[Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 93, Issue 27

Mon Dec 12 18:31:31 UTC 2011

@Teofilo.  Thanks for your comments.   The licensing and attribution
requirements in the proposed Terms of
use<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#7._Licensing_of_Content>are
intended to be exactly the same as the current Terms
of use <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use>.   If you don't
believe that is the case, it would be most helpful if you could include
your comments on the discussion
page<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use>,
so we can correct this.   If it provides any comfort, I have lived 10 years
in Europe while working extensively with European legal issues.   Indeed, I
was awarded the honor of Chevalier de l'ordre national du Merite by the
French government because of my abilities to bridge the differences between
U.S. and French law.   And I also enjoyed studying European and
international law at the University of Strasbourg.   That said, I'm always
open to suggestions to better improve my understanding of other cultures
and laws, and, for that reason, your participation on the discussion page
would be most welcome.

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:14 AM,
<foundation-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org>wrote:

> Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
>        foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        foundation-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        foundation-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: "Terms of use" rewrite winding down (Przykuta)
>   2. Re: "Terms of use" rewrite winding down (Federico Leva (Nemo))
>   3. Re: Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study (Kim Bruning)
>   4. Re: Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study (Kim Bruning)
>   5. The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and      on all
>      Wikimedia projects (Teofilo)
>   6. Re: The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on
>      all Wikimedia projects (K. Peachey)
>   7. Re: The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on
>      all Wikimedia projects (Teofilo)
>   8. Re: The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on
>      all Wikimedia projects (David Gerard)
>   9. Re: "Terms of use" : Anglo-saxon copyright law and
>      Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans (Teofilo)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:45:53 +0100
> From: Przykuta <przykuta at o2.pl>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] "Terms of use" rewrite winding down
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>        <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <53ade428.23dbef07.4ee52491.64fbe at o2.pl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > The "Terms of use" rewrite is starting to wind down. The current draft is
> > here: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use>.
> >
> > All users are encouraged to edit and improve the draft before January 1,
> > 2012. In particular, the document could use a thorough copy-edit, so any
> > skilled copy-editors who are able and willing to donate a few minutes to
> > look over and clean up the draft would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Sometime in early 2012, a finalized version will be sent to the Wikimedia
> > Board for approval.
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
>
> I've seen a little problem here:
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
>
> Attribution: To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to
> the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to
> the page or pages you are re-using, b) ...
>
> I want to re-distribute a text page from Wikipedia. So, I will add a
> hyperlink
>
> You want to re-distribute a text page from my copy..., you will add a
> hyperlink to my copy
>
> N wants to re-distribute a text page from n-1 copy
>
> But what about authors?
>
> przykuta
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 23:05:00 +0100
> From: "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <nemowiki at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] "Terms of use" rewrite winding down
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>        <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4EE5290C.3010404 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> MZMcBride, 11/12/2011 19:02:
> > Hi.
> >
> > The "Terms of use" rewrite is starting to wind down. The current draft is
> > here:<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use>.
> >
> > All users are encouraged to edit and improve the draft before January 1,
> > 2012. In particular, the document could use a thorough copy-edit, so any
> > skilled copy-editors who are able and willing to donate a few minutes to
> > look over and clean up the draft would be greatly appreciated.
>
> For copy-editors: see here some info about translation tags etc.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM/Translate
>
> Nemo
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:54:34 +0100
> From: Kim Bruning <kim at bruning.xs4all.nl>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>        <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20111211225434.A21315 at bruning.lan>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 01:19:04PM -0800, Dario Taraborelli wrote:
> > Kim,
>
> > I appreciate your contribution on the talk page of the project and
> > I am happy to host a conference call with Jerome some time this
> > week if you wish to help us out.
>
> I see quite some issues, but I recognize an olive branch when I see
> one. :-)
>
> Believe it or not, I've been trying to help, but I'm
> obviously somewhat frustrated now.
>
> Could we call privately first, at some time during the week?
>
> sincerely,
>        Kim Bruning
> --
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 23:23:34 +0100
> From: Kim Bruning <kim at bruning.xs4all.nl>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>        <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20111211232334.A21711 at bruning.lan>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:27:34AM +0400, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> > > I've already done some of that for you, together with Jerome. :-)
> > >
> > > A new subsection here would work:
> > >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Harvard.2FScience_Po_Adverts
> > >
> >
> > I will do it right now,
>
> That's a good start!
>
> sincerely,
>        Kim Bruning
> --
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:36:44 +0100
> From: Teofilo <teofilowiki at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on
