Hello! Any questions or comments? Kim Bruning 00:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Board of Trustees elections


Hello! Please see your en talk page for an urgent message pertaining some questions from the Wikipedia Signpost. Thank you for your immediate attention. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply



It looks broken; better block it now and ask User:Tawker what's gone wrong. -- 15:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

9/11 Wikipedia


Hi, Kim. In light of the four discussions listed below, what course of action would you take with regard to the 9/11 Wikipedia if you were elected to the board?

Looking forward to your response. Thanks. Andreyi 17:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply




Makes you wish, doesn't it? ~Kylu (u|t) 01:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Vote canvassing? --Ghirlandajo 18:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
AGF, Ghirla. :D Kim's one of the last people we need to inform about Steward elections, but I imagine he'd be happy if the IRC issue weren't an issue, hence the comment. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Candidacy translation


Ik veronderstel dat ge zelf uw kandidaatstelling in het Nederlands kunt vertalen...

Also, you might think about listing your language capabilities somewhere (here or on WP).--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ja hoor geen punt. Ik log daar net voor in. :-) --Kim Bruning 12:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
+ babelbox nu aanwezig

Questions for the Wikipedia Signpost


Hi! My name is Ral315, and I'm the editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost, a weekly newspaper on the English Wikipedia. I'm sending out an optional questionnaire that I hope you'll respond to. These questions will be published in next week's issue, and hopefully translated into many languages and copied to the Meta-Wiki prior to the election. (So, if you speak multiple languages, it'd be fantastic, though certainly not required, if you'd be willing to translate your answers into any languages you speak fluently.)

There's no word limit on any of these questions, but I suggest that brevity (maybe about 300-400 words per answer) is best. If at all possible, answers should be submitted by 16:00 UTC on Monday, June 25 (though late responses will also be accepted).

I'm posting these to your talk pages because they don't really fit well on question pages (since many will repeat questions you've already answered). You can reply to me by e-mail, or at my English Wikipedia, English Wikinews or Meta talk pages.

Thanks again for answering these, and good luck in the elections.

Sincerely, Ral315

  1. Do you have any other usernames or pseudonyms?
  1. What current or former user rights or positions do you have, and on which projects? (i.e. administrator, bureaucrat, arbitrator, developer, steward, board member, etc.)
  1. Outside of Wikipedia, what do you do for a living?
  1. What languages do you speak?
  1. Why do you want to join the Board? What qualities do you feel you can bring to the Board?
  1. About how much time do you think you'll put into the role?
  1. Ideally, where do you see the Wikimedia Foundation in 5 years?
  1. As a board member, how will you ensure a balance between openness and necessary privacy in board matters?
  1. Recent discussion has centered around the Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. How do you feel the Wikimedia brands should be used, or changed?
  1. Wikimedia projects in developing nations are growing in popularity, but still lag far behind the more popular projects. What steps would you suggest to improve the quality, readership, and number of editors on smaller wikis?
  1. What do you feel should be done to increase participation on non-Wikipedia projects?
  1. As a board member, what strategies would you consider to raise money for the Foundation?
  1. What else do you want to say to voters? (This is a good place to answer a question specific to your candidacy that you think should be answered)

Image:Kim bruning.jpg


Image:Kim bruning.jpg needs details of the license adding otherwise it will be deleted. Adambro 12:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply



Hi Kim, I've started an essay at User:ideogram/essay and I'm not sure what to do with it. I'd like to hear some feedback and discussion, if you think that's a good idea. --Ideogram 10:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Heads up


Image:Kim bruning.jpg tagged for deletion as needing a license. giggy (:O) 02:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for warning me. Feel free to delete! :-) --Kim Bruning 10:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

File:Kim bruning.jpg


Its source and license, please?--Jusjih 03:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Originally taken by w:User:Pzfun. He said it was ok to use it, I think (and it is a picture of me, after all). But if in doubt, deletion is fine too. There's already too much information about me on the internet anyway :-/. (See:previous section) -- 11:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Image filter


Hello there! I read your reply on foundation-l and I am surprised. Erik Moellers proposal would invite "people with sensibilities" (zealots and trolls) to tag images all over wikipedia as controversial /"collapsible". What kind of "consensus, at the single image on a single page on a single wiki level" do you expect, based on what? Educational value is obviously not a relevant point for not collapsing images. No consensus criteria for nudity, gore etc. How is this any different from the original category-based image filter, except that the war is not on commons but on the wikipedia level? Why wouldn't the mobile companies use these tags to filter out "controversial images" on mobile.wikipedia, for example? I don't understand. Do you plan to start a bot tagging *every image* as collapsible? ;-) Or are you serious? Please explain. --User:Atlasowa 17:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Right, and by having things happen directly on wikipedia, different dynamics apply I think.
If "people with sensibilities" were to tag a certain image, people with *OTHER* sensibilities (potentially of a more NPOV nature O:-) would be just as likely to untag it, (since it's just a wikipage we're talking about). At that point classic 3RR/Consensus/BRD, etc all apply. And if they all apply, then the wiki is working as advertised, and NPOV will be reached. And if NPOV will be reached, I'm not worried ;-)
Does that make sense to you, or is there some error in my logic, do you think? --Kim Bruning 21:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Well, I think you seriously underestimate the new dynamic by this new policy. You'll have a user tagging an image as controversial (or rather several hundred images, people like Bob the Wikipedian are already preparing lists) and then what? Another user reverts the tag and says "this a 15th century painting, its the topic of the article, it's not sexual, it's not nudity since you can't see the nipples etc." Reply: "It is nudity and if you want to see it, you don't have to opt-in to the image filter. This is not for you, it's for readers that don't want to see these things." And that is the end of the discussion. How can there be a NPOV on sensitivities? How can you judge if someone is "reasonably" offended? There is no ground to stand on. Again, no consensus criteria for nudity, gore etc. Or spiders, nazi symbols in articles on nazi symbols, all medical articles, ... There is no end to what people may find offensive. No editor in his right mind will try to argue with controversial image tagging zealots more than once. There is no argument to be made. Look at the examples that Erik gave, a drawing by da Vinci and a painting by Courbet, hidden by default in the arabic and hebrew wikipedias. I discussed this with him on de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Eloquence#Dein Bildfiltervorschlag (in german, I don't know if you can read it).
The next question is, what about censorware? Why wouldn't the netnannies filter out controversial images by default? Wikipedia is a top ten website, it's worth the effort, especially if you sell censorware to schools etc. And filtering controversial images is obviously endorsed by the WMF with the new policy. Why not use it? You can not turn off the google "safe search" function in Saudi Arabia and Sue Gardner mentioned in 2010 that you can not get unfiltered Flickr search results in a couple of countries. Why would this not happen to Wikipedia with images tagged as controversial? This is creepy and creeping as hell. --Atlasowa 10:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
The idea I'm getting is that Erik's particular solution does not involve an image filter at all (and thus there is no opt-in or opt-out either).
He just wants to make image folding part of the core functionality. Which is clever!
I'm not yet 100% sure that it covers all concerns, but it is definitely clever.
  • It's clever because if someone uses image folding for censorship (as opposed to -say- NSFL), then that editor would likely get in trouble.
  • It's also clever because -on the other hand- I can think of some cool technical and educational uses for image folding too (nothing to do with offensive images), especially if we make it a bit more fancy. Eg: show an engine from the outside, with all subcomponents folded. You could then unfold a relevant subcomponent to see inside parts of the engine.
I like clever ideas, I admit it. But mere cleverness is not enough, of course. ;-)
On the third tentacle: one has to start somewhere, and this is an interesting start.
At the end of the day we need to think outside this box we've made for ourselves, because ultimately we need to reach some sort of consensus on the matter. That consensus could be "do not want", or it could be something totally different which no one has thought of yet. I'm cutting Erik some slack here, because he's going for that "totally different" direction. Maybe others will follow! :-) --Kim Bruning 13:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
You wrote that "ultimately we need to reach some sort of consensus on the matter". Well, first things first:
1) What is the matter? What is the problem that needs to be fixed? People do not want to see things that they do not want to see? Please. Wikipedia content is objectionable to some people? Doh! People searching on wikimedia.commons finding images they did not want to find? Come on. Nobody has really explained what the problem is.
2) Why does WMF have to fix the matter? People can't adjust their web browser? People don't want to buy censorware? Is this really part of the WMF mission?
Disregarding the above questions, OK, if we need to reach some sort of consensus on the matter then
a) there is the consensus of status quo ante, meaning: Do nothing. Very simple.
b) second possible consensus is an all images on-off function. No judgment on images by tagging as controversial. It is already done on the new mobile frontend http://en.m.wikipedia.org/ ("Disable images on mobile site"). There is this WMF planned "Zero Wikipedia" (Bug 32001 - Wikipedia Zero heading banner and Bug 32002 - Add a data access charge warning for Wikipedia Zero within Mobile Frontend), see also the mock-ups and Wikimedia blog on "Zero Wikipedia". And there is this new bug report bugzilla:32138, see my discussion on User_talk:MZMcBride#Bug_32138. I would really like to know what you think about MZMcBride's proposal.
c) Erik's proposal. I don't really see why it's totally different from what is already done on ar.wp and he.wp. It's tagging images as controversial. I'm not sure I understand what you have written, did you reply to my concerns? I really don't get how this proposal is clever.
d) Now I think if we combine Erik's proposal with the Zero Wikipedia plans, then the mobile carriers have everything they need to filter out controversial images (completely or maybe ask for age verification, if it pleases them). --Atlasowa 19:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

