Wikimedia Australia 2016 Annual Report

[tarantino]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... d=16041685

This was written by the president of wikimedia AU, who is also an admin on enwiki and commons. You apparently don't have to know proper grammar, how to use a spellchecker, or how to construct coherent paragraphs to be elected to those positions.

[spartaz]

maybe its written in Australian English?

[Jim]

maybe its written in Australian English?

You did that on purpose didnt you?

I eagerly await the ideas and suggestions of the most important people of Wikimedia Australia it members.

So say we all...

[spartaz]

maybe its written in Australian English?

You did that on purpose didnt you?

Yep

[thekohser]

Interesting article in Business Insider today...

Fair use, or free use? Behind the interests and alliances that stand to gain from changes to Australia's copyright law

CHRIS PASH
JUL 12, 2017

Lobby groups behind a high profile campaign on Wikipedia urging a switch to US-style copyright law in Australia have links to interests, including multinationals such as Google, which will gain substantially from any change to a so-called “fair use” system.

The links are undeclared when Australian visitors to Wikipedia, which is run by registered charity Wikimedia Australia, are asked to email their local federal member of parliament.

...

The Wikimedia Foundation told Business Insider: “Google is one of many donors that contributes to the Wikimedia Foundation, and their contributions have not influenced Wikipedia’s involvement in the fair use campaign in Australia.”

[Randy from Boise]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... d=16041685

This was written by the president of wikimedia AU, who is also an admin on enwiki and commons. You apparently don't have to know proper grammar, how to use a spellchecker, or how to construct coherent paragraphs to be elected to those positions.

Maybe its written in Australian English?

ZING!!!

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

Interesting article in Business Insider today...

Fair use, or free use? Behind the interests and alliances that stand to gain from changes to Australia's copyright law

CHRIS PASH
JUL 12, 2017

Lobby groups behind a high profile campaign on Wikipedia urging a switch to US-style copyright law in Australia have links to interests, including multinationals such as Google, which will gain substantially from any change to a so-called “fair use” system.

The links are undeclared when Australian visitors to Wikipedia, which is run by registered charity Wikimedia Australia, are asked to email their local federal member of parliament.

...

The Wikimedia Foundation told Business Insider: “Google is one of many donors that contributes to the Wikimedia Foundation, and their contributions have not influenced Wikipedia’s involvement in the fair use campaign in Australia.”

I don't see WMF or the Wikipedia community as a big defender of the doctrine of Fair Use. They certainly don't push it on en-WP or at Commons, that's for sure. They love their free-as-in-jazz-and-free-range-chickens photographs while at the same time are megawusses about pushing Fair Use as far as legally capable — and it would go a LOT farther than the "One Fair Use Photograph Of A Dead Person If You Fill Out The Paperwork" rule, trust me.

RfB

[Poetlister]

I don't see WMF or the Wikipedia community as a big defender of the doctrine of Fair Use. They certainly don't push it on en-WP or at Commons, that's for sure.

I believe that Commons doesn't allow it. However, there are many photos on Wikipedia that are there as "fair use". You notice that if you edit on any of the wikis that don't allow uploading photos. It's quite common to find that a photo yopu'd like to use isn't on Commons. It is on EN-WP (and can't be moved to Commons because it's fair use) but you can't use it because you can't link to photos on EN-WP from other sites.

[Randy from Boise]

I don't see WMF or the Wikipedia community as a big defender of the doctrine of Fair Use. They certainly don't push it on en-WP or at Commons, that's for sure.

I believe that Commons doesn't allow it. However, there are many photos on Wikipedia that are there as "fair use". You notice that if you edit on any of the wikis that don't allow uploading photos. It's quite common to find that a photo yopu'd like to use isn't on Commons. It is on EN-WP (and can't be moved to Commons because it's fair use) but you can't use it because you can't link to photos on EN-WP from other sites.

En-WP is less conservative about the matter than the arch reactionary Commons, to be sure. English WP is a 2/10 in their level of Fair Use assertiveness, Commons is a 0/10. I think the reason relates to more Americans populating English WP than Commons, which translates into less willingness to blindly accept the absolutely inane "Free Use Only" standard. The "Free Use Only" standard is an aid only to those who exploit our work on WP commercially. It would be amazingly simple to push Fair Use hard for a US-based operation like Wikipedia and force those who feel their oxen are punctured to pursue remedy through the DMCA takedown process — which would probably be less labor intensive than the current system of obsessive copyright policing.

RfB

[Poetlister]

What is arch reactionary about trying to abide by the internationally accepted rules about copyright? You might as well say that it's arch reactionary for some states to say that they wish to abide by the Paris agreement on greenhouse gases even if the US federal government withdraws.

