Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2013-02

The OTRS team needs help!

OTRS is receiving an increasing number of emails, and we are greatly in need of more volunteers to catch up and help prevent backlog. OTRS volunteers choose how many emails they'd like to answer and have access to a large number of templated replies that can be used or modified to speed up processing. Your private information would not be exposed to the public; replies are issued from a shared Wikimedia email address.

We are looking especially for people who are strong in any or all of the following areas:

1. Familiar with processes on any Wikimedia project and able to answer routine questions about them (some common responses include refdesk referrals; explanations of deletion processes or how to edit. The kind of thing you might run into at the Teahouse or Help desks);
2. Familiar with acceptable licenses for images and text and willing to handle correspondence related to permissions (many routine, but some issues include unclear statements of permission or permissions issued by people who can't be clearly connected to the source);
3. Familiar with policies regarding living people and organizations and able to assist article subjects with lightweight needs (updating logos, correcting small information) or serious concerns (allegations of gross inaccuracy; bias).

For more information about volunteering, please see m:OTRS/Recruiting. This is a great chance to be part of the public face of Wikimedia. We can't always help people, but we do our best to leave them impressed with our professionalism and responsiveness. Please consider helping out, and please spread the word to others about the need.

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact the OTRS leadership team members. Thank you! Rjd0060 (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata and HTTPS

Resolved.

WIkidata's HTTPS certificate is invalid. Can anyone else confirm this issue? πr² (t • c) 18:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I use HTTPS all the time and haven't seen an issue on any WMF wiki, including Wikidata. Just been over there and checked and Firefox shows me a fully valid certificate. QU ^TalkQu 18:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Works in Firefox. Doesn't work in Safari, Chrome. This is high-priority, IMHO. πr² (t • c) 19:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: now works on Chrome and Safari. Resolved. πr² (t • c) 21:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Broken again. πr² (t • c) 14:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Please file any and all bugs with Wikidata at https://bugs.wikimedia.org. You can use the Bugzilla keyword "wikidata" as necessary and appropriate. Cross-referencing the filed bugs back to this discussion is also welcome. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's needed because it's working again. πr² (t • c) 20:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, regardless you should state exactly what problem you're seeing and at what URL. ("invalid cert" is insufficient. If you don't know how to give more info you can at least click the button on the invalid cert warning to ask for more details and then take a screenshot of those details) btw, what OS and browser? --Jeremyb (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Phoney users?

The Dutch wiktionary has seen a steady stream of new 'users' often with names like SandraQq or WilliamPsx or so. I think it is a form of spam bot. So far nothing more has happened than the creation of user accounts. However, I wonder about this. Of course GonzaloMc could be a legitimate new user, but I am suspicious of the link put on the user page. What to do? Jcwf (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I remember this happening a few years ago as well. There were random ten-character usernames being created that the stewards were monitoring. Not sure if there's much to be done about this. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the nothing to say... vandal. I performed a CU and found 1 more spambot. Please report more of these on SRCU. Thanks for helping! Trijnstel_talk 14:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

+ I see a lot of possible spambots in the user creation log, but since they haven't edit yet it's hard to tell which are spambots and which not. Trijnstel_talk 15:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

CSS broken? edit tools buttons shown in the upper most line next to the user page link?

Hi, I noticed a few times now, that here on Meta two of the edit tool buttons are shown in the upper most line next to the user icon and the link to my user page. OTOH the signature button above the edit box is out of order. It seems to be a CSS issue. Can you please take a look? rgds --h-stt !? 15:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If you mean the edit toolbar, I see it properly. The most recent change on the common.css file was to import some CSS styles to make {{fmbox}} and related boxes work properly here. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Voting system for the Board Elections 2013

Hi. I've opened a thread at Talk:Board elections/2013 based on the concerns some users raised in the past runs that they would preferr a simpler voting system vs. Schulze method, which seems rather complicated to understand for users. I feel that it is good to discuss this now that everything is under construction, rather than later when all is finished. Feel free to share your thoughts! Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Translation to...Canadian English?