1) The 2 problems I would like to see fixed are

a) no fighting
b) no censorship or POV pushing.

2) WMF does not have either of the above within their sole remit, so it's not their problem alone, they'll have to work together with others. You need *some* sort of consensus just to stop fighting. ;-)

a) Might be hard to achieve unless we kick certain people off the board entirely. (this might be an option, but let's try talking first :-p)
b) I think that this is currently within consensus. We'll have to see what happens dev-side. :)
c) It's clever in solving the issues I have outlined. It may not solve any other issue other than those that I have outlined. It is not all that different different from what is done at ar.wp or he.wp. Assuming that ar.wp or he.wp practice is deemed acceptable, this is likely to gain consensus. If ar or he practice is *not* deemed acceptable, then we have some other large problems to deal with too.
d) I don't see how Eriks proposal combines with zero wikipedia plans. I don't think that Eriks proposal will be implemented on large scale on any wiki. Its primary property is that it appears to me to be very small scale. It is not an image filter. If it is implemented on a very small scale, then any kind of 3rd party filtering will not be viable. Perhaps you disagree; but I don't think you have articulated a valid argument why it would become large scale yet; can you do so now?

--Kim Bruning 21:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

c) Actually, I have articulated a valid argument why it would become large scale, read the paragraph after "you seriously underestimate the new dynamic", and you chose not to respond to it. I don't think you have given any reasoning why this would be "very small scale". It's a free pass by WMF for POV on images. --Atlasowa 20:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
But it's not opt in. It's not even a filter, so the argument in reply doesn't apply, and thus our pocket-censor will find themselves reverted and potentially even blocked. (All else being equal... which it might not be, see next replies). --Kim Bruning 16:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Regarding the examples on he.wp and ar.wp, this clearly goes beyond Recommendation 5 of the Harris-Report.--Atlasowa 14:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
To some extent. Do we have any statistics on how often these templates are transcluded? If it's very small scale (which I hypothesize) there's no big deal, the proposed system is self-limiting (like I think it is) and we might consider using similar things elsewhere. If they're transcluded on over say 0.1% of the pages on the other hand, We're actually in trouble qua censorship *today*. An actual intervention might be then be warranted. Action point: We need to look at template transclusion incidence on ar.wp and he.wp --Kim Bruning 16:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC) It would be ironic if a foundation board initiative for image hiding were to lead to large scale anti-censorship interventions ^^;;Reply
d) Regarding Zero Wikipedia: Someone wants to read a Wikipedia article on his mobile device that uses Zero Wikipedia (= without data charge) -> he gets by default no images (or graphs, math formulas, ...) but placeholders. If he clicks on the placeholder, the image can be loaded (separately and charged data fees). If the image is tagged as controversial, the mobile provider could prevent the loading of the image or demand age verification. (For examples of technical means for censorship in Europe see O2 "child protection measure" age verification in UK, 2011; Flickr filter for "Juendschutz" in Germany, 2007; Internet per UMTS: So fälschen deutsche Provider Webinhalte, 2009; Telekom setzt Jugendschutz-Software an Hotspots ein: Deutsche Telekom: Zensur an den Hotspots? 2011).
ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch! Worse than I thought--Kim Bruning
Two months ago you said: Such an application would fail the precept that Wikipedia is not censored. The feature must make it provably impossible or at least provably extremely impractical to set up such a filter. If this is not possible, this proposal cannot be carried out. How do you prove it? --Atlasowa 20:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
