Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-07-04/News and notes

News and notes

(Your article's descriptive subtitle here)

By Tom Morris, Peterkingalex, User:TheGrappler

Text text text text text.

In brief

• Good article monthly roundup: This June, the number of good articles rose to 12,237. This means that, for the first time, 1 in 300 of Wikipedia's articles have been quality assessed as passing the good article criteria. This proportion has been steadily improving since the good articles programme was launched in 2005. An additional 1 in 1100 articles have attained the higher quality featured article status, although this proportion has remained relatively steady for several years. This month's increase of 194 GAs was somewhat better than May's 181, but was still well below the project's average for the last 12 months. One controversial suggestion discussed this month as a solution to the perennial nominations backlog, was encouraging nominators to review each other's articles. This received a mixed reception from experienced reviewers due to concerns about apparent conflicts of interest during quid pro quo reviews.
• NARA Wikipedian in Residence interviewed by Wikinews: User:Dominic has been interviewed for Wikinews about the position of Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives and Records Administration. See "Wikinews interviews US National Archives Wikipedian in Residence". Dominic spoke of the importance of maintaining relationships between cultural institutions and Wikipedia, saying that Wikipedia "will not only make [NARA's] holdings findable, but it will add value to them". He also emphasized the importance of organizing and taking advantage of the Wikimedia community.
• The quarterly policy update is available at WP:Update. Contributors are welcome for this and future updates.

← Previous "News and notes"

Next "News and notes" →

In this issue

4 July 2011 (all comments)

News and notes

In the news

WikiProject report

Featured content

Arbitration report

Technology report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try .

Re the DMCA take-down issue, whatever happened to the doctrine of ostensible authority? – ukexpat (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

On the same issue, why haven't the pictures be uploaded as fair use to en Wikipedia? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Although there was apparent authority at the time, the copyright owner has directly refused permission. As such we have no right to use the images. As for using on enwiki, they'd be hosted on US servers, so we'd just get a new take down notice, surely? If the original permission-giver had been the copyright owner themselves rather than a representative, it'd be harder for a take-down notice to be enforced, as he would have directly given a release under a suitable license. Although it's a shame to lose the images, they presumably aren't so essential as to make any articles they were used in useless - or can we expect some article deletions as a result of the illustrative pictures no longer being available? -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 18:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wishes to restore one or more of these images as NFC compliant images on En, mail me and I will send them to you. The firm should also be informed of these uses. If another take-down request is issued, you then have the option under the DMCA of issuing a counter claim claiming it as fair use. See How to File a DMCA Counter Claim. Dcoetzee 19:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A far more insidious problem occurs with TI calculator encryption keys. These were uploaded by an anonymous source, taken down as a result of DMCA as an "office action". Because it is an office action no-one can reverse it, the "office action" won't be withdrawn unless a DMCA counter-claim is made, and only the anonymous editor is allowed to make a counter claim. Therefore the "office action" rules, as they stand, allow anyone to effectively protect the unprotectable, by uploading it to WP via a puppet, then issuing a DMCA takedown. Rich Farmbrough, 15:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC).

I dislike the offensive image filter idea. First of all, as a certain cretin has demonstrated repeatedly, any attempt at controlling the use of offensive images can be easily circumnavigated (per BEANS I won't say how, except that it isn't a hack or exploit). This means that if someone wants to shock or offend people, we can't stop them from doing so, we can only strive to get better and better at catching and removing the offending images. As for the permanent images, who becomes the arbiter of values for Wikipedia. Do we allow anyone to set up their own personal filters? If so that does not prevent first time exposure. Do we just do it to items on the bad image list? Do we establish a working group of experts/parents/concerned bystanders? How do we decide what's inappropriate to whom? Does it become censorship? I would most certainly fear a few prudes going haywire and deeming large swaths of images as needing filtering, leading to an all out brawl when those changes are reverted. The offensive image filter will cause nothing but trouble. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep up with The Signpost on Twitter, Facebook or Mastodon.

Home

About

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions