Meta:Babel
| ← Index of discussion pages | Babel | archives (latest) → |
|
This is the general discussion forum for Meta (this wiki). Before you post a new comment please note the following:
|
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.
|
Template:Proposed logo[edit]
Hello. I was wondering what to do with Template:Proposed logo and the files bearing it in light of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy and our policy not to allow fair use here. I don't know which license Wikimedia used back then but, is it accurate to assume that every proposed Wikipedia (or other sister projects) logos that were uploaded on Meta-Wiki are copyrighted with all rights reserved? The text "this image being freely licensed could preclude its use as an official Wikimedia Foundation logo" seems also innacurate since Wikimedia logos, notwithstanding trademark rights, are licensed under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license (example: c:File:Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg). This seems to conflict with proposed logos tagged {{GFDL-presumed}} as well. In any case, I suggest we review the files tagged with any of these templates and for every file that does not have clear information about authorship, source or license, tag them for deletion via {{nosource}} or {{nolicense}}. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- Just {{Historical}} them? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- And what about the copyright status of the files tagged with it? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- OS em? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- And what about the copyright status of the files tagged with it? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Dummy comment to prevent section archiving. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I made a new post at #Non-free_content_on_Meta not seeing this discussion. According to Meta:Fair use fair use is not allowed on Meta. Also WMF released the logos under a free license in 2014 according to this.
So I do not think that {{Proposed logo}} should still exist. As I see it there are only 2 options: Delete all files og relicens the files. There are also some logos in Category:Presumed GFDL images. --MGA73 (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- @MGA73: Looking earlier versions of MediaWiki:Uploadtext I see a vague reference to Meta:Image and media use policy which was never a policy and was created in 2008, with some files dating back from 2006. GFDL is not a suitable license for non-text media. I've sent an email to the Foundation's Legal department and asked them if they could offer us some information or guidance about this matter. On one hand, deleting them seems to be the safest approach (legally speaking) if it's not possible to determine source/licensing, but on the other hand I think it'd be interesting to keep them (properly licensed) as a historical reference, and then transfer them to Wikimedia Commons. I don't think we can simply relicense these files on our own, given that copyright belongs to the author and his heirs/successors, but I am not an expert in that field. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- MarcoAurelio I hope they have a good advise for us! If uploader is still active they can simply add a license. I wonder if the contest had any rules like "If you participate you agree that the rights for your logo is transferred to WMF." It would not make sense if I designed a new logo and won and then said "No, it's my logo! You can't use it.". --MGA73 (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- I noticed that for example version from 26 April 2005 had the text:
By uploading a file here to which you hold the copyright, you agree to licence it under the terms of the
GNU Free Documentation License.
- I noticed that for example version from 26 April 2005 had the text:
If you do not want to use the GFDL, you must upload your files to the Wikimedia Commons.
- That is a good indication that the files are GFDL unless otherwise noted (for example {{PD-self}}) or if the file if the work of someone else. --MGA73 (talk) 11:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- At International logo contest I don't see any mention about licensing. However at Logo § Proposing new logos it mentions that you shall not use GFDL and instead transfer the copyright to the Wikimedia Foundation, because "free-using license on a logo is legally a very baffling thing". Obviously they no longer feel that way but this is a messy situation. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. Good catch! I see a similar text was added long ago. So that could be an indication that copyright belongs to WMF. --MGA73 (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- @MGA73: I received a reply to my inquiry some days ago. They're looking into this, and agreed to give us their opinion on the matter. However it may take some more days, considering that in requires browsing through ancient wiki history. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. Good catch! I see a similar text was added long ago. So that could be an indication that copyright belongs to WMF. --MGA73 (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- At International logo contest I don't see any mention about licensing. However at Logo § Proposing new logos it mentions that you shall not use GFDL and instead transfer the copyright to the Wikimedia Foundation, because "free-using license on a logo is legally a very baffling thing". Obviously they no longer feel that way but this is a messy situation. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- That is a good indication that the files are GFDL unless otherwise noted (for example {{PD-self}}) or if the file if the work of someone else. --MGA73 (talk) 11:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Help:Special page has been discouraged from translation system[edit]
Looking at Help:Special page, it seems the perfect page to be in the translation system and readily available for others to translate to a wide selection of language.