So far, my initial impression is that Erik's proposal would fall well into the impractical part of the scale, qua enabling censorship. Now that I'm talking with you, I notice that I haven't actually empirically checked my impression. I should definitely do that! --Kim Bruning 16:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC) As soon as I get around to it.  Reply
Regarding the arabic Wikipedia, I don't think there is a community consensus. When I looked at how often this template "hide image" was used (google translate and "what links here"), i found ~150 articles (25 october 2011, [1]), when I look now it is less than 40 articles. The template was created 14 June 2008 by user DrFO.Tn and he used it minutes later on the da Vinci drawing (which is an anatomically false depiction of intercourse, btw). The template was apparently used a lot (templates rated by thousands of entries) and protected in April 2009 by User:Antime. The template was discussed in August 2010 with maybe 10 users and without a vote. There was opposition but the template was already built and continued to be used. It was also mentioned in July 2010, in January 2011 and in July 2011. Interestingly, the template is used very random on some images and not on others, if you look at the article Sex positions. It is used not so much on photos of nudes, but on drawings, for example Breast_self-examination and paintings [2]. It is quite extensive. Arabic Wikipedia has many problems and it certainly is not a prototype for english and german Wikipedia. --Atlasowa 20:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Awesome research! I wish I still had more time to do some myself <scratches head>. I think that your numbers show that *everyone* has been wrong <smirk>. Could you do similar numbers on he.wp? After that, I think it's time for me to go to bat again. :-/ --Kim Bruning 00:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but this is rather a cursory glance.

  • The use of the template on ar.wp should be checked by someone with language skills and insights into the ar.wp community. Or by Erik Moeller. A big question is how widely used this template really was and how and if its use decreased. I suspect that most of the tagged images were removed entirely from the articles (big image purge in the past?). For example not a single photo in the articles penis and vulva. My impression is that the hide image template is used on the "tamest" potentially objectionable images, like historical art and drawings (see rape and bestiality), not for images that are highly disturbing AND educational. On the other hand, the template is used two times on very disturbing/ gore images (Gaddafi dead body, dead baby in Gaza Strip) where i find it questionable if these are in WP scope to begin with. All in all, Arabic Wikipedia has big problems (vandalism, POV, verifiability, flagged revisions since 2009 has led to huge pending backlogs over years, huge obstacles for new editors). The template does not help or fix any problem.
  • The situation on he.wp is different. The template was created in march 2006 and there has been intensive discussion of the template in march 2006, october 2006 and february 2008. It was used in he.wp in ~ 50 articles (25. Okt. 2011) or now in 35 articles plus talk and user pages. Hidden images are mostly medical, blood and dead bodies (Genocide in Ruanda, Bergen-Belsen, My Lai Massacre, autopsy) and also photos of penis, pubic hair. In one instance, it is used to hide an animated gif of a fixed non-circular motion. Sometimes in the articles there is one image hidden and others not hidden (and both on topic). I'm actually a bit impressed. The use of the template is consistent, but also creative and far from excessive. We should find out how they do that.
  • In the yiddish WP the template was created in November 2009 and is used now in 8 articles.

I kind of start to see/ get what you are so excited about. --Atlasowa 13:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Filters anyway?