I stumbled upon this. Is a Canadian English translation *really* necessary? Resident Mario (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Something wrong with it, eh? On a more serious note, you can discuss this on Wikidata itself if you want. πr² (t • c) 19:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

One more interwiki?

Hey there I'm from Zh-Wikipedia. It has been a routine for me to use the "namespace" of google:. But you know, in Chinese, Google can't be everything. Baidu is a Chinese search engine which can provide more reliable search results in Chinese. So would any admin please add a baidu: link to the current interwiki list? It's an urge need.Super Wang (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, please see Talk:Interwiki map#Proposed additions for instructions on proposing your addition to the Interwiki map so the people that watch that page will be able to see your suggested addition and comment. Thanks. Thehelpfulone 02:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

differences between WikiProject Outreach and Outreach Wikimedia

Hello, I'm trying to figure out the differences of these two areas. Are they complementary in any way?

WikiProject Outreach Described as: WikiProject Outreach is a WikiProject focused on luring, tutoring, and retaining editors. It serves as a central point for all matters within Wikipedia related to increase its number of reliable editors, and the processes they go through and deal with every day as editors of Wikipedia.

and Outreach.Wikimedia: OutreachWikimedia. Described as: This wiki serves as a home for several outreach and collaboration initiatives. It's a bookshelf, a collection of best practices, and a coordination point for any activity that is directed to the public, to cultural institutions, or to universities. Our mission is to recruit and support new Wikimedians and to build strong relationships with cultural and educational institutions. We need your help in making this collaborative platform bigger, better, and more useful.

Thank you, any insight is helpful as I am trying to figure out where to engage :) Slventura (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this is a good question, and I'm not sure there is a clear answer! I do not know a great deal about WikiProject Outreach, but can tell you a little about the Outreach Wiki. (I hope you don't mind, I fixed the links in your question above.)

The Outreach Wiki was started in 2009, to support outreach efforts of both the Wikimedia Foundation and other members of the Wikimedia community. At the time, there was an "Outreach Department" at the Foundation (and I was the Public Outreach Officer), but in subsequent reorganizations that is not a name or role that still exists. These days, some have expressed that a wiki separate from Meta is not really necessary, but merging them would be a bit complex and is not likely to happen any time soon. (This, of course,is all my speculation, others may disagree.)

Anyway: the Outreach Wiki is a good place to work on or store materials related to Outreach.

If you want to get involved in outreach, what are your main interests? Universities? GLAM institutions? Companies? Collaboration researchers? There are interesting things going on in all these areas, but they aren't necessarily working together under the umbrella of "Outreach" these days. I'd be happy to offer some pointers though if you can explain a little more about your interests here. -Pete F (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from January 2013

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for January 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement

1. SUBJECT

• Wikimedia Foundation highlights
  • New program offers financial support for projects by individual Wikimedians
  • Successful migration to new data center
  • New partnership grows the reach of Wikipedia Zero to 330 million mobile users
  • Wikivoyage becomes newest Wikimedia project
• Data and Trends
• Financials
• Other movement highlights
  • Asteroid named after Wikipedia
  • EU-funded RENDER project releases editor support tools
  • Wiki Loves Monuments exhibition in Polish railway station
  • Review of management and conflict of interest issues at Wikimedia UK

About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 06:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A new proposal for a wiki project: WikiLang

Hello! I have started a proposal for a new wiki project: WikiLang. It is about endangered languages and language documentation/decipherment. It is a very important step in order to save our linguistic diversity which is ongoing faster than the extinction of animals. Most of our languages are highly endangered and there are pessimistic estimations that by 2100 90% of them will be extinct. So, please support the project and vote for it and/or give your feedback! (I for myself belong to a language minority and I can tell how important this is.) Thanks a lot. Zylbath (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ombudsman Commission