>        Commons and     on all Wikimedia projects
> To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID:
>        <CABsdk68drA4vpp-PMsdc2ABOtxrGPXcXx-5__OqUCboVz71UtA at mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia
> projects
>
> 1 - Bug or feature ? It is a bug.
> 2 - The human bug
> 3 - The technical bug
> 4 - Unexhaustive list of related talks
>
>
> 1 - Bug or feature ? It is a bug.
>
> Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arameans&oldid=463282677
> : both pictures File:Aramean funeral stele Louvre AO3026.jpg and
> File:Si Gabbor funeral stele Louvre AO3027.jpg are tilted.
>
> It is somehow intentional, because it seems that the devs have
> suddenly decided that the exif orientation tag should be taken into
> account, while in the past users used had to use other ways to define
> image orientation.
>
> But even if it is intentional, we should call it a bug, because it is
> annoying to a lot of readers and uploaders whose pictures have been OK
> sometimes for years, and without warning they must suddenly change the
> orientation of their uploaded pictures. What about the pictures whose
> uploaders are no longer active ?
>
> So I hope everybody agrees that it is a bug.
>
> 2 - The human bug
>
> I think the Wikimedia Foundation should present officially its excuses
> to the readers and active users annoyed by the bug. The excuses could
> be linked from the rotatebot template, so that the concerned users
> could read them.
>
> The devs should find out what went wrong in the decision process to
> implement the 1.18 version, and try to find preventive measures so
> that big problems of this size do not occur again when a version
> upgrade is done. Is it really OK not to consult the Commons community
> before changing a picture-related feature ?
>
> 3 - The technical bug : deadline
>
> A lot of people should be thanked for having spared no energy to find
> the first steps toward solutions to the bug. A lot has been done. In
> particular a lot has been done to provide users easy access to a bot,
> called "rotatebot" which rotates pictures when needed. A lot of users
> have spent time tagging pictures with a "rotate" template, which calls
> the bot for help. Really a lot of people. The bot is busy, and the bot
> should be thanked, if it had brains to understand what "thank you"
> means.
>
> Despite all of that, despite the fact that the bot's speed was lately
> increased, we are still lacking a systematic solution which would
> correct all wrongly rotated pictures and a deadline.
>
> Let us stop asking users to individually tag every wrong picture! Let
> us have some developers create a tool to find wrong pictures and
> rotate them back to their original orientation!
>
> We need a deadline. We need to be able to say, In X month's time, all
> pictures will be back to normal.
>
>
> 4 - Unexhaustive list of related talks
>
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/10#Autorotation_using_EXIF_tag_with_MW_1.18
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/10#Autorotation_using_EXIF_tag_with_MW_1.18_.28old.29
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/10#Rotatelink_on_filedescription-pages
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/10#problem_with_rotation
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/10#Rotation_error
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/11#New_autorotation_based_on_EXIF_data_problem
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/11#Wrong_rotation_of_image_when_used_in_Wikipedia
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/11#.22Request_rotation.22_link
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/12#Direction_issue_with_File:Cyril_and_Methodius_monument_Sofia.jpg
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bistro#Monast.C3.A8re_Andronikov_:_image_.C3.A0_redresser
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bistro#Monde_.C3.A0_l.27envers
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/5_d%C3%A9cembre_2011#Pourquoi_certaines_images_ont_subi_des_rotations_sans_modification_apparente
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Image_rotation_-_I_am_desperate
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Maintenance_category_for_files_with_EXIF_rotation_other_than_0_degrees
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Rotation
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rotatebot#Rotation_on_Wikipedia
>
> It is unexhaustive because I did not check Commons' help desk, nor
> every Wikipedia language version.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 01:26:58 +1000
> From: "K. Peachey" <p858snake at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on
>        Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>        <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <CADnECnUOdw8Ykjo=B=BBv8bX9Z8HN9Omsd-k4BkiGTUkMp5Qhw at mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Teofilo <teofilowiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1 - Bug or feature ? It is a bug.
> > ... snip ...
> > It is somehow intentional, because it seems that the devs have
> > suddenly decided that the exif orientation tag should be taken into
> > account, while in the past users used had to use other ways to define
> > image orientation.
> It's been a requested feature for a while, Someone finally got around
> to writing it (I believe it needed the Improved metadata handling
> backend first) and implementing it, It wasn't a sudden "oh lets write
> this and enable it in one day thing", a lot of work went into it and
> subsequent testing.
>
> > But even if it is intentional, we should call it a bug, because it is
> > annoying to a lot of readers and uploaders whose pictures have been OK
> > sometimes for years, and without warning they must suddenly change the
> > orientation of their uploaded pictures. What about the pictures whose
> > uploaders are no longer active ?
> >
> > So I hope everybody agrees that it is a bug.
> The bug I see is software people used to edit these images didn't fix
> the files metadata itself, thus in the end creating this situation
>
> > 2 - The human bug
> >
> > I think the Wikimedia Foundation should present officially its excuses
> > to the readers and active users annoyed by the bug. The excuses could
> > be linked from the rotatebot template, so that the concerned users
> > could read them.
> Excuses? The reasons why it's "broken" have been posted in many
> places, Last I checked the said template wasn't protected so anyone
> could and pointers to about why its happening.
>
>
> > The devs should find out what went wrong in the decision process to
> > implement the 1.18 version, and try to find preventive measures so
> > that big problems of this size do not occur again when a version