  • My concern about the collapsing idea as with public image filters is that it legitimises POV comments about content on wiki. Now that would be fine if everyone shared my biases and gut reactions to particular images, but it is a big wide complex if not multiplex world and there will be all sorts of biases and prejudices in play. Since we don't all share my particular prejudices the only way we can collaborate is if we all agree to leave our prejudices, opinions and original research at the door. Mines that hulking big pile next to the steaming pile of mammoth poo, I'm sure if you get close you can tell the difference. If we allow people to decide to hide particular images we get into discussions as to which religious groups are so important that we should hide that which offends them and which groups we can classify as unimportant and ignore. While public filter lists mean public discussions as to how much cleavage would offend one group or another. I'm OK with an opt in image filter that is genuinely private and personal, but not one that involves on wiki discussions as to where you draw the line between what goes into the softcore porn filter and what goes into the beachwear filter. To my mind that would institutionalise too much of a distraction on wiki, it also risks creating an expectation that the volunteer community will adopt and maintain something that isn't particularly encyclopaedic. All filter proposals have to answer the question "how in 6 years time will your filter identify the offensive imagery loaded that day and predict that I will find it offensive". If the scheme relies on me loading up a new filter list every time I log in then you need to automate that. If that filter list is publicly maintained on wiki, even in userspace then the community needs to be aware of the possibility that our readers may expect that list to continue to be maintained long after the creators have gone. That shouldn't be a problem if the filter is maintained by its own users. But we should avoid ones maintained publicly by subsets of the community, I see a direct path slippery slide from "Filter lists maintained on wiki" to "wikimedia has a backlog of x00,000 images that need to be checked to see if they need to be added to any of y filter lists, please help" to "We don't have enough volunteers to screen all new images against all the filter screens, we have to make it the responsibility of the uploaders". With somewhere along the way the Press reporting that our systems have failed. WereSpielChequers 15:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
The title of the section is misleading, sorry about that! :-) We aren't actually discussing filters (anymore). We are aware of the POV issues with collapsing. However, the statistics collected by Atlasowa show that collapsing is a small scale, local, constrained solution, (where filtering would be on a very large scale). Small scale local solutions are controllable, can be well- monitored, and are subject to consensus, and thus have my strong preference. --Kim Bruning 16:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yet they are still a binary solution - either there is enough concern or a sufficiently influential lobby group to justify a particular collapse or the concern is dismissed as an insufficiently important POV. I don't see how you decide which images get collapsed without starting to decide which POVs merit that protection. Yes you can do that by a consensus process, but the consensus would be us deciding whether or not to respect a particular POV and accommodate it this way. WereSpielChequers 01:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Kim, I don't agree with you. If you take the arabic numbers and adjust to enwiki size, you get close to 1000 images that would be tagged - is that small scale? And that is just a wild guess, not something to rely on in any way. If you read this thread closely, you see that I have looked at the numbers BEFORE I started this discussion. And my concerns have not been answered. What I understand or "get" now, is: why on earth you are sympathetic to this approach - and that was my initial question. You like the technical possibilities of collapsible images, and you are tired of the debate (and you certainly are not alone with this last point). And all of this is rather disappointing: You only hear what you want to hear and what matches your preconceptions and assumptions. The hidden images on arwiki and hewiki are few, I think that only very few wikimedians were even aware of the templates. An implementation of such a template on the biggest wikipedias, publicly announced by WMF as an "image filter solution to porn" (/controversial/potentially objectionable content) would be something entirely different. --Atlasowa 22:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Well, as long as no one announces anything like "Image Filter For porn" (that would be a political d.i.s.a.s.t.e.r of the highest order in the current anti-internet-freedom political climate pushed by the USA today) we're halfway there.
Obviously, 1000 hidden images is a LOT better than an image filter across all multimedia. (And I can live with major NSFL stuff being hidden-by-default, to be fair. :-P ).
But don't worry, I'm not giving it my unreserved support. I'm sure people will have better ideas yet! ;-) But I'm not going to shoot down Erics idea either, because it's somewhat out of the box, and imho out of the box thinking is what's going to get us out of the current errr... box. We need more of that! --Kim Bruning 16:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'd be cautious about extrapolating from the Arabic language pedia to the English one. I suspect we aren't just bigger in terms of size but also bigger in terms of diversity and profile. And my suspicion is that this greater diversity and higher profile would both manifest themselves in more types of scenarios where some people would want an image hidden for everyone. My fear would be that if we adopted a policy where we hid images where reliable sources indicated that some people found their display offensive, we would be laying ourselves open to every ambitious demagogue. How long do you think it would take from us introducing such a policy to someone announcing that they found the Koran offensive and were petitioning to have images of it "hidden" on Wikipedia? WereSpielChequers 23:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Wasn't this already covered in the discussion above? What are you missing from that discussion? --Kim Bruning 00:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
It was covered "if you take the arabic numbers and adjust to enwiki size, you get close to 1000 images". I'm pointing out a couple of reasons why an arithmetic adjustment may be a huge underestimate. For example if the number of complaints is more related to readership than number of articles then you would get a much bigger jump from ar to en. WereSpielChequers 11:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You have new messages
Hello, Kim Bruning. You have new messages at Mdennis (WMF)'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.



