Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I am glad to share the
recognitio of a new Wikimedia User Group: Wikipedia Community Schools
Association Greece [1]
Among their goals are increasing the participation of the hellenic
wikimedians in the different Wikimedia projects, with a strong emphasis
on education and outreach, from secondary education to GLAM institutions
to universities.
Best of luck and success to our greek colleagues!
1:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Community_Schools_Association_Gre…
--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
Carlos M. Colina
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
www.wikimedia.org.ve <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
Member, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x
The blog still uses a whited out example of an 1854 statue, yet the discussion is supposedly about the sculptor's copyright.
Is the Swedish court trying to imply that artists and their heirs have a near indefinite copyright period for sculpture on display in Sweden? Or is this a modern statue of a chap who died in 1854? The blurb describes the statue as being public domain, so I suspect it is just a misleading picture, it would be better to use a picture with a whited out statue that is still in copyright.
Those journalists and lawyers who support this judgment will try to spin this as being about the rights of living artists. So I'd suggest using the example of the oldest statue you can find in the database that is still in copyright, especially if the initial heirs are also long dead. A sentence in the blog post along the lines of "copyright in Sweden lasts for x years after the artist dies, so some of the artworks that the court is trying to restrict public access to are over y years old".
It might also be worth adding that Wikimedia Commons, wikimedia's main media library operates under US law. Though individuals who add or use material also need to comply with the law where they are.
Regards
WereSpielChequers
>
Hey everyone :)
We'll be doing another office hour on IRC for all things Wikidata on April
12th at 4PM UTC.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=16&min=00&sec=0&…
has
your timezone.
I'll give an overview of what's been happening over the past 3 months and
give an update on what's coming up. We'll have time for questions as well.
If you have any topics you'd like to bring up please let me know. As always
there will be logs for people who can't attend.
Hope to see many of you there.
Cheers
Lydia
--
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Product Manager for Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
My spontaneous reaction, like others in the Election Committee, when
informed of Dennys resignation was to think a byelection, soon in time,
would be the "natural" way to fill the empty seat. This is how it has
been done earlier (even if now some years back) and while the
appointment of Maria after James had support of existing (informal?)
thinking ("if the Board reject any of the elected three, as they are
entitled to do, they should appoint at No 4") , no such thinking has
existed to support appoint no 5 in case of a resignation.
But the more I think the more hesitant I become, and also taking into
account the (excellent) feedback in the thread "what can we learn" that
at least to me give a feeling the election process for community
election can be adjusted (without need making it more complicated) so
that a situation like this in the future would be resolved without any
need of byelection.
A Bylection
*Draws a lot a resources from WMF
*Draws a lot of resources from the Election Committee. While almost all
in out internal discussion is willing to support a byelection (even
among the ones not interested to stay on in a standing EC) , we are
fewer then for last election. Greg has resigned as some others.
*Draws a lot on energy from the community. Think of all banners that was
put up and even at some time dedicated e-mails being sent out, just the
translation was a huge effort as such
I also want to highlight that that I can see risks in running a byelection
*what if we are not able to live up to the demands of process quality
and the elections legitimacy will become disputed?
*what if we wear out the community motivation to participate in
community election, could it make next ordinary election in less the a
year less successful?
*what if the process as such reopens earlier traumas in the movement
(like James re the Board issue)?
So while not "ruling out" a byelection, I believe we should not go for
that option without thoroughly considering other option for filling the
seat. There can be other alternative then look for no 5 in last election
and we should remember it is only to fill a seat for less then a year,
is a bylection an overkill for what it can resolve?
Anders
Thank you Patricio for the update.
Where or how is the best way for the community to solicit suggestions about
making these new appointments. On meta?
Sydney
Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Patricio Lorente <patricio.lorente(a)gmail.com
> wrote:
> All,
>
> As many of you already know, Denny Vrandečić has announced his resignation
> from the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, effective today, April
> 8th. On behalf of the Board, I would like to thank Denny for his service to
> the movement and to the Wikimedia Foundation. We wish him the best during
> his wikibreak, and look forward to seeing him on the projects and around
> the movement.
>
> When Denny informed the Board that he was stepping down, we began to
> consider how we would move forward. We recognize the importance of filling
> the two vacancies on the Board, and would like to proceed in a way that
> respects the will of the community and responds to existing Board needs.
> The Board will be meeting in Berlin during the Wikimedia Conference on
> April 22nd and 23rd - during this time we will discuss how we should fill
> the open community-nominated and appointed Trustee seats.
>
> I look forward to sharing more information with you in late April.
>
> Patricio
> --
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
>
>
A relationship of mine received the email below and forwarded it to me.
http://yourprmanager.com/
This company is known ?
