept my apology for having had doubts. If the Board thinks this was completely wrong and the WMF should not make any statement on these matters, I ask you to forgive my ignorance. (Though in that latter case, I'd like to be told why. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the function and purpose of the WMF.)
Cheers, Lupo 08:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I forgot a couple of things. A clarification of these issues does not only affect post-1922 works of authors who died after 1926. It also affects a great many more works (or images, or images of works).
- Freedom of panorama is an exception in the copyright laws of many countries that says that taking and publishing a photograph of a copyrighted (three-dimensional) artwork (such as a building, a sculpture, or a statue) is not an infringement of the copyright of the depicted artwork if that artwork is permanently installed in a public place. The U.S. copyright law recognizes this "freedom of panorama" only for buildings, but not for works of the visual arts (sculptures, statues). The Commons currently hosts such images, including images of statues located in countries where "freedom of panorama" applies (although the policy applied is unclear and inconsistent, see this extended discussion). So do many local non-English projects where their domestic laws allow it. If U.S. copyright law must be strictly applied, no Wikimedia project could use any photograph of a copyrighted sculpture or statue because publishing the photo would not be ok under U.S. copyright law. (Photos of buildings would be fine.) Except, of course, if the depicted work itself was freely licensed (highly unlikely), or the copyright holder agrees to freely licensing the photo (rare, but doable is some cases), or if local projects can set up EDPs to allow such images. The Commons, being barred from EDPs, could not host such images.
- If U.S. copyright law must be strictly applied, all those PD-country tags that have proliferated across the various projects would need to state under what conditions works would also be in the public ___domain in the U.S., and works using such country-specific tags would need to be checked. A lot of work! Most existing PD-country tags only make a statement about the country they are about (see e.g. PD-Israel). Very few mention the U.S. status of the works, PD-Russia is an exception. But even there, the 1942/1946 U.S. date is generally ignored; people go by the 1954 date. At the English Wikipedia, others have tried to add similar notices to the country-specific "public ___domain" tags, see e.g. PD-Poland or PD-Italy. (At the English WP, there can IMO be no question about it: U.S. copyright law always applies.)
Sorry for the long posts. There are probably more examples like these two. Consider this just background information to better evaluate what the context of the problem is and what impact any statement might have. And again, please forgive my naiveness if the Board should already have been aware of all this. Cheers, Lupo 13:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Lupo.
Your comments certainly are not presumptuous. You are perfectly right in my sense to ask this question. What happened is that three board members clearly stated they wanted 1, and Erik boldly stated that 1 was absolutely NOT a good idea. Others did not comment. So... what I intend to do is to draft a resolution on the topic, and see where we can go on this. If the board generally considers that we can host content which is illegal in the USA, I want it to be clearly stated, as I believe we would be held accountable in such situation. If the board generally thinks we should stay on the safe side, I want that to be clearly stated as well and clarified for the community. If the board decides to play blind, I want that to be equally stated. So, I thank you very much for the summary above (yes, I did not understand things quite well), and I will invite formally board members to express a position on the matter. It might take time, but I do not think it is a very big deal to take time to make this decision. My main concern is that I want a lawyer to formally look at that, and this might take time as well. Best Anthere 11:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. That is pretty much what I had in mind, too. Remains the question of what to do in the "playing blind" case ;-) I'm quite aware that all this may take time, and also that the Board has lots of other things to do, so I appreciate your willingness to take this issue aboard even more. Lupo 13:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Having slept over this, and having seen the thread at foundation-l (inexplicably entitled "PD-Israel", it had escaped me) I think question #4 is indeed something the community could decide for itself once the WMF has defined the absolute bounds of what is allowed. But as I wrote elsewhere already, questions #1 to #3 are different from the usual disputes over license tagging. Quarrels over, say, PD-Soviet ;-), and similar stuff are just attempts by the community to define within the allowable limits what it wants to consider free content. (I notice that freedomdefined.org declares "for your work to be truly free, it must use one of the Free Culture Licenses or be in the public ___domain", without defining "public ___domain", and neither does the licensing resolution.) But questions #1 to #3 are not about what we want to do. They are about what we have to do in order to be able to do what we want (publishing free knowledge). Lupo 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- (How's that for a tag line: "Free knowledge for everyone!" :-) Whether "free" is an adjective or a verb is anyone's choice. And now I'll shut up and let you do your business.) Lupo 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I like that one ;o) Michelet-密是力 05:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Unfortunately, the pun doesn't translate very well. Maybe just "Knowledge for everyone" would be better. Or maybe "The power of knowledge" — that one might be quite appropriate if the foundation should be able to find a creative solution to the conundrum all this discussion is about. Lupo 09:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- One for all. All for one. Oh, I have another one We know. ant.
- I like that one ;o) Michelet-密是力 05:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- (How's that for a tag line: "Free knowledge for everyone!" :-) Whether "free" is an adjective or a verb is anyone's choice. And now I'll shut up and let you do your business.) Lupo 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Consensus is not evil
There was a clear consensus on Commons that WMF should not take office action before have cleared the legal issues by an US court. It seems that it might be that the stuff in question is illegal but there is no court decision on the rule of the shorter term yet. There are some things which should be free (not only 10 things as suggested by Jimbo Wales). If the works were made by US citizen according the now valid 70 years pma term they would be free, and they are free in nearly all other countries. --Histo 23:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Michelet's presentation
Salut Anthère, j'espère que tu ne m'en voudras pas d'écrire en français (et de toute manière, Lupo comprend nettement mieux le français que moi l'allemand ;o). A ce jour, le point sur mes réflexions est le suivant:
- On peut défendre a priori deux approches: (1) soit les droits de propriété intellectuelle sont indépendants d'un pays à l'autre, et pour être à l'abri de toute attaque et ne mettre en ligne que du contenu "libre", il faut se plier à la plus contraignante des lois (2) soit on peut faire valoir des règles internationales pour l'entrée dans le domaine public, et à ce moment il suffit de les suivre. Mon approche (OK, c'est du travail personnel, mais documenté) est de regarder ce que dit la doctrine en matière de droit international.
<cuisine juridique>
- La question de savoir quand une œuvre tombe internationalement dans le domaine public est une question ouverte, sur laquelle la doctrine juridique ne donne que des avis indirects, et partagés; et sur laquelle il n'y a pratiquement pas de jurisprudence. (avéré, non polémique, facilement prouvable).
- En termes juridiques, la question est ce qu'on appelle un "conflit de loi": dans une situation internationale, quelle loi faut-il appliquer à telle ou telle question? (avéré, c'est une approche de droit international et non polémique, pour ce que j'en comprends).
- La doctrine et la jurisprudence récente (tant française qu'US, je n'ai pas d'autres exemples) tend à montrer qu'il faut distinguer: (1) Ce qui relève du lien entre l'auteur et son œuvre est soumis à la loi du pays de première publication. (2) Ce qui relève du lien entre l'œuvre et son utilisateur est soumis à la loi du pays où la défense du droit est demandée. (3) La règle n'est pas rigide et doit tenir compte de circonstances particulières (protection insuffisante du pays d'origine, multiplicité de l'origine,...) mais en gros, les cas simples sont réglés comme ça par les juges de nos jours, conformément aux approches usuelles en matière de droit international. (sources disponibles, mériterait une confirmation par un juriste international, mais amha correct).
- La convention de Berne (référence internationale retenue par l'OMC) a deux articles (5-4-a & 7-8) qui indiquent que la référence retenue est celle du pays où la protection est la plus courte. (factuel)
- On peut interpréter ça comme une règle sur le conflit de loi international susceptible de gouverner la durée du lien entre l'auteur et son œuvre: la convention de Berne indique alors que le "droit d'auteur" cesse quand la protection tombe dans l'un quelconque des pays de première publication: "domaine public dans la loi d'origine => domaine public partout pour la convention de Berne". (c'est mon interprétation, donc point original à faire critiquer par des juristes, mais amha largement défendable).
- La convention de Berne prévoit qu'on puisse déroger au principe précédent. Mais dans l'interprétation précédente, ça signifie que la loi locale doit légiférer sur la manière de trancher un conflit de loi, non sur la durée de protection accordée par la législation nationale. Or, ça n'est (à ma connaissance) jamais le cas. Donc, la "rule of sorter term" peut s'appliquer universellement, sauf quand la législation nationale conduit à une autre solution dans le conflit de juridiction. (à faire relire par un juriste, pour voir si c'est défendable devant un juge sérieux: à mon avis oui).
- Dans ce cas, la politique US en matière de durée du droit d'auteur est indifférente: à partir du moment où l'œuvre est domaine public dans le pays d'origine, elle est domaine public pour la convention de Berne, et l'analyse s'arrête avant que la loi US ne soit prise en compte - parce que les USA ont signé la convention de Berne, qui s'impose à leurs juges en matière de conflits de lois. (défendable si les étapes précédents sont acceptées).
Bon, tout ça c'est des affaires de spécialistes de droit international de la propriété intellectuelle et du domaine public, OK (et le fond du problème, c'est que c'est un secteur vide en pratique). La principale et seule question est: si on va au procès, est-ce que le juge est susceptible d'admettre ce raisonnement? (à évaluer par un juriste). </cuisine juridique>
Sur le plan politique de WMF, que peut-on dire? WMF peut adopter comme politique de déclarer explicitement que:
- La politique de WMF est de n'accepter que des œuvres libres de droit, soit qu'elles aient été déclarées telles par les ayant droits, soit qu'elles soient tombées dans le domaine public à l'issue de la durée légale de protection.
- WMF opère dans un contexte international. WMF a pour politique de respecter la légalité internationale, dans la mesure de ses connaissances; et cette politique est activement mise en œuvre par des dispositions de contrôle et de régulations internes. Cependant, WMF opère sur la base du volontariat, et ne peut pas revendiquer d'être strictement conforme à l'intégralité des législations de tous les pays atteints par internet. Pour cette raison, la politique suivante a été adoptée:
- WMF reconnaît les dispositions du traité de Berne, retenu par l'OMC, comme reflétant un consensus international sur la protection nécessaire au droit d'auteur, et déclare vouloir s'y conformer.
- WMF interprète les dispositions du traité de Berne (en particulier les articles 5-4-a & 7-8) comme signifiant qu'une œuvre entre dans le domaine public, pour les états signataires du traité, quand le terme de protection est atteint dans le pays de première publication accordant la protection la plus courte.