http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for sharing information here and for refereeing the comments of others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'd also like to thank your for your thoughtful comments regarding the proposed travel site. As a longtime Wikitravel contributor (since 2005) I'm very excited by the possibility that there could be a second chance to do for travel what Wikipedia did for encyclopedias. -- Wrh2 (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I also appreciate your comments and refereeing. Can you help ensure someone uninvolved closes the discussion? SJ talk  22:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Did my best to find someone online, but couldn't spot anyone available in real time. So far I've just marked the closure time [3] and placed a request at [4] . --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
And awesome Aude acceptably accomplished all this morning. --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC) also: agreeable alliteration always appreciatedReply
I only put the template on. I'm not at all involved in any decision. I think the decision should be up to the board, ultimately. Aude (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Perfectly practical. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
SJ: If you want to elaborate on my "you may discuss on the talk page" comment at the top of the RFC, please do. Some folks might be curious what the next steps are. Or if anything further is required of meta admins or someone to properly close the RFC, please let us know. (I abstain) Aude (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

How to contact a Wikipedian


Hi, Kim, great conversations at Wikimania2012. When a Wikipedian says go to her/his talk page because there isn't time to write out an e-mail address, what's the best place, best way to ask for the e-mail address later? Mine is jerry dash va at speakeasy removthistextdot net.

I've replied at your user talk page --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply



"consider the RFC to be binding on the WM community and WMF" - from you. That is odd. You use to always preach that consensus can be found in seconds or years, and can always change. Using the term "binding" seems to contradict your standard arguments. Tsk tsk. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, normal on-wiki consensus can change at the touch of a revert button, while taking on a new project is kind of long term, and not so easily reversed.
I also wanted to express that I was going to accept input from the RFC only, and not from 3rd party rigged polls, or some of the other things people had been pulling.
I remember thinking really hard what the best wording to use would be, and that I wasn't really happy with it. <scratches head>
You're right that I should be more consistent in my wording. Suggestions?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
The RFC would be third party, since Wikipedia is not part of the company. I find the whole thing about people usurping a private company using Wikipedia to be a completely irresponsible action. It shows that Wikimedia is not an originator but can only take from others, and seeks to undermine companies at that. We are no better than Pirate Bay, which is why so many content creators have left. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm somewhat puzzled, because 'usurping a company' normally means buying a controlling interest (in the context of corporate raiding).
What do you mean by 'usurping' in this context? Can you name specific corporations, individuals and actions?
-- puzzeledly yours, Kim Bruning (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Ps. wikipedia has little or nothing to do with a travel site proposal. Are you switching topics? Reply
Taking everything that is property of a company is usurping also. It is the company's site, and looking at the ToS, I don't think what could be done is perfectly legally either. Regardless, Meta is not for people to do such things. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
That would be really bad.
I take it we're not talking about wikitravel anymore? In that case the copyrights are held by the diverse contributors and explicitly licensed by them under CC-BY-SA and the iniative for the move is by the largest copyright holders.
It is wikimedia policy to only accept content explicitly licensed CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC0 , PD or GFDL (or compatible). Some projects have carved out and/or grandfathered fair use exceptions; which must be applied strictly.
If you have any evidence of anything to the contrary anywhere, that is explicitly against foundation policy, and must be dealt with promptly!
--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Actually, it is Wikimedia policy to license material as CC-BY-SA, not to clone material that is. There is a key difference. We are not a mirror. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Irrelevant. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Perhaps your next statement could explain the relevance?Reply
You have to prove it as irrelevant since I already demonstrated it as a foundational principle. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I mean I have no idea what you're getting at. We're not mirroring anything, we're not cloning anything, what are you talking about? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
So we aren't taking content from a private company's website and moving it onto a Wikimedia website? I think you are purposefully playing the fool, and it doesn't help your cause. Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Correct. We are not currently taking content from a private company's website. I have no cause to that effect. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC) I may or may not be able to guess what you're really trying to ask, but that's called "projection". Along that road lies the talking to an empty chair ;-). Ask a good question, and you'll get a good answer.Reply
"We are not currently taking content from a private company's website" then it is obvious that you are involving yourself in a talk page conversation without reading it. It also seems that you don't remember your own comments either. Classic Kim Bruning. Blarg, you never change you know. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
One of us isn't reading. That much is true! ;-) Currently, WMF is doing little with the actual wikis. Now, *wikivoyage* on the other hand is doing stuff. But wikivoyage isn't us. Not at the moment anyway. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Really? If they aren't us why are we hosting their discussion and their war? You, yourself, joined in the argument that the Wikivoyage "community" as here and had the right to be heard. Sometimes it seems like you are just trolling. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Wikivoyage is going to do a merger; we'll inherit some of the bad things as well as the good. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
The proposal page made it clear that it was attacking a company, and all of the comments were against the company. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't think anyone is attacking any company. I do see people exercising an option granted to them by the CC-BY-SA license, in accordance with that license and with law. *All* parties here have originally agreed to be bound by the same explicit written rules. One of the parties is trying to renege. That's all I see. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
The section "Internet Brands blocks admins" has plenty of attacks to demonstrate my point. Ostrich-like actions don't alter reality, Kim. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, you can have your reality, I can have my reality, and the judge will determine which is closer to the real one in due time. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Discussion at OR's page (proving lack of good faith :-( ): [5]