[Randy from Boise]

What is arch reactionary about trying to abide by the internationally accepted rules about copyright? You might as well say that it's arch reactionary for some states to say that they wish to abide by the Paris agreement on greenhouse gases even if the US federal government withdraws.

Fuck international rules: American operation, American law. Once you accept international jurisdiction, you accept a lowest common denominator of censorship and potential compensatory and punitive damages via the legal system.

RfB

[Poetlister]

What is arch reactionary about trying to abide by the internationally accepted rules about copyright? You might as well say that it's arch reactionary for some states to say that they wish to abide by the Paris agreement on greenhouse gases even if the US federal government withdraws.

Fuck international rules: American operation, American law.

RfB

Yes, that's the usual American attitude in most cases. Also, Americans regard just about anything as an American operation.

[Randy from Boise]

What is arch reactionary about trying to abide by the internationally accepted rules about copyright? You might as well say that it's arch reactionary for some states to say that they wish to abide by the Paris agreement on greenhouse gases even if the US federal government withdraws.

Fuck international rules: American operation, American law.

RfB

Yes, that's the usual American attitude in most cases. Also, Americans regard just about anything as an American operation.

It's an American operation, just like Jimmy's WikiTribune is a British operation, just like Jimmy's Wikia is an American operation.

Do you see the difference?

RfB

P.S. See my edit-conflicted amendment:

Fuck international rules: American operation, American law. Once you accept international jurisdiction, you accept a lowest common denominator of censorship and potential compensatory and punitive damages via the legal system.

But we know the legal system of the Oh-So-Internationalist Brexitting UK is far superior. My apologies for not acknowledging that.

[Poetlister]

It does help if people read posts before replying to them. I said nothing about British copyright law (or to be precise English copyright law and Scottish copyright law). I was referring to international agreements covering well over 100 countries.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

It's OK, Randy was simply articulating the view, not uncommon in the US, that the US is better than everywhere else at everything and needs to be protected from foreigners and all their machinations because foreigners just lower the quality of eveything. International copyright laws should be turned back at the airports.

[Randy from Boise]

It's OK, Randy was simply articulating the view, not uncommon in the US, that the US is better than everywhere else at everything and needs to be protected from foreigners and all their machinations because foreigners just lower the quality of eveything. International copyright laws should be turned back at the airports.

I am saying that American copyright law, the constitutional protections of free speech, the body of legal precedent concerning alleged defamation of public figures, the protection of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the American doctrine of Fair Use as an appendage of copyright law kicks the living bejezus out of English law or EU law on the same subject matter.

I am saying that the WMF is an American legal entity and that it would be flat insane to leave that protective umbrella for the deeply flawed, and in some places draconian, standards for these things elsewhere.

I am saying that Wikipedia doesn't go far enough taking advantage of the protections it has under American law.

Criticize a Thai king lately?

RfB

[Rogol Domedonfors]

It's OK, Randy was simply articulating the view, not uncommon in the US, that the US is better than everywhere else at everything and needs to be protected from foreigners and all their machinations because foreigners just lower the quality of eveything. International copyright laws should be turned back at the airports.

I am saying that American copyright law, the constitutional protections of free speech, the body of legal precedent concerning alleged defamation of public figures, the protection of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the American doctrine of Fair Use as an appendage of copyright law kicks the living bejezus out of English law or EU law on the same subject matter.

I am saying that the WMF is an American legal entity and that it would be flat insane to leave that protective umbrella for the deeply flawed, and in some places draconian, standards for these things elsewhere.

I am saying that Wikipedia doesn't go far enough taking advantage of the protections it has under American law.

Criticize a Thai king lately?

No, and criticism of the Thai monarchy is not covered under international copyright law either. I have had a copyright of mine violated by an American corporation with impunity though. Since your rhetoric appears to consist entirely of being rude about foreigners with no evidence or argument or substance, my response is, to coin a phrase, fuck American copyright law.

[thekohser]

I have had a copyright of mine violated by an American corporation with impunity though.

I would be interested in learning more about that specific incident. Could you private message me about it, or share your story in a new Off-Topic forum thread?

[Randy from Boise]

It's OK, Randy was simply articulating the view, not uncommon in the US, that the US is better than everywhere else at everything and needs to be protected from foreigners and all their machinations because foreigners just lower the quality of eveything. International copyright laws should be turned back at the airports.

I am saying that American copyright law, the constitutional protections of free speech, the body of legal precedent concerning alleged defamation of public figures, the protection of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the American doctrine of Fair Use as an appendage of copyright law kicks the living bejezus out of English law or EU law on the same subject matter.

I am saying that the WMF is an American legal entity and that it would be flat insane to leave that protective umbrella for the deeply flawed, and in some places draconian, standards for these things elsewhere.

I am saying that Wikipedia doesn't go far enough taking advantage of the protections it has under American law.

Criticize a Thai king lately?

No, and criticism of the Thai monarchy is not covered under international copyright law either. I have had a copyright of mine violated by an American corporation with impunity though. Since your rhetoric appears to consist entirely of being rude about foreigners with no evidence or argument or substance, my response is, to coin a phrase, fuck American copyright law.

You're the one using the word "foreigner," not me. Sorry for your loss of revenue.

I never limited my argument to copyright law — the point is that WMF operates under American law, which includes copyright law, rather than giving itself up meekly to international lowest-common-denominator-of-censorship jurisdiction. And it should.

RfB

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I lost no revenue, I used the word "violated" to express my feelings. I contributed a chapter to a Festschrift for free and explicitly retained the copyright. I was upset to find the chapter published on-line without my permission. I would have cheerfully granted a licence to publish it for free if I had been asked, but I wasn't. I have also had a published work of mine pirated by a Chinese publisher, by which I sustained a definite loss. The Chinese publisher was more polite about it.

It's quite true Randy did not use the word "foreigner" to refer to foreigners – but refer to foreigners he did, and not in complementary terms. He really needs to reflect on why his attitude does not seem so very diferent from that of Mr Trump from the point of those foreigners he is so happy to insult.

[Randy from Boise]

I lost no revenue, I used the word "violated" to express my feelings. I contributed a chapter to a Festschrift for free and explicitly retained the copyright. I was upset to find the chapter published on-line without my permission. I would have cheerfully granted a licence to publish it for free if I had been asked, but I wasn't. I have also had a published work of mine pirated by a Chinese publisher, by which I sustained a definite loss. The Chinese publisher was more polite about it.

It's quite true Randy did not use the word "foreigner" to refer to foreigners – but refer to foreigners he did, and not in complementary terms. He really needs to reflect on why his attitude does not seem so very different from that of Mr Trump from the point of those foreigners he is so happy to insult.

You're the one making my argument to be "anti-foreigner." All I have said, if you take the time to look back, is that (1) American law offers protections that are impaired elsewhere — and which are absolutely lacking in some venues; (2) WMF is an American legal entity and should take fullest advantage of the protections of American law; (3) There is zero reason for the WMF to hold itself to "international" legal standards.

I haven't said a damned word about the superiority of Americans as human beings or svelte dancers, the (damaged) American system of government, the (damaged) system of American corporate capitalism, or anything else. Please stop projecting your own biases.

RfB

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I think my dog can hear that whistle pretty well. Awfully nice chaps those foreigners, in person anyway, with such terribly quaint customs, but of course we wouldn't expect them to understand freedom the way Americans do, or know how to run a legal system. How lucky Americans are to live in a country with the best legal system in the world. As Lord Redesdale put it: "abroad is unutterably bloody and all foreigners are fiends".

Oh, and my dog can refute all three of your numbered points too. But perhaps not in this thread.

[thekohser]

Randy - 3

Rogol - 0

[Rogol Domedonfors]

And Randy goes on to meet whom in the final?

[Randy from Boise]

And Randy goes on to meet whom in the final?

I wish Kohs said I was up 21-0 instead of using a scoring system that can be misconstrued to constitute an endorsement of the inferior foreigner system of so-called "football."



Don't choke on your dog whistle, that's a blend of sarcasm and irony and meant as a joke, Rogol.

RfB

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I assumed he was referring to Warminster Fives.

[Zoloft]

Our scoring system is derived from Calvinball. Now that I am holding the pickle Rogol is leading Tuesday to lettuce. The Adversary has the puck.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Yes, but where's the Quaffle?

[Poetlister]

the American doctrine of Fair Use as an appendage of copyright law kicks the living bejezus out of English law or EU law on the same subject matter.

I was not referring to English law or EU law. Wake up there!

Yes, the WMF does well out of US copyright. Some may remember how images from the National Portrait Gallery were taken and uploaded in breach of international law but nyaa, nyaa, the US doesn't care two hoots about international law.

However, paradoxically US law does sometimes keep things in copyright when they are out of copyright elsewhere. That's to protect Mickey Mouse so it's literally Mickey Mouse law.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Meanwhile, in another thread, we find that the US legal system has enabled a US non-profit, willing to throw money around on frivolous copyright lawsuits for the publicity, to financially ruin a non-American photographer.

[greyed.out.fields]

Yes, but where's the Quaffle?

In Queensland, where it's always been.

And where the mighty Maroons kicked sorry NSW butt for the umpteenth year in a row* again last Wednesday!
Queensland born, Queensland bred,
When I die I'll be Queensland dead,
Queenslander!**

* Except 2014
** Not actually Queensland born, Queensland bred, or to best of my knowledge, dead (Queensland or otherwise).