Flo
=================
Début du message réexpédié :
De: Britney Davis <britney(a)yourprmanager.com>
Objet: Hello Mr. ccc, Now you can have your own Wikipedia page
Date: 6 avril 2016 14:34:27 UTC+2
À:
Hello Mr. ccc,
Wikipedia is the most trusted and preferred source of original content
online. Therefore, it is not surprising why institutions, organizations
and individuals opt for creating their Wikipedia page.
To increase your popularity online, it is recommended to create a
Wikipedia page about yourself or your company and for a new Wikipedia
page to go up, there are certain eligibility criteria. That means not
everyone is immediately a good candidate to feature on Wikipedia.
Here are some benefits of having a Company or Personal Wikipedia Page:
1. Great exposure. Wikipedia is a heavily used web site, and having an
article about your company means more exposure, more eyeballs, and so forth.
2. Reputation management. As I mentioned above, your Wikipedia article
will probably rank on page one for your company name, and that helps
with your online reputation management.
3. Increased trust. There’s no underestimating the need to earn trust,
both from customers and search engines. A Wikipedia article can help
with both, I believe.
Get in touch with us to find out if you're eligible to feature on
Wikipedia with our Complimentary Wikipedia Eligibility Assessment Service.
Warm Regards
Britney
YourPRManager Team
Email - britney(a)yourprmanager.com
Opt-out: If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately and delete this message without reading, copying,or
forwarding it to anyone. This email abides to the SPAM laws and is not
intended to spam.The email has a business proposition intended to you.
If you do not wish to receive further email from me, please let me know
by typing "Not Interested" in the subject.
Unsubscribe / Change Profile
Powered by YMLP
--
Hello everyone,
For a few months now, 15 French-speaking Wikipedia editors, supported by
Wikimédia France, have been working to design a Massive Online Open Course,
to learn how to contribute to Wikipedia and discover more about the way it
works.
The WikiMOOC lasts for 5 weeks (with 2,5h of work/ week, including the
duration of the courses). You can check out the project page on Wikipedia
[1].
The registration for this WikiMOOC opens today, on the FUN [2] platform
(powered by the Ministry of Education and Research, in France) !
The courses will start on February 22nd, 2016.
Do not hesitate to share this information to all French-speaking
communities you might know of. Please, note that it is possible to stay
tuned via WikiMOOC's Twitter[3] and Facebook[4] accounts.
Here is a short trailer about the WikiMOOC in French :) Enjoy ! [5]
Please, feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions,
Jules Xénard jules.xenard(a)wikimedia.fr
Wikimédia France
[1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:WikiMOOC
[2]
https://www.france-universite-numerique-mooc.fr/courses/WMFr/86001/session0…
[3] https://twitter.com/wikimooc
[4] https://www.facebook.com/Wikimooc/
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=assiAnG3lv4
--
Myriam Berard
Wikimédia France
Greetings, Wikimedians!
The community review [1] period for this round of the annual plan grants
program [2] is underway. We'd love to have you join the review! Five
movement affiliates have submitted annual plans and budgets. During this
time, the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) [3] invites you to review
their submitted plans, ask questions, and offer comments and feedback by
April 30.
The organizations whose proposals, plans and budgets are available for your
review include:
* Wikimedia Armenia
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round2/Wikim…>
* Wikimédia France
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round2/Wikim…>
* Wikimedia Norge
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round2/Wikim…>
* The Centre for Internet and Society
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round2/The_C…>
* The Wikimedia Foundation
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2016-2017/…>
Review the proposals and offer questions or comments on the discussion pages
: *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round2/Community_review
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round2/Commu…>
*
In May, the Funds Dissemination Committee will meet to make recommendations
to WMF's Board of Trustees on how to allocate movement funds to these
affiliates in order to achieve the most impact. Your input and
participation will be valuable as they make these recommendations to the
Board of Trustees.
Visit the annual plan grant portal [4] for more information about the
program, the FDC, or upcoming milestones. You can reach the FDC support
staff at FDCsupport(a)wikimedia.org.
*More about community review*: The APG proposal submission date is followed
by a 30-day open comment period, when anyone is invited to provide input on
and ask questions about a specific proposal on its discussion page.
Applicants are also expected to respond to input and questions during this
period, although they are not able to change the proposal form itself after
the submission date.
The FDC will review the discussion pages during their deliberations in May
as one of many inputs to the decision-making process. While anyone may
comment on proposals after the open comment period closes on 30 April, the
FDC may not be able to take comments made after this period into
consideration when reaching its decisions.
*How to review*: Please visit the community review page to view the
proposals being considered and follow the instructions. While the proposals
are only available in English, your comments can be in any language.
*Why your feedback matters*: We hope this open comment period will add to
an in-depth and robust review of each proposal, and help keep our
grantmaking transparent and collaborative. The FDC highly values feedback
and insights from the Wikimedia community in making its funding
recommendations.
Warm regards, and with thanks,
Katy Love
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round2/Commu…
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Information