Does it work in any way? I filed a complain about an alleged abuse with checkuser privileges eight months ago and although I received a reception acknowledgment nothing has happened. Is that the usual way this commission works? --Ecemaml (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There is some concern about the current effectiveness of the commission, especially in it's PR end. Many requests have gone this way. Hopefully the future commission will change some things... Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There are similar complaints at Talk:Ombudsman commission, and some proposed reform ideas at Ombudsman commission/reform proposals. Legoktm (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

@Legoktm as per standard operating procedure, proposed reforms are on a new page that nobody has in their watchlists in order to prevent any widespread discussion as would occur on high traffic boards. This is a very common theme, to kill discussion by removing it from high traffic areas to no-traffic areas. Mark my words, there won't be any action over your, or anyone else's, complaint Ecemaml. Penyulap (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, as with any website where bullying exists, suicides can occur, when they do, there will be no way to suggest that we didn't know about it, or it wasn't brought to our attention, or there were no warnings. The standard procedure, and it happens everyday, is to IGNORE it, attack the victim, blame the victim. If this current notable editor were to leave a note blaming his harasser, then all trace of the on-wiki harassment would probably get rev-deleted so nobody could see it. You will never read about any event that happened here ON here, because it will be over-sighted.

The current situation is there are MULTIPLE warnings from MULTIPLE editors, and as you can clearly see for yourself, the people who would normally be expected to stop it are perpetrating the harassment.

The proposed solution of the Wikimedia Foundation is to fund the perpetrators legal expenses to indemnify them against lawsuits, rather than pay less expensive professionals to screen out would-be dangerous sociopaths from positions they are attracted to. The official position is to IGNORE, COVER-UP, BLOCK, DENY and soon to be SUPPORT the harassment which many people can see going on.

Donations and earnings will be diverted from education to perpetuation of abuse by protecting the perpetrators. If admins acted WITH community consensus, acting only where the community was behind them, the decisions wouldn't be theirs alone, and the whole community would take the blame, and therefore, nobody would need protection from poor decisions, safety in numbers. Dictatorship on the other hand pinpoints the person directly responsible for the decision and attracts blame and responsibility. Penyulap (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, you are to some degree entitled to random ranting on Meta, but this comment seems entirely unrelated to the topic, so its readers will probably just interpret it as forum shopping. --Nemo 20:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC) P.s.: As you added an on-topic comment, I'm collapsing this unrelated appendix and reindenting. (edit conflicted)

I'm explaining how the complaints are currently being handled and giving clear examples and citations, how does your comment relate to the topic exactly ? Penyulap (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot HATTING discussion about the problem thank you for reminding me by demonstrating the use of the HIDDEN template Nemo bis. Penyulap (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiding and hatting of life and death matters and discussion about abuse, as Ecemaml has raised here, is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Cosmic demonstration of exactly what happens when the subject is rasied, and for the record, I have no involvement whatsoever in the case I mentioned so it is not forum shopping. I haven't mention my own case, so I can't be forum shopping there, and I haven't raised Richards case anywhere either. Penyulap (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Snowolf wanted to do the exact opposite. Though it might have been better if he had started it as a RFC. Legoktm (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

why not add it ? I see it as a lost cause, so I won't bother. Penyulap (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, jumping from "I didn't get a response from these volunteers" to "So somebody's going to kill himself, and it will all be your fault" seems pretty odd to me. I recognize that suicide is normally an impulsive act, and that people have attempted suicide over things far stupider than this, but if a person decided to commit suicide over the absence of a reply from a couple of over-worked volunteers, then their choice isn't really the fault of anyone involved in Wikimedia projects. I also believe it inappropriate to say anything like that here, because it might be misunderstood as you saying that Ecemaml is so mentally unbalanced that he (or she) would commit suicide over this, and I'm not aware of any reason to suspect that Ecemaml is anything other than a person trying to deal with a concerning situation properly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The facts are clear. Many people including Ecemaml have complained of abuse and the response is always the same. Nothing is done about the abuse. I'm not saying Ecemaml is the only one who is the subject of abuse, there are plenty of cases even without those that have been oversighted.

It IS the fault of people involved with the project and the people employed by the foundation. It is called Negligence and it is a common well understood legal concept. There is ample evidence of abuse, there is clearly nothing done about said abuse and it is a fair statement to say that the foundation should have been aware of the problem and taken some action or put in place safeguards. There is no evidence any effort at all has been made, this is ANOTHER example that proves the Ombudsman commission is nothing whatsoever except a fancy email address. I have doubts that anyone has ever had their bits removed for abuse, and I seriously doubt that taking action in ZERO percent of cases will bode well in a court of law. Counting people who have retired from wikipedia and given up their bits voluntarily as action being taken, which looks like the only way anything would happen probably won't impress any judge. There is NO action against abuse.

Supporting and enabling the abuse by deliberate inaction is hardly the best way to handle the situation, second only to compounding the problem by taking an active part in the abuse by attacking the victims of the abuse. Penyulap (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

propose ignoring the ombudsman commission not working

It's nothing but a fancy sounding way to completely ignore and therefore support the abuse, I propose we ignore this fact until the end of time, everyone in favour, ignore this proposal. Penyulap (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Fundraising

Is a campaign running on any Wikipedias these days? Is it using pop-ups? --Elitre (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that we've ever used popups on Wikimedia. Somebody else might know more, but it sounds like somebody's on some mirror site or has some crappy firefox extension/ie plugin. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

but they apparently received the 2011 thank you note from sue. Must know more. 151.42.49.46 14:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I actually realized what happened. The user must have read the new yellow banner. No surprise he thought he was being scammed. Think about it, guys. --130.25.138.237 17:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC) (Elitre)

Wikitime: The navigation for understanding the world.

We all know how vast is wiki networks. It's data base make it hard to navigate for research and understanding on particular topic, specially for those who don't understand internet better. Its also the reason which don't allow the people to compare between the study through internet and real life study as in study using article only we would jump on random topics and make our self more puzzled in the topic. For those who just simply want to study or do research and understand particular topic, wiki time would be an navigation to the unknown topic's content.

Wiki-Time is named so as it's the timeline of particular topic where the data or article are arranged according to time it describe, with filter of subject matter. It would allow the user to understand the reasons for development of something and allow them to understand topic better. We need a correct perspective to understand the subject, and when we navigate a subject matter through time we understand the reason and perspective in it. understanding the past achievement also allow the user to understand the topic better. Media files associated to topic could also be accessed by the application. It would be the whole new way of study. People will know the history of any topic which create a respect and would be a tribute to the contribution of people who made us in 21st century where I am writing this article. In my view, this will behave as a University where people read things in a sequence of understanding, and as we develop with time the sequence could be no better then to understand thing with relative to time, also wiki time should allow other social media users to comment the topic for discussion purpose, as we do in class.

It would be my honor to be a part in something revolutionary in field of knowledge and wiki's application had been revolutionary since the beginning. This is one of my best old concept of studding with reference to time, and in my view would allow people to understand things better. Yours Sincerely Ronit Ramdam

Can you give a simple example? I don't think I understand how your proposal is different from a history textbook. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you would like better History section in Wikipedia articles. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Mysterious diff

Tracked in Phabricator:
Bug 43281

Can anyone tell me what happened in this diff? I don't see any obvious edit. πr² (t • c) 20:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems like something similar is happening here. Mathonius (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Bug. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

bugzilla:43281 (found by MZMcBride). --Nemo 18:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If you've found a software bug (or a potential software bug), please file a bug at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org (aliased as https://bugs.wikimedia.org and https://bugs.mediawiki.org). Just saying "Bug." in a comment is amusing, but doesn't really get us any closer to getting the issue addressed. ;-) I think there's a general underlying problem with diffs not showing... diffs (bugzilla:42669). It makes these diff-related bugs a pain in the ass to debug and diagnose. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I just wasn't sure whether it was a bug or a feature, or if I was misinterpreting the diff. πr² (t • c) 21:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: adopting OmegaWiki