- WMF entend étendre cette politique pour décider du caractère "domaine public" de toutes les œuvres, y compris quand le pays de première publication n'est pas signataire du GATT ou du traité de Berne. Cette extension n'a pas pour but de profiter de délai de protection plus courts dans un pays non signataire; dans tous les cas le terme de protection ne pourra être inférieur au délai minimum accordé par le traité de Berne.
- WMF reconnaît que cette politique peut contrevenir au strict respect de la législation dans les états non signataires de ces conventions internationales, déclare vouloir accueillir avec bienveillance toute observation à ce sujet, et s’engage à rechercher un accord amiable sur tout litige à ce sujet.
Si une telle déclaration est adoptée, on "tue" toute discussion sur la "rule of shorter term": elle est adoptée par principe par WMF. Le risque juridique associé à la décision est amha nul: ce qui est DP dans le pays d'origine est rarement défendu ailleurs, et s'il y a un litige juridique, WMF peut arguer (1) la déclaration de bonne foi et cherchant un accord amiable, (2) une politique claire, cohérente avec la législation internationale, et localement respectée sous surveillance active des admins.
... Le reste est de la politique, chère présidente ;o) mais si tu as besoin d'éclaircissements, n'hésite pas. Je passerais le pont de l'Ascension à potasser le droit international de la propriété intellectuelle (côté maso, sans doute), si tu as des questions complémentaires n'hésite pas. Et merci pour ton implication, nettement supérieure à la mienne Michelet-密是力 20:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
(Michelet-密是力) Here's my position on Lupo's questions, if it may help:
- "Is it true that any content hosted on Wikimedia servers must be legal to publish in the U.S.?" > True, according to international usages, the law applied is the law where the "crime" has been made. In the internet context, it is disputable whether an offence is in the country of emission -USA- or in the country of reception of the file -anywhere in the world-. But to the least WMF should respect US law, because against a US plaintiff the US law will always be retained.
- "May local non-English Wikimedia projects still make an exception to that rule by applying only their local laws?" > Within limits, it may be admitted, especially when the language is clearly specific of a country or a group of countries that clearly exclude a wide US audience (birman, tamoul,...). In that case, the international usage would tend to apply the law of the target country, but this is not 100% sure. But I think it would be a bad policy anyway, since it would be interpreted as a "fraud on law localisation" if the local law is too permissive.
- "Confirm whether or not the WMF (and thus the Wikimedia projects) considers the U.S. to apply the rule of the shorter term." > See above, the formulation is inaccurate. To be admissible, the formulation should be "...the rule of shorter term is the default rule for conflicts of law on protection terms, under the Berne convention". With this formulation, the answer of the board can be "yes".
- "Is the Commons' rule for public ___domain works "a work must be in the public ___domain in its source country and in the U.S." good enough?" > No, it is incorrect one way or the other. ♦ If my interpretation is retained, the rule of shorter term makes it sufficient to consider the source country alone, to conform to legislation of all Berne parties (and now, for all WTO countries since Berne is now the reference). The outsiders can be left aside. ♦ If the rule of shorter term is not considered as a rule on conflicts of laws and cannot be applied, the protection that needs to be considered is that of all countries where a protection may be claimed, that is worldwide (at least, all countries that are thought not to apply the rule of shorter term). ♦ The Commons' rule is correct if the rule of shorter term is valid everywhere in the world, except in the USA, which is irrealistic.
The field "intellectual property rights + international + public ___domain + internet" is a legal desert (no legal cases, no theory, very little documentation), the only references that can be found on the net are ... wikipedian discussons! WMF has to adopt a clear position by itself: be bold or be shy? My position is therefore to recommand a policy saying "PD in the country of first publication = PD worldwide", and to justify this policy by the analysis that Berne convention should be interpreted as giving a solution for conflict of laws on duration terms, thereby binding for traty parties unless an alternative is imposed for the conflict of law (not the term of protection...). The arguments for this policy discussion are:
- This is a pragmatic and practical approach, the alternatives are inpractical.
- This seems to be the consensus in wikiWorld, the present approach is very often ignored anyway.
- The formulation is easy to understand and easy to implement (taking aside cases where the country of origin is a tricky question).
- The legal justification (above - if verified) is there for anyone to see, showing that by adopting this policy, WMF is respectful of legal international order.
If it came to a trial, this legal justification would be the official line of defence to be used, and may succeed - thereby creating the reference case we lack. But this is rather pointless: these PD questions are outside the big buisness preoccupations, and all PD-old materials can be justified on a "fair use" basis in the USA; so there is no reason a trial would be made in the first place. Michelet-密是力 05:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Salut Florence,
Tu as créé ce compte fin 2005. Apparemment tu ne l'as jamais utilisé et il avait toujours les droits de sysop. J'ai retiré les droits car il me semble inutile (et potentiellement dangereux) de garder ce compte dormant avec les outils d'admin. Bien sûr, si tu estimes en avoir besoin, tu peux les remettre avec ton compte actuel de bureaucrate / steward.
Bises. guillom 10:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- oh, bien sur. Pas de probleme Anthere
Droit à l'oubli
Conformément à ce qui est expliqué ici : Droit de disparaître, j'ai choisi de quitter Wikipédia. J'ai donc blanchi toutes mes pages pzersonnelles ainsi que mes sous-pages. Puis j'en ai demandé la suppression aux administrateurs. Cette suppression m'a été refusée. J'ai alors tenté de renommer ces pages pour les faire disparaître mais uin administrateur m'a bloqué définitivement et a même bloqué mon accès à ma page de discussion. Après quoi d'autres admins ont décidé de "déblanchir ma page de discussion en y mettant une version périmée d'ailleurs.
Je demande à ce que mes pages de discussion soient supprimées afin de ne plus apparaître sur les moteurs de recherche.
L'atmosphère sur Wikipédia est devenue intenable. Je ne veux pas avoir de problème en particulier avec mion travail si quelqu'un tombe par une recherche google sur mon nom qui a été mélé à de nombreux démélés avec l'extrème-dreoite en particulier.
Je ne réclame que le droit à l'oubli. Il est indamissible que je ne puisse même pas blanchir ma page de discussion ! Même après avoir quitté l'encyclopédie, des petits cons d'admin continuent à chercher à me nuire. Il va sans dire que je me réserve le droit de faire toutes démarches nécessaires afin de faire respecter mon droit à l'oubli. Wikipédia n'est pas en dehors des lois.
Bonne chance pour faire cette encyclopédie avec autant de fiéffés cons. pour ma part, j'ai renoncé.
Meta:Administrators/confirm
Hello; just noticed your edits to that page. You added admins to be confirmed in April 2008... :-) --.anaconda 20:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- ???? oh sh.... Anthere
Tag lines
You wrote above: [1]
- One for all. All for one. Oh, I have another one We know.
My spontaneous reactions: the first is too trite, used by Les Trois Mousquetaires, as the traditional motto of Switzerland, and by several Sociétés d'étudiants.
- That was on purpose ! But I only knew about the Mousquetaires...
- Ah! So that one was meant to describe our efforts to find a tag line, not as a tag line itself?
The second: brief and to the point, pretty good, although it emphasizes more the community ("We") and thus may come across as too smug. Maybe better find something that emphasizes the knowledge? (Mine are no better, I guess :-) Lupo 12:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- True... Jan-Bart suggested "its yours... its ours... its everyone's! "
- Not bad either, but too long, and I don't like the ellipses. Might work as a jingle in a commercial, though. But who would want to air commercials for the Wikimedia projects? But maybe just "It's yours!" or "For you" might work as a tag line. Lupo 08:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Licensing policy
Florence, I hate to bug you again with a boring licensing issue, but I think it'd be good if someone could offer a clarification on the licensing policy. It'd be a shame if several projects started to worry without cause, and well, if the worry is spot-on, then at least we'd know what the intended meaning of that policy is. Maybe you could take a quick look at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SilaTonga.svg, bottom half (in English); or at this mailing list thread. The issue originated at de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Grundsatzfragen (in German) and concerns the question whether the definition of "Free Cultural Works" requires us to look beyond copyright. It's less fundamental than the "Must U.S. law be respected on all projects?" question above, but still a rather serious thing, because if these worries are true, it'd be a drastic departure from long-standing practices.
Therefore, if you had the time, I'd be grateful if you could take a quick look and see to it that someone who is responsible for that licensing policy (Erik?) could indeed offer some guidance.
Cheers, Lupo 12:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- it was commonly written by Erik and Kat. You might consider asking them help, they would be more suitable to help you. Free Cultural Works come from Erik if I remember well. Anthere
- After three weeks and an unanswered polite Wikipedia e-mail to Erik, I conclude that my request for clarification has been met with deafening silence. Not even a simple acknowledgement of receipt or a statement that they'd think about it. Great to see that the communication between the board and the community works so well. Great to see that the people who wrote that licensing policy do care so much about it.
- I'm inclined to think that this non-answer means that people don't care, and that either the perceived problem is a misreading of the licensing policy, or that it isn't, but the Wikimedia projects may safely ignore it all the same. Lupo 11:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
CheckUser policy
Greetings,
You may be the right person for this conversation, please. Himyeana 13:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Food Lion Non-Profit Information
Hiya Anthere, i'm writing to you today to inform you about a new program that Food Lion is implimenting, which allows non-profit organizations to recieve up to $350 per quarter derived from customer purchases. Customers would need to link thier MVP cards to the Foundation, but that should be no problem. Sign up at this website and then please inform the community so they can begin linking. Have a happy summer, Thunderhead 00:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
response
I've responded on my talk page. Swatjester 14:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Inscription sur le site de la Fondation
Comme tu l'as vu, j'ai proposé ma candidature pour l'OTRS mais je n'ai trouvé aucun interlocuteur pour m'ouvrir un compte sur le site de la fondation, et ce, depuis près de deux mois. Peux-tu m'indiquer la marche à suivre ?
En te remerciant par avance.--Bertrand GRONDIN – Talk 09:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Bertrand, Aphaia t'a répondu sur Request for an account on the Foundation wiki#Grondin. OTRS et wiki de la fondation n'ont rien à voir. guillom 10:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- C'est quoi donc la décision du Board du 22 avril 2007 ? --Bertrand GRONDIN – Talk 19:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data_policy_update
2 ans sans wikipedia
Bonjour Florence. Comme tu n'es pas présente ce soir sur irc, je t'écris ici. Comme je ne suis pas trés bon en anglais tu n'as pas le choix, je t'écris en français, fôtes d'ortho comprises.
Avec deux ans de recul je vois certaines choses.
- Autour de soi on pense que wikipédia est une encyclopédie. Perso je suis loin de le penser et le fait qu'il ne s'agisse (pour l'instant) que d'un moyen de fabriquer, d'écrire une encyclopédie à venir est rarement mis en avant dans les médias;
- Techniquement, à part les tools ça marche plutôt trés bien;
- Au niveau du contenu libre, c'est toujours la même galère. Et c'est trés difficile d'y remédier. Les administrateurs, les ORTS, ne sont pas juristes, et la Fondation n'a pas vocation à se payer autant de juristes qu'il y a de législations. Par contre si la Fondation veut à terme héberger et promotionner un contenu libre, il va bien falloir agir. Mais comment ? Il y'a la tentation de considérer que l'important c'est la législation qui héberge les serveurs et le siège de la Fondation qui prime. C'est bonne solution qui pour l'instant permet de voir venir Et il y'a le fait qu'un contenu libre est un contenu réutilisable et du coup il faut bien considérer la réutilisation la plus probable. De ce point de vue nos règles sont claires, ok pour les serveurs et le lieu juridique de la Fondation et ok pour les réutilisations probables. Du coup il faut un collège de juristes spécialistes du droit arménien pour s'assurer que les contenus arméniens soient réutilisable autrement qu'avec la législation du pays qui héberge les serveurs et ou la Fondation. Ce choix il faut le faire maintenant car là on est dans l'impasse, au moins sur Commons, où les médias non libres semblent de plus en plus normaux. Petrusbarbygere 01:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Message from it.wikisource community about "Shorter term" and Italian law about texts
Dear Anthere,
starting from here a sourcewide discussion has been raised to gather consensus and awareness of possible copyright infringements for european texts in european language Wikisources. After this message we started a long discussione whose result is this common declaration:
Dear Anthere,
This text is the result of a full discussion envolving it.wikisource community, and therefore wherever the form "we" is used it is to be regarded as a broad consensus among it.source users.
First of all, we want to state clearly that we are going to respect WMF and its final decisions.
Even if in the recent past the Italian Wikipedia community showed a bad way of discussing about copyright issues (i.e. the PD-Italy case) we would like to demonstrate our different approach. In these days we discussed in a constructive way about the chances of having some of ours text deleted and we found the following common position:
- Respect of the laws is a paramount value to this community and it would be quite strange to act against the laws just to defend our alleged local position.
- As a logical consequence, if WMF decides to protect itself against future legal issues caused by American non-acceptance of the "rule of the shorter term", we shall delete every text published outside the US after 1922, or whose authors died after 1926.
Currently we have authors (some of them like Italo Svevo and Giuseppe Peano are very important in Italian literary culture) and about 20 texts. Before doing anything we would like to be informed about the final, definitive, authoritative decision from the WikiMedia Foundation. In the meanwhile those 20 texts are now frozen and we won't add any more works of banned authors and won't accept any work published after 1922. They are:
While waiting for your kind reply we gathered some questions and would like to have (if possible) clear answers about:
- Public speeches and laws: are they PD in USA
- Servers: is it possible to transfer Wikisource content to some servers in Europe? (some of them are already in Paris as far as we know)
- Reaction: What action could possibly be put forth to modify the present state of the matter? We won't be obstructive, but we are willing to follow any path to to let our project deal with recent texts.
On behalf of it.Wikisource community:
- - εΔω 18:48, 31 lug 2007 (CEST)
- --Accurimbono 21:06, 31 lug 2007 (CEST)
- -- Aubrey McFato. 21:32, 31 lug 2007 (CEST)
- -- iPork → scrivimi 11:45, 1 ago 2007 (CEST)
Hello,
Thank you for the summary. I'll raise that amongst board members + Mike (legal counsel) BUT I'll wait about 2 weeks to do so, because I would prefer Frieda is here (she just left for holidays for about 2 weeks if I understood well). As an italian, I think it will help if she is present.
Regarding servers
I can immediately answer about servers in Europe. We have no servers in Paris. We had 3-5 in the past, but this center has been closed. In Europe, some of our servers are hosted by Kennisnet, a dutch facility. All the servers over there are squids, which means they mirror the content. However, technically speaking, they do not HOST the content. This is done only on database servers. All the database servers are currently in Florida. If (when ?) we move databases to Holland, we will be submitted to Dutch law. I do not know how restrictive the dutch law is, but until now, we have felt best to host content only in the USA, so as to be seriously only liable to american law. Now, this is largely due to the law on free speech/libel, more favorable in the USA.
We could possibly open a database server in Holland, where to host wikisource. But this server would still be owned by an american organization, so submitted to american law. Which means even though the content is hosted in Holland, we still would have to respect american law. So, I am not sure it would be very helpful. However, I'll submit the issue to Mike and I'll come back to you.
Cheers
Regarding public speeches
The answer below is from Mike Godwin
Most people who give a public speech proceed in one of two ways: (a) They write down all of their words in advance and essentially read their speech out loud, or (b) They use notes (or perhaps don't use notes) and give extemporaneous comments that may be recorded by someone else.
In cases like (a), the speech is not public-___domain -- it's copyrighted. It became copyright-protected as soon as it was written down on paper (or typed into a computer, or whatever). This is true even if the speech is never delivered. The writing down of the speech is called "fixation," and nations that are signatory to the Berne Convention on copyright (including, e.g., the United States and France) hold that copyright protection begins at "fixation" of the creative work in a tangible medium (which, as I said, can include paper or a computer file or a Dictaphone recording).
In cases like (b) the actual words of the speech may not themselves be copyright-protected because the author hasn't committed "fixation" of the words in a tangible medium. (The notes to the speech may be copyrighted, but that may not mean much if the speaker isn't reading directly from the notes.) What if the speech is recorded by, say, radio or TV broadcasters? The view of the broadcasters is that they have a copyright in the recording of the speech, even if they don't have a copyright in the words of the speech themselves.
Again, this answer is generally correct for both the USA and the EU, as well as for other signatory nations to the Berne copyright convention.
Proposal to move Siberian Wikipedia to Wikia
Dear Anthere,
I'm contacting you as a member of the board, as suggested by User:Pathoschild. Maybe you have heard of the proposal to close the Siberian Wikipedia. This Wiki is written in a non-notable constructed language, most of its content is non-encyclopaedic and some is highly insulting.
Under the current language proposal policy, this language, which has no degree of recognition whatsoever would under no circumstances be approved. Since the admins of ru-sib: have not managed to fix their POV and quality issues, neither to have their language stabilised and recognised, the best suggestion I have after some nine months of discussion is to relocate the project to Wikia.
The issue has been [brought up multiple times at foundation-l (see e.g. [2]), however both the board and the language subcommittee have declined to get involved. Therefore, I would like to ask you, whether the BoT would be opposed to transferring ru-sib: to Wikia, or if such a move would have your support. If the latter is the case, I would consider to ask the devs to take the necessary steps. Thanks! --Johannes Rohr 10:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Altes
I am new member of Wikipedia. I want to turn your attention to administrator Altes. He is not competent enough to restrict me. He is just 19 years old and how he can to agree or don't agree with doctors of sciences? His editing is not honest and not right. for example descendents of Chinggiskhan are not only from Kazahstan, also they are from Kirgizstan,Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Russia and other countries.
I solicit for deprivation administrator Altes the right of administration.
Best regards, Baikalia
Interviews
One more for you: Wikinews interviews Florence Devouard, chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Thunderhead 05:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikimania report
As I anticipated a few months ago, as leader of the budget committee for Wikimania can you provide me a detailed financial report for Wikimania, including but not limited to
- Number of participants and their provenience
- Number and value of the scholarship granted, and provenience of the people who obtained the scholarship. The names should be public anyway.
- Expenses sustained bu WMF, sponsors, guests and by WM Taipei for the event
- Financial end cash flow balance
- Value of sponsorships and benefit granted to sponsors
Please use my personal e-mail if you don't want to publish that on a WMF website. Thanks --Jollyroger 08:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
ahah, I was not the *leader* of the budget :-) But I can provide you with some of the answers yet. Number of participants and provenance is available. All other things, I do not know, but I'll ask. We are currently polishing our financial statements for the audit, so I guess most of this should be available one way or another. Your questions are actually very good, and I'll ask that we work on a full public report on all this. I think all of this pretty much can be public, I do not think any of this info is in any way confidential (not sure about confidentiality of who got a scholarship).
- Actually, provenience of people who got a scholarship is a fundamental data to evaluate efficiency of the sholarship institute.
- I wish WMF to adopt a policy of transparency on financial matters.
- Please keep us informed about where these documents will be available, and if possible include in the documents the contacts to ask some questions. --Jollyroger 08:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that when the people made the request for a scholarship, they were told their request would stay private. We can not give names. In many cases, only one person came from a country. If we say one person from this country got a scholarship, then we really do not respect the privacy we promised. So, what we can do is
- provide the total number of scholarships
- provide the total amount of scholarships
- at most, provide the continent. Info is probably sufficiently aggregated that it is respectful of confidentiality.
I do not know what you mean by policy of transparency on financial matters. There are many financial matters. If you want some transparency, you need to clarify exactly which information you want to be transparent, so that we can tell you if yes or no we will do that. Note that I will not agree to a policy where the names of people who got scholarship is published, unless they agree. And I do not think either that providing publicly one's name should be mandatory to get a scholarship. Either you trust the people who select scholars or you do not. At best, you can ask which are the rules used to select names. But people have a right to not tell publicly that they are broke, and still get help.
Meanwhile, we discussed it on the planning list, and there is a general agreement to give the information I mentionned above, but not all financial statements are done, so THD indicated a few more weeks would be necessary until he can give the information for a report.
- At least the number of people from a country is needed (i.e: India: 4; USA: 35; and such). Names are not really important now.
- With "transparency" I mean that ANYTHING related to WMF finances should be made public and included in reports available to anyone: a detailed report would be advisable (i.e: 2000$ - Jimbo's flight boston-taipei ; 5000$ paid to MrX for fund raising coordination )
- No problem in waiting a couple of week more. --Jollyroger 08:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Joyeux anniversaire
Angela 17:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
~Pyb 09:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
un gateau, des fleurs, tout pour le bonheur :-) Anthere 02:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Final approval for bcl
I am excited for it. --Filipinayzd @ incubator
Please Assist with this problem
I need help getting my personal information off of WIkipedia.
My room-mate is in Law School and advised me to try these channels- but I have to say I am very frustrated!