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC) + [6] removal of notice. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Licensing question


Hi Kim, I tried to get an answer to the following question on IRC, but it seems nobody is around or nobody can confirm/not confirm: "I have a license question: if I added a sentence to a calendar page - and I take that specific sentence to put it on my website, I normally can use any license - that is instead of licensing cc-by-sa I could apply cc-by to my single specific senteces right? This would not be possible if I take over contents by others: then I must use cc-by-sa and cannot use cc-by anymore." Specifically I am talking about my original calendar entries on nap.wikipedia. I would like to re-use them for language lessons, but need to be able to apply various licenses. I would not take over any contents or changes made by others. --Sabine (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sabine! Long time no see. It depends on the sentence (perhaps), and who wrote the sentence in the first place? Can you link to the original, and can you tell me what you want to quote specifically? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well I wrote it - and I would take it without "layout" that is, like it was before it came to Wikipedia (since first I write, then things are proofread and only after that they are uploaded - I did this in a blog but can't find it anymore, so there is no proof of the original list around) - one of the many examples: http://nap.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3_%27e_jennaro&diff=19831&oldid=8930 (3 'e jennaro 1521: Papa Leone X scommunica Martin Lutero) - there is another date on that page which is not by me and which obviously would not be used. My problem is license - of course I can also rewrite such entries, but the wording in such short statementes would always be more or less the same and I want to avoid that people start to complain that I copied without giving proper licensing (which actually should not be an issue, but better ask twice and make things sure - the contents there anyway is under my copyright). This is also true for a number of pages, but there I have the "first publication date before it was added to nap.wiki" so it came to the wikipedia only after having it written for example on positanonews or other portals (and there I can relicense without any trouble). --Sabine (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, if it's your copyright, and your copyright alone, you can (re)license it as you see fit (That seems to be the case in the diff you're showing me here). If in other cases you're using elements of other people's work then it is not your copyright alone, and you'll need the other people's permission to relicense, and/or stick with CC-BY-SA, or whatever it is the other people licensed it under. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ok, thank you Kim, that is what I needed to know - it's not much stuff, but you know: it's always better to ask twice before creating any problem. So let's get some lessons in Neapolitan language for some people :-) --Sabine (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia Travel Guide: Naming poll open


Hi there,

You are receiving this message because you voiced your opinion at the Request for Comment on the Wikimedia Travel Guide.

The proposed naming poll opened a few days ago and you can vote for as many of the proposed names as you wish, if you are eligible. Please see Travel Guide/Naming Process for full details on voting eligibility and how the final name will be selected. Voting will last for 14 days, and will terminate on 16 October at 06:59:59 UTC.

Thanks, Thehelpfulone 21:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply