wiki norms which seem to have been transgressed - - recognition that the program and submitted content was unusual and extraordinary - lack of on-wiki documentation of program - lack of links between submitted content and on-wiki documentation - lack of small pilot before collecting the attention of many new Wikimedia contributors doing something unusual - failure to tag participants in the program as being connected to the program and its documentation
It is not the fault of your program and organization that you did not do these things. The documentation for all this should have been in place from ~2013, because this situation happens repeatedly. Unfortunately we as a movement are losing tremendous value in institutional engagement and donations for lack of documentation. I would guess that in the United States we identify hot leads for about 10 organizations to pay their staff to do wiki programs which have a salary cost of US$50,000 in addition to the value of their media contributions. Globally the amount of content lost for lack of documentation could be 1 million / year, when conceivably we could stop a lot of this loss with a one-time investment in training material development. Programs have to follow rules. The rules are not published but lots of people know them. It seems like as a movement we prefer the damage of opportunity costs in favor of risky or more expensive administrative development. I feel like if somehow you had connected to a guide for what to do, then with preparation none of these problems would have happened. I do not blame the moderators. If these moderators had not reached this decision, then almost any other moderator would have reached the same decision. The moderators are well trained and precise in the sense that they tend to uniformly make the same evaluations in situations. Besides the reviewers that you saw issue judgement, at least 5 times as many people reviewed the case and declined to comment or make their presence known. Those quiet people agreed with the discussion. You and everyone else deserve clear documentation and guidance. For our inability to create this and deliver it to you, I apologize and have regret. On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:13 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < [email protected]> wrote: > Sorry Lane... which " wiki publishing norm" did we fail? > > Thanks > ________________________________ > From: Wikimedia-l <[email protected]> on behalf of > Lane Rasberry <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:01 PM > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach > > I see the problem as lack of access to basic training information. > > It appears that the team doing the uploads failed to comply to wiki > publishing norms. I do not see this as a problem between editors and > moderators, but rather as being between who editors versus our rules. > > Wikimedia projects already have an low quality standard. The two most > common complaints that Wikipedia gets are #2 Wikipedia publishes low > quality content and #1 Wikipedia's quality standards are too high. I see > this issue as a complaint for us to lower quality. > > The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to > communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With > our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal > compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in > case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of > these already reasonable expectations. > > If anyone wants to meet professional Wikimedia colleagues for institutional > partnerships then here is a Wikimedia community organization which supports > Wikimedians in Residence with a monthly online meetup and some conversation > space. > WREN - Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network > > > > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:46 AM Yann Forget <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett <[email protected]> a > > écrit : > > > > > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was > > previously > > > > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons. > > > > > > Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion? > > > > > > Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should > > > publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons > > > > > > > Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course. > > AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to > > Flickr before importing to Commons. > > This is the primary evidence when images are deleted as copyright > > violation. > > Others may be watermarks, copyright mentions in EXIF data, etc. > > > > > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed > by > > > > OTRS. > > > > > > Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would > > > gather support. > > > > > > This is simply a consequence of the above. > > If images of professional quality are imported to Commons after being > > published elsewhere, their copyright status will be questioned, > > and rightly so. Now if these images are only published on Commons, fine, > > but the objective of a professional is to sell his images, not to give > them > > away for free. > > In addition, many professionals use stock image agencies (Getty, etc.), > > which often requires exclusivity, and therefore prevent publication > under a > > free license. > > > > Regards, Yann > > PS: I am probably one of the most inclusive admins on Commons (or less > > strict regarding copyright issues), so if you think yelling at me would > > solve the issue, you are mistaken. I really want Commons to improve, and > I > > am open to critics, that's why I come here to discuss, but do not shoot > the > > messenger. > > > > -- > > > Andy Mabbett > > > @pigsonthewing > > > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk > > > > > > Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator > > https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ > > +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp) > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > -- > Lane Rasberry > user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia > 206.801.0814 > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> -- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 [email protected] _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