A brief Synopsis:
I came under the radar of an obsessed WIkipedian who has made my life miserable over the last month or so, constantly leaving weird messages on my talk pages, leaving messages about me on others talk pages that were false.
I am sick and tired of this, I don't wish to be pushed to "off wiki" action, but I am being left with no choice! The last sinanagan, was last night when an Administrator deleted off my personal information (info where it is discussed that I was the victim of physical abuse) the stalker quickly contacted a friend and they put it back up! this is making me sick!! please help me!!Alphagirl20 21:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
On Alex...
Re this foundation-l message: "If I remember well, and unless I am mistaking, Alex is not russian, but an english editor. At least, I remember some interactions with him on the english wikipedia, hmmm, at least 3 years ago."
I guess you must be mistaken, then. en:User:Alex Spade has started editing on August 21, 2006, and he certainly is fluent in Russian. Maybe you confused him with en:User:Sam Spade? I hope you didn't confuse me with him... Alex probably is not a lawyer, though; I've occasionally seen him make errors no copyright lawyer would make. (If I may say so. I'm not a lawyer myself.) AFAIK, he's just a normal editor who has in general a fairly good grasp of modern Russian copyright legislation. My previous interactions with him have been positive, so I am a bit astounded that he'd pretend to speak in an official WMF capacity. But I wouldn't worry too much about it; I have the impression the Wikisource editors can handle this well enough. Lupo 08:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- okay :-) Anthere
OTRS question
What should the attribution be for Image:Cristina fernandez de kirchner and felipe calderon 8C95602E8A753CE.jpg? It says it's CC-BY, but we currently have "unknown" in the author field. 24.61.15.83 02:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Problème de faux-nez
Bonjour, pourriez-vous résoudre ce problème de faux-nez que j'ai déposé ici? Merci d'avance.Benoni 14:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
2007 Steward Confirmations
Hi. This is a semi automated notice so my apologies if it seems a bit impersonal. You're listed as holding the Steward permission. As you know, Stewards get reconfirmed yearly, and it's that time again... I noticed that you haven't yet filled out your statement at Stewards/confirm. If you'd like to learn what the community thinks, please visit the page and put in your statement. Volunteers have been busily translating statements already. It would be best to do this before November 26, as that is when the page is opened for public comment, to coincide with the elections of new stewards. If you would like to not be reconfirmed and have your name removed, you can remove your section, or ask a volunteer to do it for you. I hope this information helps. If you have any questions or comments, there is ongoing discussion at Talk:Stewards/elections_2007. Oh, one last thing, if you already knew about it and just hadn't gotten round to it, apologies for the reminder! :) ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Humble reminder
Tres chere Anthère,
After some three months since an important discussion about risking copyright infringement has been raised, many people at it,wikisource sould like to know the result of that discussion... What shall we do with our recent texts? - εΔω 22:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello
You will find Mike's answer on this below. I take it that it will be clearly understood as "better delete"... unfortunately :-( Anthere 00:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that it is correct to say that the U.S. does not honor "the rule of the shorter term" created by the Berne Convention, and in fact expressly refuses to honor it. See 17 USC 104, which also provides that material copyrighted in another signatory country can be registered in the USA and have its copyright extended to fit USA terms, regardless of whether the rights to the work have lapsed in the originating country.
What this means is that, as a USA corporation, we're potentially vulnerable to copyright actions from authors or their estates regarding works that are out of copyright in their originating countries but, at least theoretically, within the copyright term set by U.S. law. Under the circumstances, I would recommend that Wikisource texts that qualify as such works be removed from the project. -- Mike
Indigenous Intellectual Property
G'day, I'm an Australian anthropologist new to Wikipedia editing. Apologies if it is inappropriate or inopportune time for me to bring minor(?) GNU Free Documentation Licencing matters to your attention, but the UN w:Declaration_on_the_Rights_of_Indigenous_Peoples has been adopted by the UN General Assembly, and I did note you seem to have initiated article on biopiracy and bioprospecting!? I thought you might be able to quickly advise/assist.?
I refer to effort within Wikipedia pages to see indigenous intellectual property acknowledged, plus see this acknowledgment mediated GNU Free Documentation Licience: see w:Wikipedia_talk:General_disclaimer#Traditional Knowledge and w:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Traditional_Knowledge_Disclaimer What do you think?144.134.73.248 06:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, my Wikipedia user page/ identity is: w:User:Bruceanthro
fr.wikibooks
Thanks for letting us know you contacted fr.wikibooks for us. I did notice that your message there was in the archives; probably nobody will see it there. I had previously left a message (in bad French), so there's no need to repeat yourself. If you're planning on following the proceedings and translating to French as required, please let me know. I have offered to translate, but if you've seen any of my French, it's not pretty - I'm beyond "rusty" these days ;) Let me know what you plans are please. Thanks! – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
They will see it :-) They have an odd system, the archives are templated in the main page. It is at the right place :-) Anthere 22:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Moldovan
Hello Anthere, i wrote this message here also yesterday but it seams it was not saved. It is about the Moldovan Wikipedia. You blocked this Wikipedia a long time ago, but you didn't replace the main page with a message redirecting to ro.wikipedia.org (as the result of the discussion was deleting the Moldovan Wikipedia). Plase replace the Main Page (the page first shown when typing http://mo.wikipedia.org ) with this text:
Editarea paginilor în această Wikipedie este blocată. Vă invităm să vizitaţi http://ro.wikipedia.org.
Thank you! --Danutz 11:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you get my e-mail about Low Saxon projects? --::Slomox:: >< 21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- yes. I forwarded it to the board, but no one reacted. I asked help from Cary; Thank you for your patience Anthere 13:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
a problem in Sindhi Wikipedia
Hi !
My name is Qadeer Mangrio, from Pakistan, contributer in English Wiki, Urdu Wiki and Sindhi Wiki,
I have a problem in my Sindhi wikipedia, admin. in sindhi wiki is Mr. Aursani, a very ignorant person, i use ignorant because if anything done by me, he warns me that this against the rules and policy, i said OK, but he also do same as I did. when I say about that he said please try to avoid to criticize me. I said OK.
after some days he said don't submit any message on my talk page but help. i said OK, after that I did not send him a message, today he send me message that dont submit empty topics on wiki, becuase submitted some contries without any infomation that was my mistake I accept it. and then deleted those messages on MY TALK PAGE and wrote there MR. AURSANI IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING ON MY TALK PAGE. after some minutes he blocked me.
so, plese try to solve this problem, Aursani think that he is end of all.
I will never work under the administration of this person.
I am waiting for positive response on my talk page of sd wiki link is below
Regards,
Qadeer Mangrio user from (sd.wikpedia.org)
- Sir I am waiting fr you answer
Regards,
Qadeer Mangrio user from (sd.wikpedia.org)
I already left a message several days ago on the sd wikipedia. Thanks Anthere 06:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- But there was nothing.
Regards,
Qadeer Mangrio user from (sd.wikpedia.org)
Ping?
Anthère, it's been eight months since this. I know you got lots of other things to look after, but may I humbly inquire about the status of that promised statement? Dumped, forgotten, still in the pipeline, or already issued and I missed it? Lupo 08:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- jeeeeeee, mix answer. Partly answered (discussion related to the italian community issues above), partly still in pipeline, partly forgotten. Big difference with may, we now have a legal counsel. Good thing you ping me, I'll put that on his plate. Anthere 10:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Though it seems to me that this statement from Mike on the it-WS question pretty much settles it. #1: yes, #2:no?!, #3:no, #4:at least. PD-country tags must state under which conditions works are PD in the U.S., too, and only such works are allowed. A clarification, also on "freedom of panorama" (only for buildings in the U.S.) and on "non-U.S. works of authors who died after 1926 (URAA date - 70), but more than 70 years ago", would still be welcome and useful, I think. Lupo 15:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Should clarify also the situation of non-English projects. If #1 is yes and #2 is "no", that will come as a shock to many. Lupo 16:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Though it seems to me that this statement from Mike on the it-WS question pretty much settles it. #1: yes, #2:no?!, #3:no, #4:at least. PD-country tags must state under which conditions works are PD in the U.S., too, and only such works are allowed. A clarification, also on "freedom of panorama" (only for buildings in the U.S.) and on "non-U.S. works of authors who died after 1926 (URAA date - 70), but more than 70 years ago", would still be welcome and useful, I think. Lupo 15:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- PatríciaR has pointed to me this discussion on IRC. Please also clarify:
- if the USA law need to take effect on non-English Wikisources for deletion, it can be used to make works avaiable? (works that aren't PD in their country of origin but PD in USA, as a EDP). May be interesting to see what Project Gutenberg does on that subject;
- Hum, there is a Project Gutenberg Canada. If someone is interested to run a fork to host works that aren't acceptable on Wikisource due to copyrights, is possible to brand the project as a "Wikisource something", like with the Local chapters trademarks?
- the wording on s:en:Template:PD-1996 is true? If it is true, the law to research if a work is PD in USA need to be the current one from that country or the law that are in effect in 1996? Or both can be applied as a suitable to each Wikisource in order to keep texts?
- if the USA law need to take effect on non-English Wikisources for deletion, it can be used to make works avaiable? (works that aren't PD in their country of origin but PD in USA, as a EDP). May be interesting to see what Project Gutenberg does on that subject;
- 555 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- PatríciaR has pointed to me this discussion on IRC. Please also clarify:
Reply
For the sake of clarity
- The statements marked by "(Lupo)" below were made by me orignally here on this page on May 8, 2007. I've also bolded Mike's/Florence's answers. There has already been some confusion as to who said what, with parts of my comment being understood to have come from Mike. Lupo 19:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Is it true that any content hosted on Wikimedia servers must be legal to publish in the U.S.? (Lupo)
- If the answer to that question is "no", we can stop right there. Local non-English Wikimedia projects could decide to apply only their local foreign laws, ignoring U.S. law, and the Commons could also change its public ___domain requirements to consider only the law of the source country. (For the commons, however, there'd still be the problem that e.g. an image that was in the public ___domain only in Switzerland could be hosted, but couldn't be used on any other Wikimedia project.) The commons would still need to tag images better to avoid that such "claimed public ___domain" images were used on projects where these images are not in the public ___domain under the local laws, but that's a perennial problem that we already have. (Lupo)
- If the answer is "yes": (Lupo)
- the answer is clearly YES
- May local non-English Wikimedia projects still make an exception to that rule by applying only their local laws? (Lupo)
- I don't know if that'd even be possible. Maybe one could argue that since such non-English projects are clearly targeted at non-U.S. markets, the fact that the servers are in the U.S. is incidental and of no importance, and that the non-English projects may use the laws of their target countries instead. But again, I have no idea whether that'd be sound. Note, however, that if such an exception is not possible, there might be an increased incentive to fork for local projects, using servers based in their jurisdiction. (Lupo)
- Reading Godwin recommandation, the answer is NO
- Confirm whether or not the WMF (and thus the Wikimedia projects) considers the U.S. to apply the rule of the shorter term. (Lupo)
- If the WMF is prepared to defend the argument that the U.S. would need to apply that rule (following maybe Michelet's reasoning, for which there is no external confirmation, though), local projects again could operate basically under their local laws, and the commons also could consider only the source country of a "public ___domain" work. Otherwise, local projects (and the commons for "public ___domain" works) need to apply at least the local laws plus the U.S. copyright law. Take note of William F. Patry's comments on the U.S. and the rule of the shorter term. (Lupo)
- Mike recommandation (of course) is that the answer is NO. The board did not oppose.
