Here's an example of the new CC public domain mark (for the Mona Lisa):
<p xmlns:dct="http://purl.org/dc/terms/">
<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/">
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png"
style="border-style: none;" alt="Public Domain Mark" />
</a><br />
This work (<span property="dct:title">Mona Lisa</span>, by <span
resource="[_:creator]" rel="dct:creator"><span
property="dct:title">Leonardo da Vinci</span></span>), identified by
<span resource="[_:publisher]" rel="dct:publisher"><span
property="dct:title">Ryan Kaldari</span></span>, is free of known
copyright restrictions.
</p>
I imagine we can put whatever icon image we want in the mark. The
metadata is the important stuff (for search engines). Anyone want to run
with this on Commons?
Ryan Kaldari
Hi all,
A reminder that Sue Gardner, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia
Foundation,
will be having office hours Today in about 2 hours at 17:00 UTC
(10:00 PDT, 13:00 EDT 19:00 CEST) on IRC in the #wikimedia-office
channel. As usual
the meeting will be an open format so bring your questions and comments!
If you do not have an IRC client, there are two ways you can come chat
using a web browser: First, using the Wikizine chat gateway at
<http://chatwikizine.memebot.com/cgi-bin/cgiirc/irc.cgi>. Type a
nickname, select irc.freenode.net from the top menu and
#wikimedia-office from the following menu, then login to join.
Or, you can access Freenode by going to http://webchat.freenode.net/,
typing in the nickname of your choice and choosing #wikimedia-office as
the channel. You may be prompted to click through a security warning,
which you can click to accept.
I hope to see everyone on IRC!
--
James Alexander
Associate Community Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
Hi all,
I know Steven just sent out a note for Barry's Friday office hours
but this is in addition.Sorry for the late notice and for sending
them out of order.
Sue Gardner, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation,
will be having office hours this Thursday (Tomorrow) at 17:00 UTC
(10:00 PDT, 13:00 EDT 19:00 CEST) on IRC in the #wikimedia-office channel.
If you do not have an IRC client, there are two ways you can come chat
using a web browser: First, using the Wikizine chat gateway at
<http://chatwikizine.memebot.com/cgi-bin/cgiirc/irc.cgi>. Type a
nickname, select irc.freenode.net from the top menu and
#wikimedia-office from the following menu, then login to join.
Or, you can access Freenode by going to http://webchat.freenode.net/,
typing in the nickname of your choice and choosing #wikimedia-office as
the channel. You may be prompted to click through a security warning,
which you can click to accept.
Please feel free to forward and translate this email to any list I may
have missed and I hope to see everyone online!
--
James Alexander
Associate Community Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
Greetings all,
The next IRC Office Hours will be with Barry Newstead, Chief Global
Development Officer (CGDO) of the Wikimedia Foundation, on Friday
October 15th, 17:00 UTC. As usual, this chat will be informal and in an
open format. You can learn more about past Office Hours and how to
connect at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours.
See you in IRC!
--
Steven Walling
Wikimedia Foundation Fellow
(wikimediafoundation.org)
On 11 October 2010 15:56, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> As for GerardM's comment - I think PM brought it up to illustrate the
> problem, not because he thought this was the only example. It isn't a
> purely theoretical issue, there are actual cases that make policy
> development an important concern.
Speaking as a rabid free speech advocate for a moment:
Any of the home-made pornlike images, even assuming educational value,
should be subject to really quite stringent checking of provenance.
(Bot-checking of Flickr uploads doesn't cut it - and we do have pics
like this that have had that little checking.) Possibly up to the
level of paperwork filed with WMF, I dunno. But we are supposed to be
a somewhat curated repository, after all.
The level of this should be decided on Commons, but given it's a
BLP-like subject area - the possibility of severe reputational harm to
living persons - I am quite confident the community can come up with
something workable that does the right thing but provides suitable
examples of early 21st century home-made porn that the academics of
the future will be profoundly grateful we collected and categorised.
(cc to commons-l - I'd set followup-to there, but Gmail is not that versatile)
- d.
Just to let you know that Part 3 of the Study on Controversial content
is now up on its own Meta page
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Conten….
Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far -- it
has been expectedly passionate, but very interesting, and illuminating.
All three parts of the study, combined together, will be presented to
the Wikimedia Foundation Board on Friday, Oct. 8 at their next meeting.
Either the Board or we will be following up on that presentation.
Thanks again to all for allowing us to enter your "house" as a guest;
we've been treated very civilly, and appreciate it. Robert and Dory
Harris
I personally think the icons are really cool and a nice addition.
However, when we were discussing them on #wikinews, we noticed that
news trust [1] was one of the icons (presumably because the equivalent
wikinews template has it). Thats a rather specialized site for sharing
news articles. I don't really think it applies to commons imho.
[1] http://newstrust.net
Cheers,
-bawolff
I suppose this may interest you.
Sorry for crossposting; please join the discussion on foundation-l, if
you wish.
Nemo
-------- Messaggio Originale --------
Oggetto: Five-year WMF targets exclude non-Wikipedia projects
Data: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 12:33:07 +0200
Da: Federico Leva (Nemo)
A: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Despite repeated assurances at Wikimania, on lists and on strategywiki,
that the strategic plan was going to consider all Wikimedia projects as
important, now at
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Five-year_targets the
second target, «Increase the amount of information we offer» considers
only the number of Wikipedia articles.
«We're aware of the challenges around bot-created articles, articles of
low quality, etc., and the limited focus on Wikipedia, so this metric
shouldn't be seen in isolation, but is an important indicator.» Yes, but
a wrong one.
I'm, very, very disappointed: I have to conclude that all the words on
community participation etc. were only empty rhetoric.
Nemo