> > upgrade is done. Is it really OK not to consult the Commons community
> > before changing a picture-related feature ?
> Nothing much went wrong in the planning of this feature, The metadata
> backend was improved, the rotation feature was written, the feature
> was tested (and i'm aware of this because I did test it) and the
> feature did work as intended.
>
> And why should commons be notified when a MediaWiki core feature is
> written, why not ja.wikipedia or en.wikinews? just because commons is
> a end user of the software doesn't make it all that special, While yes
> the choice to deploy it to the cluster could have been handled
> differently it worked from all the testing that was performed (and the
> issues that were found from the testing were fixed before it was
> pushed out).
>
> Had more end users actually bothered to test the pre release(s) when
> they were staged on test. and test2.wikipedia, "issues" like this
> might had stood out more prominently so that its feature could have
> been considered after being tested on a wider scale.
>
>
> > 3 - The technical bug : deadline
> > ...snip...
> > Let us stop asking users to individually tag every wrong picture! Let
> > us have some developers create a tool to find wrong pictures and
> > rotate them back to their original orientation!
> I believe that can be done quiet easily with a DB query, Then it's
> just a matter of fixing the metadata attached in the file compared to
> actually re-rotating them again.
>
> > We need a deadline. We need to be able to say, In X month's time, all
> > pictures will be back to normal.
> A time line like that can't be given since there aren't plans to turn
> the feature off from my understanding, So this will conciebly be fixed
> when RotateBot fixes up the meta data on the files, Someone else does
> it, or a extension/feature is written so humans have a interface
> on-wiki to manually rotate the files to how they should be.
>
> -Peachey, Signing off on what is now a new day.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:46:41 +0100
> From: Teofilo <teofilowiki at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on
>        Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>        <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <CABsdk68j1AdLWVxC5_yH5p0yp656anGjR3aEHdAq4yWPTpiiZQ at mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> The unrepentant attitude expressed above by K. Peachey increases the
> need for clear excuses from the Wikimedia Foundation, expressing
> clearly that something has gone wrong in the decision process, and
> that the people who think the relationship between users-community and
> developers the way K. Peachey is thinking, are mistaken. I don't want
> to address every single untruth included in K. Peachey's message.
> Let's say that when pictures are concerned, the input of the Commons
> community is useful, as is useful the input of the Georgian wikipedia
> when a Georgian-language-related feature is concerned. Let's say again
> that when users have been allowed for years - FOR YEARS - to upload
> pictures without concern for the exif orientation tag, revoking this
> allowance without prior warning is a breach of trust. And anyway, this
> is no reason to suddenly annoy readers, who are third parties in this
> developer-uploader misunderstanding and absence of dialogue. A
> Deadline is possible of course. All it needs is the political will
> from the Wikimedia Foundation management to impose a deadline to the
> devs.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:55:27 +0000
> From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on
>        Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>        <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <CAJ0tu1Fd-rvUG1O1uJ83=+CeRNTPRvuRG5aBaQ4tSfGU7p277Q at mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On 12 December 2011 15:26, K. Peachey <p858snake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's been a requested feature for a while, Someone finally got around
> > to writing it (I believe it needed the Improved metadata handling
> > backend first) and implementing it, It wasn't a sudden "oh lets write
> > this and enable it in one day thing", a lot of work went into it and
> > subsequent testing.
>
>
> * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously
> wrongly rotated and were fixed by the feature?
> * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously
> correctly rotated and were messed up by the feature?
>
> i.e., was there strong reason to apply it to past images, not just new
> ones?
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:14:37 +0100
> From: Teofilo <teofilowiki at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] "Terms of use" : Anglo-saxon copyright law
>        and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>        <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <CABsdk69+KhDV_E+hRur9teW9pA2Z7iKVKAXOXHTxvRL95+L5vA at mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Le 11 d?cembre 2011 19:02, MZMcBride <z at mzmcbride.com> a ?crit :
> > Hi.
> >
> > The "Terms of use" rewrite is starting to wind down. The current draft is
> > here: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use>.
>
> >From the point of view of Continental Europe, where creators enjoy
> advanced copyright laws which protect their attribution right, I think
> this implementation of the - creator belittling - US copyright law on
> Wikimedia projects is a disgrace. What the licensing section of this
> draft terms of use is saying is that the WMF simply disregards the
> attribution rights which are granted by law in their countries. It is
> humiliating.
>
> By the clever use of attribution licenses, there was a way to
> conciliate continental European laws and US or British laws. The WMF
> decides not to do so, and to stubbornly push the US-copyright law
> point of view. It is a pity.
>
> Perhaps the WMF should not have relied on a US lawyer alone. Perhaps a
> team associating a US lawyer with a continental Europe lawyer would
> have been better.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 93, Issue 27
> ********************************************
>

-- 
Geoff Brigham
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6750
gbrigham at wikimedia.org

*California Registered In-House Counsel*

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge.  That's our commitment.  www.wikimediafoundation.org

*This message is confidential and may be legally privileged or otherwise
protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please
telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment
from your system; you must not copy or disclose the contents of this
message or any attachment to any other person.*