- Is the Commons' rule for public ___domain works "a work must be in the public ___domain in its source country and in the U.S." good enough? (Lupo)
- Or does the Board really want the Commons to apply the rule "the work must be in the public ___domain in all countries"? Careful there; see above. The commons would also no longer be able to host pre-1923 U.S. works (which are not in the public ___domain in some other countries), it could no longer host many reproductions of old art (Bridgeman v. Corel doesn't apply everywhere), it couldn't host U.S. governmental works anymore (may in theory be copyrighted outside the U.S.), and so on. (I really don't think you'd want that.) (Lupo)
I truly think the WMF should clarify these points in a resolution on hosting. I know the WMF has traditionally avoided giving concrete guidelines, but as the operator of the servers and as the service provider, the WMF should at the very least have some very basic guidelines as to what content it is legally prepared to host. (Lupo)
Okay, first, there is no urgency to delete stuff. So, no one goes into a deletion frenzy. Now, the big question is "where do we host that stuff" ? I wonder if an answer might not be "one of the chapters, the one which will be in the most favorable country". Anthere 18:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Florence and Mike for the clarification. Don't worry, nobody wants to go into a deletion frenzy. But with that clarification, we can finally move on and figure out how to identify the problem media and then what to do with them. Previously, attempts to resolve this always stalled because people kept questioning these basics. Lupo 23:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Follow-up comment: I know it's asking a lot, but I think it would be good if the WMF could figure out rather quickly what to do with the affected files (besides identifying and tagging them). This was a shock to many, even if some people were prepared. Can we find a creative solution? If such a solution involved setting up image repositories in other jurisdictions, or transferring legal ownership of certain non-English projects to local legal entities in other jurisdictions, I don't think the community (or communities) could handle this alone. Lupo 09:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- My two cents, only to make clear how it is impacting projects: pt.wikisource have c. 17k text-units. The still incomplete list of pages that may get deleted because it is 600+ 555 13:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
What about discussing this at Wikimania ? Anthere
- Sure, why not. Though I cannot come to Alexandria :-( Lupo 16:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Low Saxon meta
It's again one week since my last unanswered enquiry per e-mail about that topic (Low Saxon meta). I would like to go on and would like to know which way I have to go. Please give me advice. Cary obviously is busy with his trip. If your other duties do not let you enough time to handle my request, please delegate it to someone or suggest another solution. But I can't brave waiting ;-) Thanks --::Slomox:: >< 13:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, user:Vusal, has created thousands of empty or inefficient pages like this http://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_G%C3%BCnday in azeri wikipedia. Most of these short articles are listed here http://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kateqoriya:Az%C9%99rbaycan_Kinosu-%C5%9E%C9%99xsl%C9%99r. Besides this he uploaded hundreds of unlicenced images. I demand that these pages be deleted. --Uannis 17:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Az vp
We did a consultation in Village pump of az-wiki. Uannis, Aruz, AMD and Vusal1981 wanted delete unusual and no information articals. Only Bakı66 didn't want it. But sysops of az-wiki didn't delete anyone. Then One of sysops is Memty. Memty deleted 3.000 unusual and no information articals. Memty also supported this consultation. We have got a bureaucrat in az-wiki but he isn't active in az-wiki and he isn't interested in az-wiki. I want to delete these pages in az-wiki. They are just template. All pages include in this template:
{{Şəxslər
|şəkil = Dot1.png
|şəkil məlumat=
|şəkil miqyası = 100
|Adı =
|Tam Adı =
|Digər Adları =
|Doğum Tarixi =
|Doğum Yeri =
|Ölüm Tarixi =
|Ölüm Yeri =
|Ölüm Səbəbi =
|Rəsmi vebsaytı =
|IMDB =
}}
|}
==Həyatı==
==Filmoqrafiya==
==Həmçinin Bax==
*[[Azərbaycan Kinosu]]
[[Kateqoriya:Azərbaycan Kinosu-Şəxslər]]
Thanks.--Uannis 17:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Florence. With regards to the above image, did you ever manage to clarify the copyright status of this image. Regards. Adambro 17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- ha ya. I was told "share, share". Which, euh, right, I will name that cc by sa... Anthere 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Admin confirmation
Hi, I had to remove your vote as the end date was 10 days ago. Thanks, Majorly (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- However, Anthere, you are free to comment on the bureaucrat chat page. Cbrown1023 talk 19:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your comments on bureaucrat chat page per Aphaia's confirmation. So I would like to talk to you here, for I am not a bureaucrat.
While the direct case of her block was revealing others user's privacy, she was not blocked on that single occasion. She has acted like "the boss" of Japanese Wikipedia community, by telling us the thing like "You must obey me, for I am an admin of meta, the chair of election committee", etc. etc. etc., for more than three years. Adminship is a matter of logical, technical access. It is not the "title" to be "the boss" of communities. Thus her usage of adminship was definitely inappropriate. It is also the violation of the policy; anyone who gathers onto any Wikimedia projects are equal. Nobody comes above or below anyone else. She is not "the boss" of JAWP community. We are not her subordinates, troops, or slaves. The block was, at first, until she promises not to leak other one's privacy, with minimum of three months. "With minimum of three months" was added because of her inappropriate behaviors that she acted like "the boss". The RfB page is this. JAWP community was in total exhaustion when we decided to block her.
Then steward election came. There, she stated Anyway, but some other people who liked politics didn't miss this occasion and demanded me to offer an apology for them too. In my humble opinion it doesn't make a sense since the issue had be settled already between her and me: so I ignored it simply. It was a total lie; her block was NOT a political matter. She was blocked because of series of her wrongdoings for three years. I assumed she told a lie on the voting page to obtain the stewardship, while some others assumed she simply did not understand why she was blocked, so I stood up, to protect our project, our community, and our users. At the same time, I submitted another RfB, and JAWP community decided to block her indefinitely. We were afraid that she would use stewardship to inflict influences onto JAWP, and/or even to avenge.
During this confirmation, we knew Aphaia was going to change the voting requirements to shut out opposing votes from JAWP and to defend herself. That brought those tons of "remove" votes. I also noticed she stated Also I would add, Japanese who gave their opposite opinions are not entrusted users even on their projects. That was NOT the fact at all; most JAWP users whocast "oppose" votes on her steward election and/or "remove" votes on this confirmation are decent contributors in JAWP. In other words, she insulted JAWP users on the voting page.
The best way here is, needless to say, Aphaia comes back to JAWP as "a user", not as "the boss", with her total self-reconsideration, apology to JAWP community, and promise never to conduct those inappropriate behaviors again. It is totally up to Aphaia herself whether we accept her once again. Whenever those are achieved, JAWP community is ready to unblock her. Chaging the rules for Aphaia's favor does not help in any way. I think you are the one who can pursuade her. For goodness for both you and us. Thanks. Yassie 00:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Ant. There is a new proposal by Kylu that will affect Wikimedia employees. Could you please state your opinion on the matter in the talk page? Thanks. --Meno25 15:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- done. To follow Anthere 00:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
pronunciation of your name
Hi,
I am going to check and update Translation_requests/WMF/Board_of_Trustees/ja. Could you please check your entry on a pronunciation table and put self-checked in the checked column?--NJT 11:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- answered locally Anthere
Archival permission
Hello Anthere,
I am the archivist for the language subcommittee. You sent a message to the language subcommittee on December 29th 2007 about the Saterfriesisch Wikipedia (you suggested using your Wikimedia address for future messages). Discussion with the subcommittee is regularly copied to a public archive for transparency. Since you have not agreed to archival, your messages are currently replaced with the message "<this user has not agreed to public archival>".
Do you agree to the public archival of all your emails? Even if you do agree, you can mark any email or comment as private and the message will be replaced by an appropriate note to that effect. The archives can be edited at any time to remove a message you forgot to mark as private. (The email address will be removed before public archival.)
Thanks. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:57:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- answered on Pathoschild talk page. Anthere
- Err, yes, you have my permission to publicly archive my emails :-) Anthere 23:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. You can see your message in the archived discussion. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 04:05:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Possible copyright infrigment
Hello dear Anthere,
Je go on in French because it's plus simple pour both of nous. Je viens de tomber sur ceci au hasard d'une PàS sur Wikipédia : le logo me rappelle étrangement quelque chose, mais impossible de mettre le doigt dessus... Ah ben si, ça serait pas un logo copyrighté par la fondation, dis donc ? Enfin voilà, je fais passer l'info, des fois que tu aies comme une petite envie de leur écrire (ou faire écrire) un petit mail à ce propos. Cordialement, Alchemica 19:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- mouis... certes, mais en meme temps, ca semble tout jeune, et le logo en haut à gauche est okay. A revoir dans qlq temps, c est peut etre temporaire :-) merci quand meme Anthere 00:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Oversight
Hi Anthere, I noticed you gave yourself oversight but didn't switch it off. I was wondering if you forgot, or there was a reason you kept it? Thanks! Majorly (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- oh, yeah, I forgot. It was essentially to "see" how the interface was working :-) I'll go remove it. Anthere 02:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Suggestions for changes in the WMF privacy policy.
Dear Ms Nibart-Devouard, I would like to draw your attention to some suggestions for changes in the WMF privacy policy posted that I posted today at the WMF site: [3]. Since the WMF Board of Trustees actually decides on any changes in the privacy policy, I hope that you, as the Chair of the Board, will take a look at these suggestions. The main gist of the suggested changes is to require some form of notification of those registered users whose identifying info is being sought by subpoenas in third-party lawsuits. These suggestions are motivated in large part by a discussion that took place in January 2008 at the Wikipedia Village Pump (Policy) page [4] in relation to an incident where identifying IP data of sixteen Wikipedia users was released in response to such a subpoena. Of course, anyone else reading this is also welcome to participate in the discussion on this proposal. Regards, Nsk92 21:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- okay. Since I asked Mike to work for us to recommand a data retention policy, I expect we'll have some updates to do to the privacy policy. So, let me note that point. Thank you. Anthere 17:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Anthere. I moved "User:Anthere:divers" to "User:Anthere/divers" so that it's in your user space. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 08:23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- thanks :-) Anthere
I sent you an email yesterday by the way. Majorly (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I forwarded it to the board yesterday. No board member commented... Anthere
NonvocalScream
Thanks for handling that request. --Aphaia 04:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Please upload this image to Commons with an appropriate license. Adambro 12:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is a license on that image. Cbrown1023 talk 15:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed there is but the issue here is that Meta doesn't have the ability to deal with images free images as well as Commons can do. We don't have all the license templates for example and so it is easier if images are uploaded to Commons which is set up specifically to handle freely licensed images. In this particular case there is no CC BY SA template and it would be also useful to know what version(s) of CC BY SA applies. Adambro 15:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is a license on that image. Cbrown1023 talk 15:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Image:FLOSS.jpg is missing details of its source and license. Adambro 12:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Unless the policy on meta is changing, and we now do not accept free licenses anymore, the image is here and will stay here. Anthere 22:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd suggest that is unlikely. I'll probably move them before long to Commons, the preferred host for all free media files on WMF, and then propose they be deleted here. However, I appreciate you dealing with this issue and clarify that my suggestion to upload the image to Commons was to benefit from the better management of free content rather than a suggestion that free content is not permitted on Meta although I see no reason why such content should be uploaded here rather than Commons. Adambro 22:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- And I will respectfully disagree with you. Commons is meant as a database for global use, whilst meta is meant to be a wiki for our own organization. Anthere
- The Commons Project scope appears to me to be sufficiently broad to include all freely licensed content useful to the WMF projects, whether this is media files that are used in those projects or used in a supporting role. I'm not sure upon what you're basing your suggestion that this isn't the case and I would appreciate it if you would provide a fuller explanation of your position. Adambro 23:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The image in question was taken during a conference I participated to. I know the author of it was okay with publishing it under a free license. However, I did not get individual agreement of each person on the image before publication. As such, for a question of privacy, I think it is not a good idea (not so much legally, than ethically) to verse this image in a global pool for anyone to just dig and use as they wish. Which commons explicitely is. Whilst republishing is indeed possible since it is under a free licence, I do think having it on meta, where it illustrate some of our activities, makes it less likely that a big private company use it to make an advertisement or any use that might hurt one of the peopel on the picture. I also do think that generally, this should be done with members of our community as well. Anthere 23:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Commons Project scope appears to me to be sufficiently broad to include all freely licensed content useful to the WMF projects, whether this is media files that are used in those projects or used in a supporting role. I'm not sure upon what you're basing your suggestion that this isn't the case and I would appreciate it if you would provide a fuller explanation of your position. Adambro 23:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's an interesting point but I think it is perhaps unwise to freely release images and then attempt to control how they are used. If the photographer agreed to release under a valid free license then it should be on Commons, if they didn't then it should be deleted. If you're not happy with the image being used in accordance with the license then you shouldn't have uploaded it. I'd agree however that this is unfortunate. Adambro 23:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would still argue that there is no policy on meta making it mandatory to upload all images on commons. And I still do not think it is a good idea to dump every image meant for team building on commons. Anthere 23:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- With all respect, isn't a request to delete another persons uploaded images, on a project that hasn't stated that uploads are banned, an interference with that said persons work on this project? Project specific images are much better uploaded on the specific projects where they are needed if they are not of such a quality and/or of a subject that can (or should) be used on other projects. If there are only one project where they are, and reasonably can be argued that they will be used, then there are no reason to move them to Commons. 87.248.5.124 23:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would still argue that there is no policy on meta making it mandatory to upload all images on commons. And I still do not think it is a good idea to dump every image meant for team building on commons. Anthere 23:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's an interesting point but I think it is perhaps unwise to freely release images and then attempt to control how they are used. If the photographer agreed to release under a valid free license then it should be on Commons, if they didn't then it should be deleted. If you're not happy with the image being used in accordance with the license then you shouldn't have uploaded it. I'd agree however that this is unfortunate. Adambro 23:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Re:Blog
As a member of the chapcom, I have a different perspective on chapters issues then many other people have. I've also tried to start my own US chapter in the past (WM Pennsylvania) so I know that the barrier is real! Some people don't have all the information that I have, so I like to set the record straight when possible. Plus, I don't like it when good people generate bad press! --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 00:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Rachel Marsden's Photo Replacement Request to OTRS
Rachel Marsden has sent an email to OTRS (the email is copied on the talk page of the article, here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rachel_Marsden#New_Photo ) requesting that the photo used in her BLP be replaced with a more generic one which she has given to us under free licence. The admins over at the Rachel Marsden page are requesting that someone from OTRS go in and approve the use of the new photo (in Image file and Commons as Rachelheadshot.jpg) and insert it into the article. Otherwise, it's being blocked. If you could do so, it would be much appreciated. Thanks.
- Florence, I was pinged on my enwp talk page about this, and so it will hopefully not require any of your valuable time to do it personally :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Florence : un appel au secours
Florence, Permettez-moi de vous apeller Florence, Bonjour et au secours !
Bonjour, parce que je vous le souhaite et au secours, parce que bien qu'avec un parcours qui a des similitudes au vôtre en termes de partage de ses connaissances avec les autres je me trouve sur Wiki dans une position inextricable....
je vous en prie ne me jetez pas car avant de vous contacter, j'ai tout essayé, et rien je dis bien rien n'a fonctionné !!!
Lecteur de Wikipédia depuis le début, et très modeste contributeur, le plus souvent anonyme depuis longtemps, j'ai paramétré ma page Utilisateur à l'image de la vôtre et publiée ma Bio sans soucis ni critique pendant plus de neuf mois, quand, soudain, ce matin du 4 Juin, alors que je changeais une ligne, je me suis vu totalement effacé la totalité de mon travail et taxé de vandalisme.
J'ai alors tenté de revenir sous mon vrai non d'Utilisateur qui est ausi mon nom et patronyme: et là patatras, j'ai été banni pour une durée indéfinie alors que je ne faisais que recopier mon article, tel quel, conforme à ce qu'il avait été sans aucune réclamation pendant neuf mois.
pour faire court, n'ayant plus accès à ma propre page Utilisateur, ce que je trouve révoltant, voici le motif écrit qui figure on line :
4 juin 2008 à 13:23 Darkoneko (Discuter | Contributions) a bloqué « Christxxx de Cxxxy (Discuter | Contributions) » - durée : indéfiniment (création de compte interdite) (Bon débarras, et on attend vos attaques avec impatience.)
Je n'ai rien compris si ce n'est que celà me cause un tort considérable, car j'avais mis vers ma page utilisateur un lien qui a ce jour est un lien mort de ma biographie, et qu'au passage Wiki possède plusieurs bio comme la vôtre - et la mienne - ce qui semble t il n'a choqué personne pendant neuf mois alors pourquoi cet exces de zele aujourd'hui ?
De plus le vandalisme par mon révocateur de ma propre page utilisateur n'étant pas suffisant j'ai été banni, ce qui figure a présent sur ma page utilisateur devenue blanche, laquelle est un miroir résonnant sur Google ce qui me pose un réel problème en termes d'image, puisque j'ai écris et déclaré ma page utilisateur sous mon vrai nom et prénom, qui a présent sont synonimes de banni lorsque l'on clique sur ma page Aberrant
Aidez-moi je vous en prie
Pourquoi suis je banni pour avoir uniquement modifié une page : LA MIENNE Pourquoi m'a t on laissé oeuvré neuf mois paisiblement pour reverter ma bio aujourd'hui ? Pourquoi votre bio au demeurant remarquable, aurait droit à un article en ligne, tandis que la mienne n'aurait même pas le droit de figurer sur ma page Utilisateur ?
Florence : AIDEZ MOI Chrisxxxhe de Cxxxy decagnychris at yahoo.fr
- Florence est probablement très occupée et n'est probablement pas la personne la plus à même de vous aider. Vous pouvez contacter l'équipe de volontaires répondant au courrier électronique en envoyant un message décrivant votre problème à l'adresse info-fr
wikimedia.org. Veuillez cependant garder à l'esprit que Wikipedia n'est pas un hébergeur de pages personnelles, mais un projet d'encyclopédie. guillom 13:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oui. Un coup d'oeil rapide me permet de voir immédiatement que la situation n'est pas tout à fait aussi simple que ce que vous voulez décrire. Votre page utilisateur et votre page de discussion ont été blanchies par courtoisie. Il semble donc qu'il n'y ait aucun problème spécifique à traiter. Cordialement Anthere
.svg){kind=small}
Comme toujours sur Wikipédia, les réponses sont partielles et ne concernent qu'une partie du sujet: celui bien sûr où Wikipédia n'est pas en porte à faux.... J'ai depuis trouvé une vingtaine de biographie sur Wiki.... émanant d'administrateurs anciens ou nouveaux ... de plus, j'ai bénéficié de nombreux articles dans la presse dite spécialisée...il s'agit donc de savoir où et quand commence la notoriété et ou et quand finit la simple page perso. il est évident que je ne suis ni François Villon ni Johnny Haliday, mais j'aimerai que l'on se renseigne avant de blanchir,une page, la notoriété d'une personne émettant une biographie ne se limitant pas aux trois premières réponses de google! En clair, ma bio avait sa raison d'être ici, et les divers intervenants auraient du en discuter en émettant leur avis sur ma page de discussion AVANT et non après les actes de blanchiement, - moi je dis vandalisme- qu'ils ont un peu vite commis. De plus, Wikipedia demeure trop souvent juge et partie, et l'ambiance générale n'est plus la même : il n'y a qu'à voir le nombre de conflits étalés sur votre page !!! Beaucoup trop d'administrateurs sont étudiants, sans connaissance particulière, leur savoir est réduit, leur expérience de modération inexistante, et au final, c'est Wiki qui en pâtit. Enfin, j'attends toujours valable réponse au fait qu'il est inexcusable que j'ai été banni et interdit de rédaction sur MA PROPRE PAGE sans ausune raison valable. Pas un intervenant n'a justifié cette sanction et pour cause !!! Elle est injustifiable. J'attends donc le libre accès à ma page et davantage de dialogue à l'avenir. Bonne continuation Christophe
Appel à médiation
Introduction
Florence,
Tout d'abord, merci pour votre travail, merci à tous ceux qui à vos cotés œuvrent à la diffusion de la connaissance. Utilisateur quasi permanent de Wikipédia (Un onglet de mon explorateur pointe en permanence sur la page d'accueil), n'hésitant jamais, un enfant sur les genoux, à me renseigner sur la coccinelle et sa larve trouvée dans le jardin http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccinellidae (Très belles images), ou à titre personnel sur l'histoire des mouvements ésotériques et spirituels occidentaux (Voir la page concernant Hélène Blavatsky), je ne peux que m'étendre en béatitudes, mais je m'arrête ici, car tel n'est pas le sujet.
Je suis par ailleurs lecteur assidu du site de Jean-Pierre PETIT (Ci après nommé JPP), et je suis à présent confronté à une douloureuse double contrainte, concernant la polémique qui l'oppose à un (ou plusieurs ?) administrateurs de fr.wikipédia.
D'un coté l'inespérée encyclopédie vivante, outil indispensable de culture, de l'autre un scientifique de haut vol, travaillant sans relâche à la découverte de nouveaux horizons (D’aucuns transdimentionnels, tant la physique est parfois étrange) et vulgarisant bénévolement et avec passion un savoir dont il est souvent lui-même le découvreur (Retournement de surfaces 3D, annihilation de l’instabilité de Velikhov, auteur d’un modèle cosmologique révolutionnaire, et j’en passe).
La raison qui me fait m’adresser à vous, est de demander votre médiation, concernant une guerre éditoriale l’ayant opposé à un administrateur, qui a demandé et obtenu de ses pairs, un bannissement à vie.
A ma connaissance, c’est la première fois qu’un bannissement à vie concernant un ingénieur SupAéro, également ancien directeur de recherches au CNRS se produit.
Par ailleurs, ce conflit nuit à l’image de Wikipédia France.
Les problèmes
Premier problème, certes déconcertant mais non moins réel : JPP voit les mentions qu’il fait apparaître sur son article de biographie être régulièrement effacées, du fait semble-t-il d’un administrateur prétextant le vandalisme.
Je m’insurge contre le fait qu’une personne ne puisse avoir librement accès à l’article qui traite de sa propre biographie. Ceci est un non sens, qui plus est une atteinte à une liberté fondamentale.
Deuxième problème (Non moindre) : Ce bannissement à vie concerne une personne dont les multiples compétences ne sont plus à démontrer, par ailleurs excellent vulgarisateur, privant ainsi Wikipédia de la possibilité d’une contribution de qualité.
Propositions
Premièrement, Il semble légitime, voire indispensable de permettre à une personne l’accès libre à la modification de la page qui concerne sa biographie.
Les problèmes de vandalisme peuvent être aisément contournés en attribuant à l’intéressé un login permettant de le différentier sans aucune ambiguïté d’un simple vandale.
Deuxièmement, Wikipédia France devrait renouer le contact avec JPP, afin de normaliser les relations, et de gagner ainsi un éventuel contributeur de tout premier ordre.
Remarque
J’avais créé hier soir un appel à commentaires, exposant clairement les différents points que j’ai cités. A ma grande surprise, la page a été supprimée dans la nuit, vers 3 heures du matin, sans autre forme de procès.
Coordonnées
Mon mail : nightflight77 at hotmail.fr Le mail de JPP : jppetit1937 at yahoo.fr
Commentaire
Jean-Louis
Première fois que je m'exprime en ces lieux. Alors juste un mot pour parler moi aussi de ce bannissement à vie ?! Assez incroyable de lire de telle chose sur Wiki. Sur certains sites, je ne dis pas, mais ici ça fait tâche. Alors quoi, faudra-t-il attendre sa mort pour espérer qu'une tête bien pensante soit à même de parler des travaux de JPP ? N'est-il pas préférable de laisser l'intéressé parler de lui même ? Très curieux comme attitude...
Commentaire
Je ne peux pas croire qu'un individu puissent etre banni à vie de Wikipedia ?! Je parle de Jean-Pierre Petit en particulier ou de n'importe qui en general. Y a t'il abus de pouvoir de quelques administrateurs de Wikipedia? De ce fait je ne ferai plus de donation. Je souhaiterai avoir une reponse claire et citoyenne. Merci
Proposition
Ne serait-il pas justifié d'accorder aux universitaires un statut d'administrateur pour les pages qui touchent à leur domaine(s) de compétence ?
- Euh, administrateur n'est pas similaire de "membre du comité éditorial de WP". DarkoNeko 21:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Réponse
J'ignore si vous vous adressez à moi comme éditeur ou comme présidente de la Foundation. Si comme éditeur, je dois préciser que je n'ai pas plus d'autorité que n'importe lequel des participants à Wikipedia. Si comme présidente, je me permettrais de vous rappeler que la Foundation est hébergeur de Wikipédia, et non responsable de la politique éditoriale (aux mains de la communauté des éditeurs).
En tant qu'éditrice, je me permettrais de vous signaler
- qu'il n'existe pas de site ou d'organisation "Wikipedia France". fr.wikipedia.org est un project francophone. Wikimedia France est une organisation française d'utilisateurs;
- que contrairement à ce que vous pouvez penser, ce n'est pas parce que le site est ouvert, qu'il existe un DROIT à éditer Wikipedia. Nos politiques d'accès sont très claires sur ce point: un éditeur qui se comporte de façon associale ou abusive peut être exclu;
- la plupart (sinon toutes) des encyclopédies ne donnent pas un droit de regard à l'objet d'un article biographique; Wikipedia ne diffère pas de ces encyclopédies;
- enfin, notre projet dispose de ces propres règles de fonctionnement et propres options techniques: le status administrateur ne se gagne pas par ses diplomes, et n'est pas accessible par "domaine de compétence".
Cordialement
Florence
Demande de complément d'information
Florence, voici un extrait du log de l'irc wikipedia-fr
(Zgub) Tejgad: JPP est un demi-dingue entouré de pauvres gus qui le prennent pour un génie persécuté.
(Zgub) JPP ne convaincra que les déjà convaincus de son génie : les membres de sa secte. Les autres comprendront bien, rien qu'à son style qu'il est en plein délire paranoïaque et folie des grandeurs
Pensez vous que de tels propos constituent un gage de wikimédia-sociabilité ?
Merci de votre réponse
- Certainement non. J'aimerais que les participants fassent preuve d'un peu plus de retenue et de diplomatie dans leurs propos. Cela étant, le fait même d'affirmer haut et bruyamment que le message que vous aviez laissé sur cette page a été scandaleusement effacé, de hurler immédiatement à la censure, et appeler vos amis à spammer mes pages personnelles... me semble être justement un signe de sentiment de persécution de votre part. L'historique de cette page montre que votre message n'a jamais été effacé par qui que ce soit. Bien loin de ne pas avoir vu ce message, j'y avais répondu avant même que vous ne me téléphoniez. En bref, la réalité est à 1000 lieux de ce que vous décrivez sur votre site.
- J'ajouterais que vous êtes hébergeur d'un message à caractère diffamatoire me concernant ([5]) de la part d'une personne qui ne me connait pas et qui n'a jamais interagit avec moi, et qui se permet de me juger uniquement sur la foi de vos accusations infondées. Ce n'est pas très grave, mais ne me donne pas vraiment une très haute opinion des gens qui vous entourent. Désolée. Anthere 23:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Réponse à la réponse: Vous semblez croire que la demande de complément d'informations a été rédigée par JPP. Ce n'est absolument pas le cas. Je suis le rédacteur de la demande de médiation et de la demande de complément, et je pensais concourir à résoudre un conflit. Malheureusement, je me rends compte que j'ai fait chou blanc. C'est très dommage, car quoi que l'on en dise, il y avait du bon à prendre de part et d'autre. Il suffisait tout simplement d'effectuer la démarche d’analyser les causes du conflit. Dont acte.
- Je pense que la situation rencontrée avec JPP se reproduira: Certains articles seront de nouveau censurés, si un ou deux de vos administrateurs y sont opposés pour des raison "Théologiques".
- En ce qui concerne le soi disant effacement de commentaire, il se trouve qu'un internaute avait laissé un message tout en haut de votre page de discussion, ce qui me semblait mal approprié. Considérant (En raison de son contenu) qu'il faisait partie de l'affaire que j'avais abordée, j'ai simplement déplacé ce commentaire en bas de page, ce qui a dû provoquer la confusion que vous évoquez dans votre réponse, concernant l'affaire de "L'effacement scandaleux".
- Pour finir, il se trouve que je visite assez fréquemment le site de JPP, je prends donc pour moi la "Pas vraiment haute opinion" que vous avez des lecteurs du site de JPP. Je pense que vous commettez là une erreur de jugement certaine, mais je comprends également que votre préférence aille à vos contributeurs, même si certains mènent de toute évidence une campagne de dénigrement à l'encontre de JPP.
- Cordialement tout de même, et vous rappelant tout le respect que j'ai pour votre travail, ce que j'avais d'ailleurs indiqué dans l'introduction de ma demande. 05:19, 17 Juin 2008
---
Mademoiselle, Vous dite qu'il faut laisser cela au administrateur. Or, ils sont la source même du problème. Ils sont abusif dans leur gestion et pour devenir administrateur, j'ai crus comprendre qu'il faut être accepté par eux. On tombe donc sur un problème que seulement ceux qui sont du même avis que les administrateur peuvent se faire recruter. Ce système crée donc immanquablement une élite d'administrateur à pensé à peu près unique. Il est alors difficile de voir comment ceux-ci peuvent régler le problème dont ils sont la cause, faute de voies dissonante en leur sein. C'est pourquoi, il me semble,que nous sommes présentement en train de discuter de ce problème directement avec vous en sautant les intermédiaires. Nicolas Roger
- non. D'une part parce que les administrateurs ne s'autoproclament pas, ni ne sont élus par les administrateurs déjà en place. Les administrateurs se voient donner des outils supplémentaires par vote de la totalité des contributeurs enregistrés (ayant au moins xx jours de présence et au moins yy édits). J'ajoute qu'un administrateur abusif peut se voir retirer l'accès administrateur (cela s'est déjà produit plusieurs fois). Donc, le problème que vous soulignez (co-optation) n'existe tout simplement pas. Je vous invite à lire les règles de nomination et vote des administrateurs. Je vous invite à consulter cette page: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Administrateur pour mieux comprendre notre organisation. Anthere 23:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Point de droit
L'aspect anonyme des contributions à wikipedia peut s'admettre en tant que principe, se comprendre dans les contrées où les droits des personnes ne sont pas respectées et leur gouvernements, quel que soit leur forme, ont la main mise sur l'information.
Ce qui en revanche me semble poser problème, à moins que vous soyez à même de l'étayer solidement, est l'anonyma des administrateurs dans les pays où les droits des personnes sont respectés. En effet, ces administrateurs pour règler les différents quels que soient leur formes doivent être à même de juger un article ou une discussion sur un certain nombre de critères.
C'est la capacité à juger sur ces divers critères qui est en cause dans certain conflits qui on surgit ces derniers temps. En effet ces administrateurs se posent en juge. Mais il n'est pas possible étant donné leur anonyma d'évaluer la capacité de ces juges à juger.
Certains exemples récents ont fait tache d'huile et les internautes commencent déjà à se défier (même si le mot est fort) du contenu de Wikipedia tant certains jugements qui y ont été rendu se sont révélé partiaux mais aussi parceque les auteurs du jugements se sont révélé inapte à comprendre l'objet du litige ou le contenu et le fond des articles. Malheureusement ce problème fondamental ne se révèle qu'à l'occasion de crise et on se rend alors compte que l'anonyma des administrateur a engendré une forme larvé ou avéré de sensure impropre à la libre diffusion du savoir, qui reste la vocation de wikipedia.
En conclusion le principe d'anonyma des administrateur va à l'encontre du but majeur de wikipedia.
Je vous engage par conséquent à bannir l'anonyma des administrateurs abilités à juger des contenus de l'encyclopédie et au contraire à documenter précisément leur identité et crédits. On a jamais vu de juge rendre la justice caché sous un masque. Ou plutôt on l'a déjà vu et cette justice était tout sauf juste (c'est du moin mon avis).
Bien à vous et avec tout mon respect pour celles et ceux qui oeuvrent pour cette encyclopédie en ligne et ses principes fondateurs.
Franck Delaloy (qui est mon vrai nom et vous en dit plus que mon adresse IP)
- Si vous êtes un scientifique qui publie dans les revues scientifiques de rang international, vous avez probablement eu l'opportunité de soumettre vos articles à une *review* avant acceptation. Habituellement, l'identité des reviewers vous ait cachée (elle est connue de l'éditeur de la revue, de même que l'identité de beaucoup de nos administrateurs m'est connue; mais elle reste inconnue de la personne ayant soumis un article à publication). Si vous êtes scientifique, vous êtes vous déjà vu refuser un article ? Si oui, avez vous estimé que ce refus était irrecevable en raison de l'anonymat du reviewer ? Avez vous exigé de connaitre le nom des reviewers ? Avez vous sommé l'éditeur de la revue de se défaire de ses reviewers parce qu'ils avaient refusé votre publication ?
- Si vous ne voyez pas à quoi je fais référence, il est sans doute préférable de ne pas vous lancer dans des généralisations hatives sur l'anonymat et la validation de contenu.
- Si vous êtes informaticien, je pense que vous n'ignorez pas les trésors qui peuvent être dévoilés avec une adresse IP, alors que n'importe qui pourrait signer avec votre nom réel. Les choses ne sont pas si simples. Anthere 00:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Une adresse IP se falsifie aussi facilement qu'un nom. Il y a une différence fondamentale entre WP et les reviewers, les reviewers sont et doivent avoir des connaissances dans la matière. Il devrait y avoir la même chose sur WP. Pole
Défense du projet Wiktionnaire
Bonjour,
Nous avons un problème de site miroir (dict.xmatiere.com) qui copie en instantané toutes nos pages d'articles du Wiktionnaire sans porter la mention de licence GNU mais il porte sa propre mention de copyright (2007 © dict.xmatiere.com), ce qui est un comble.(Un exemple avec le mot copieur [6]
Le réglement de ce litige ne ressort-il pas à la Wikimedia Foundation ?
On a eu une discussion sur la Wikidémie (notre page de discussion) mais on ne sait pas comment déboucher.(Voir le § 1.19 du Sommaire)
On a besoin de soutien et de conseil.
Merci pour ce que vous pourrez faire.
Béotien lambda 07:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Bonjour,
Merci - Merci beaucoup pour les informations données qui sont très intéressantes.
- Je te donne ici quelques nouvelles de cette affaire.
- Quand je t’ai contactée, un message minimum avait était adressé au site aspirateur par l’administrateur Lmaltier.
- Le propriétaire du site ne réagissant pas, nous avions envisagé d’adresser un message plus ferme proposé par l’administrateur Stephane8888 et c’est à ce moment-là que je m’étais permis de te contacter pour soutien et conseil.
- Le propriétaire du site a désormais apporté une modification à ses pages en faisant figurer “SELON LE WIKTIONNAIRE”.
- Sans doute a-t-il été informé de nos échanges et des risques de blocage qu’il encourait.
- Je ne sais si cette mention est suffisante mais au moins elle est une reconnaissance pour les contributeurs toujours plus nombreux de Wiktionnaire.
Béotien lambda 15:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
J'ai du mal à dire.... quand je vais sur le site en question, les mots sont "non cliquables". Bizarre. Ils ont peut etre un problème technique ? Normallement, l'obligation est
- reconnaissance de la source (auteurs ou Wiktionnaire)
- indiquer la licence (GFDL)
Si cela indique toujours copyright dict.x, ils sont dans l'illégalité.
Anthere 08:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Juste pour te rendre compte que le propriétaire du site en question est intervenu sur la Wikidémie par le message suivant le 18 septembre (§ 1.19 du Sommaire) :
- «Bonjour ! Je suis le propriétaire du site dict.xmatiere.com. En effet, j'ai reçu un mail (très court) de Lmaltier le 17 juin 2008, auquel j'ai répondu. J'ai alors en effet ajouté la mention "selon le Wiktionnaire". Aujourd'hui, je viens de prendre connaissance de cette page, et de la discussion que cela engendre. (Je n'ai jamais reçu la proposition de mail ci-dessus.) J'ai donc mentionné la source et mis un lien vers la licence GPL et vers la page d'accueil du Wiktionnaire français. Cela suffit-il ? Je ne maintiens pas très régulièrement ce site, j'y jette un coup d'oeil de temps en temps, notamment sur les stats, ce qui m'a permis de découvrir cette discussion. JLT, le 18 sept. 2008» -Béotien lambda 11:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
So long...
Bonjour Ant, tu souviendras-tu de moi? Je n'oublie et il y avait si longtemps que je n'étais passé. Je ne vais t'ennuyer longtemps. Quelques mots simplement. J'ai lu "mon" fr:Johann Sebastian Bach, j'y retrouve beaucoup de ce que j'y avais mis d'entrée et doit t'avouer que le résultat après tant d'années de contributions et contributeurs me satisfait assez, beaucoup même. Peut-être ai-je eu tort? Je ne sais. En bref, une bise. Pas mal ta page italienne, je l'aurais composée de la même manière...Mais te connaissant, je crois bien que tu n'en doutais.Merci Ant. Eslios 06:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikinews francophone, exclusion et dérives
Bonjour (et pardon pour le dérangement), je suis un Wikipédien nouveau-né et j'ai (re)lancé un débat, sous l'intitulé “Déontologie” (désolé, je ne sais même pas faire fonctionner les liens), dans la “Salle café” du Wikinews francophone. J'ai suffisamment impatienté les administrateurs pour être aujourd'hui menacé d'exclusion définitive, ce qui me paraît excessif. Mais peu importe. Ce qui motive véritablement ce courrier, c'est mon inquiétude sur ce qu'est devenu ce Wikinews, bien loin me semble-t-il des attentes de ses initiateurs. La petite communauté qui fait vivre ce site est sans doute méritante, mais elle a à mon avis besoin de bien plus que de nouveaux rédacteurs. Cordialement, et dans l'espoir que vous pourrez intervenir... Trevras 11:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Demande de changement de statut pour mg.wiktionary
Bonjour,
Je suis Jagwar venant de la wiktionary malgache, je suis venu vous faire cette demande de statut d'admin, car l'unique sysop de mg.wiktionary semble avoir jeté l'éponge.
En effet, depuis 6 mois, ni sur la mg.WP ni sur mg.Wikt Hery n'a été actif
Le problème, c'est que c'est le seul utilisateur à pouvoir changer les edittools de MediaWiki.
En effet, j'ai demandé à un sysop de fr.wikt mais il ne pouvait le faire et m'a donc proposé de vous contacter pour demander un changement de statut.
Merci d'avance, Amicalement,
Oui mais non. On n'a pas le droit de stocker ça sur meta ; Meta:EDP ne le permet pas. Si cette carte est indispensable, alors il faut la refaire avec une ImageMap. guillom 10:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Confirmation of user rights
Hi,
Just letting you know that your user rights are up for confirmation this quarter; the discussion is currently taking place at Meta:Administrators/confirm.
Cheers,
Daniel (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Late to the party
I've been living under a rock, it seems - massive gratz on the Order of Merit! I just found out. KillerChihuahua 12:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
A few of the images uploaded to Meta are tagged presumed GFDL. Yours are:
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
It's been noted at Meta:Requests_for_deletion#Template:GFDL-presumed that this is not an ideal situation. If you'd be willing to modify the licenses on your contributions in particular, it would be appreciated. We would also, of course, appreciate it if you could give some advice in that discussion about how we might best handle this situation. Thanks! Kylu 03:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
done Anthere
User rights
Please sign here if you wish to continue holding user rights here. Thanks, Majorly talk 15:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Compte global
Bonjour, Anthere. Je suis Pic-Sou, j'ai été renommé ce matin (je m'appelais avant Picsou 31), mais uniquement sur wikipédia fr. Peux-tu renommer mon compte commons Picsou 31 en Pic-Sou, s'il te plaît ? Et vérifier l'unification des deux comptes ainsi que celui sur méta ? Merci d'avance ! Pic-Sou 10:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Question
J'ai posé une question importante (et urgente) dans Wikimedia Forum (NPOV and languages), mais personne ne semble vouloir répondre. Je ne voudrais pas que en.wiktionary soit fermé pour violation de la politique NPOV, et mieux vaut prévenir que guérir. Lmaltier 07:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)