It is a very long page which makes it difficult and confronting to translate into other languages from scratch. It is full of terms that are within the wiki system already translated. It is many one line dot points which are readily translatable, and it is a page that is updated actively within itself with additional dot points, which makes it hard to translate by traditional means. It is explaining information that are integral to our environment.
I would like to hear other people's opinions. I have started a conversation at Help talk:Special page — billinghurst sDrewth 22:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that I oppose enable Translate extension for that page, because there's some panoramas about special pages, like labels, descriptions and aliases on Wikidata which may affect local language-specific cases. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
What to do with wikis with non-free files but without an EDP[edit]
I like to check wikis that have local upload of files and make sure they have a good management of files. I also like to move free files to Commons.
I have found many wikis that have problems and I try to help them. Sometimes it takes really long time because local users do not know about copyright, do not want to spend time help or they do not like to delete files. In some cases files were not deleted 10 years after I nominated them for deletion. So I started to ask global sysops for assistance (they are awesome so thank you for that). But they can only work on the small wikis.
Anyway the reason I'm here is that some wikis have non-free files but no Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) / en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. Of course I try to get local community to either implement an EDP or delete non-free files. But in some cases nothing happens. It could be a language issue or simply because no local admin would like to mass delete files.
So my question is what could be done?
Can we have a global rule/policy that all wikis must be added to Non-free content and that they must link to a local page like en:Wikipedia:Non-free content and if they do not then all non-free files are deleted unless it is fixed within 3 months or whatever?
On some wikis the problem is that they have no tools to find "bad files". So it would be great if there were global bots that
- Tag files wihout a license
- Tag orphan non-free files
- Tag non-free files that are too big
- Downsized non-free files that are too big
- Tag non-free files with old revisions
- Delete old revisions of non-free files
That would ofcourse require that someone is willing to run the bot and that all wikis have templates like en:Template:free media / en:Template:non-free media etc. or another way for the bot to find out if files are free, non-free or unlicensed.
This is not a vote or formal suggestion (yet). I'm looking for ideas/tips/guidance etc. --MGA73 (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Abusing of "fair use" make such wikis nonsense by themselves. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Aftermath of ToU updates[edit]
With the 2023 ToU updates implementing, interfaces and policies of many wikis should be updated accordly. Large wikis like enwiki or zhwiki could organize to tackle the issue themselves, but for other smaller wikis, it could be difficult to compile a list of affected pages that need to be updated. Are the Foundation able to help those wikis complete the transition (maybe setting up a Meta or Phabricator page as portal, just as the VRT migration process did with T280392), or at least give some sort of guide on what kinds of pages that should be changed? Just want to be sure, since copyright on Wikimedia sites has always been an important issue, I hope the Legal Department take this seriously. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 02:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Great suggestion. We're trying to balance the fact that the community has the agency to make the changes with the reality that if help pages and policy pages are updated, then it will ensure a good transition. Here is what is currently planned by the Legal department:
- For CC 4.0, we intend on adding a page to Meta that reiterates the mechanism by which the 4.0 switch took place. It will feature some helpful links to find errant 3.0 messaging, for example, this is useful to find where CC BY-SA 3.0 appears in MediaWiki code. On English Wikipedia, there are some obvious places, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content ...
- But you're correct to suggest that it's not the largest projects that will need the most help, it's the smaller ones. In addition to suggesting areas to update, the Meta page will also encourage the communities themselves to put together lists of where they see pages that need updates.
- Finally, in about 2+ months, we intend to do an "audit" of what still hasn't been changed that needs to be, and do targeted messaging to those communities. The hope is to get a handful of staff members who speak multiple languages together to do an audit that we can publish to alert community members of the most important pages that have not changed. There's no urgency from the Legal department since the way that volunteers add material to the projects has been changed Wikimedia-wide to acknowledge the 4.0 change. As a result, most of the "functional" and "legally required" work is already done to ensure that the proper licensing. That said, we'll be doing the audit since it's also useful to get those nice-to-have pages updated as well.
- Finally, there's this Phabricator ticket which might at least be helpful for historical purposes.
- For the DSA changes, much of that is affects the Foundation's role as host of the projects. I imagine changes due the DSA or other new regulation will unlikely change the day-to-day of many projects. If these issues do affect volunteers or community policy, it will come up on a case by case basis. SSpalding (WMF) (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I love the idea to help the smaller wikis! And I wonder if it would be possible/helpful to include other areas in the copyriight-update-project.
Example of possible things to fix/point out (the examples are related to upload of files):
- Illegal licenses like non-commercial or no-derivates
- Discouraged licenses like GFDL or old versions of cc (1.0 or 2.5)
- Licenses without a metadata (File_metadata_cleanup_drive/How_to_fix_metadata)
- Non-free files but no Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) / en:Wikipedia:Non-free content
- Etc.
Ways to fix/point out:
- Make the relevant changes
- Leave a notice on the wiki about the specific problem
- Make a general notice on all wikis that there are some things the wiki could check + where to find more info or to ask for help (link)
It is just examples. Feel free to add more. If you think it is better to make that another project or if you think its a terrible idea thats okay too :-) --MGA73 (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- In my opinion, you should not write too much information in any wiki, as there will be no one to update it later. For example, some small wikis «use» GFDL in 2023. In addition, such questions are of interest to a few of participants, others will not understand anything Proeksad (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Proeksad Yes there are probably many wikis where only a few know and care about copyright. But I think a notice on "Village Pump" with a short text could be a good way to inform all wikis. For example: "Notice about copyright etc.! Wikimedia Foundation have updated the terms of use [see link to page on meta]. As a part of that the general license was updated to latest version of Creative Commons. We strongly encourage you to update the license too. You can find more help on what to check and how to update here [see link to page on meta]."
- I checked and the wiki mention GFDL but the bottom of the page mention Creative Commons :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not only on this page, but in six (?) other places [1][2]strange fork[3] + q:pt:MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning+
q:pt:Wikiquote:MediaWiki. I used search tool for this. Also the bottom of the page mention Não Adaptada, but must be Internacional :-).
These licenses can be in anywhere (main: Copyrights, About, Disclaimers, Policies), and interlanguage links can be uncorrect. According to my observations, the help pages in small wikis are low quality and outdated, many links go nowhere Proeksad (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC) - It’s example, certainly. The license GFDL is listed in dozens of small wikis, in my view. Their editors themselves do not know where and when it was written --Proeksad (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not only on this page, but in six (?) other places [1][2]strange fork[3] + q:pt:MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning+
And by the way, isn't Wikinews still stuck on CC BY 2.5? Maybe it is time for the Foundation to update the Attribution to CC BY 4.0 altogether as well, or it could be increasingly outdated. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 16:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- We (as in any or all Wikinews editions) just never went ahead and switched to 4.0. And we will make that decision and implement it ourselves. The WMF can make requests, but it doesn't need to make that decision for us. Heavy Water (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Heavy Water you write "we" does that mean English Wikinews only or do you mean that you will inform the other Wikinews editions too? --MGA73 (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- I meant all, but I meant the second sentence as a hypothetical for what all would do in the future. Sorry. Heavy Water (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Heavy Water you write "we" does that mean English Wikinews only or do you mean that you will inform the other Wikinews editions too? --MGA73 (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Announcing the new Elections Committee members[edit]
Hello there,
We are glad to announce the new members and advisors of the Elections Committee. The Elections Committee assists with the design and implementation of the process to select Community- and Affiliate-Selected trustees for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. After an open nomination process, the strongest candidates spoke with the Board and four candidates were asked to join the Elections Committee. Four other candidates were asked to participate as advisors.
Thank you to all the community members who submitted their names for consideration. We look forward to working with the Elections Committee in the near future.
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees,
RamzyM (WMF) 17:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Ready for translation: Education Newsletter June 2023[edit]
June 2023 education newsletter released for translation. Please help our readers to read education newsletter in their native language. The latest education newsletter is ready for translation: here Newsletter headlines link for translation: here (please translate by July 03, 2023) Individual articles for translation: Category:Education/Newsletter/June 2023. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 18:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Heather westrich[edit]
I'm trying to find information about myself that I know you have on your website Hestersue2 (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- None: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=Search&search=%22Heather+westrich%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&ns9=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns200=1&ns202=1 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Non-free content on Meta[edit]
According to Meta:Fair use fair use is not allowed on Meta. Also WMF released the logos under a free license in 2014 according to this.
So how can {{Proposed logo}} exist? And should all files be deleted or relicensed? --MGA73 (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- @MGA73: See #Template:Proposed logo above. I've been wondering about this for years. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- MarcoAurelio I need better glasses :-D Thank you! --MGA73 (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
CentralNotice[edit]
Hi,
Where can CentralNotice be tested online? What to do for that? Thanks. ―Eihel (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)