Please take some time to review the proposal at OmegaWiki, and discuss it at Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki. Thanks! --Kip (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Put a notice on the main page ("Goings on" section). I'm not sure I got the date right; I just used the date of [1]. πr² (t • c) 21:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Result of the Board's discussion about term limits

«After the exchange of individual positions the Board agreed that we don’t see the necessity for term limits for the WMF Board at this point. [...] For the board Alice Wiegand 17:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)»

---

Discussion continues at Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation#Result of the Board's discussion about term limits. --Nemo 10:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Community-Driven Video Production portal

This conversation has been moved from the English Village Pump (Idea Lab) to here Victorgrigas (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC):

Hi,

My name is Victor, I'm the Storyteller at the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. I have been an editor since 2005, and started at the Wikimedia Foundation in 2011. I have a film and video background. Last year, along with a team, I interviewed many Wikipedians and produced a series of videos (which included this video):

We shot this video during Wikimania 2012, and edited it as part of this campaign to showcase the Wikimedia Community

We shot this video during Wikimania 2012, and I edited it as part of this campaign to showcase the Wikimedia Community. This year I plan to produce more videos to explain the movement to the general public. I have been reaching out to find other professional media producers, camera operators, et cetera who like Wikipedia & the movement enough to volunteer their normally very expensive time to make videos with me.

Now to my idea:

Being a Wikipedian at heart, I want to open up the film production process to the whole community.

INTRO:

Films and videos are very collaborative. When people think of Film production they probably think about a director and actors and on-set production and think, "I could never do that, I'm not a photographer or an actor, I don't have $50,000 to spend on a video". Actually, film and video is made is 5 parts and involves a wide variety of skills (of course this is only a guideline, and there are plenty of exceptions):

• Idea Development - This is where you dream up concepts and focus ideas, mostly on 'pen and paper' just like this forum.
• Pre-Production - this is where you plan to 'press record', you scout locations, find equipment & talent to help, make a schedule, et cetera.
• Production - This is when you press record, and when most money is often spent because so many people are involved at one time.
• Post-Production - You manipulate and create a finished product with what you have recorded, (video & audio editing, animation)
• Advertising and Distribution - You create awareness of the product and provide places to consume it (in this case social media, Wikipedia pages, etc.)

PROPOSAL:

I propose an online forum (on Meta or somewhere) where people can suggest ideas that they would like to see produced in a high quality video format. The public could discuss, research and script those ideas in a collaborative way. Projects could flow in a production queue like a ticket system in programing. Anyone at any point can post works in progress or take an idea and 'run with it' like they do using a wiki. Wikipedians can also get connected with volunteer media producers (like those I am currently contacting) who can see a script or concept they like and feel enthusiastic about and produce it, with many resources on the forum already at their disposal.

Any established and even relatively new Wikipedian could easliy get involved in the Idea Development phase (which is really the core of ANY production) and probably many pre-production phases too. Wikipedians with experience in film production could assist others with little or no experience. These days lots of people have access to tools to make video, and I think that it's just a matter of co-ordination to get high quality work produced.

In my opinion, most high-quality productions are made by people with 1.) access to media tools (like cameras & microphones) who 2.) know how to use them well (usually through experience) and 3.) have an incentive to work (usually money, but often it's just because they really like the project)

As it currently exists right now, any producer who would want to get involved wouldn't know where to start, but if they had a forum to as questions and pre-made resources (like scripts) available to them, it makes their job a whole lot easier. It takes alot to 'learn the ropes' of Wikipedia and a community portal would help connect Wikipedians (who themselves are not media producers) with video producers (who either are or aren't Wikipedians) who both are looking to promote Wikipedia or illustrate articles in some way would be a huge improvement towards getting more video on Wikipedia and explaining the movement to the world.

I want to make video the same way we make Wikipedia, free for everyone to share with as low a barrier to access as possible.

Thanks for reading my proposal, please share this idea with others if you think this idea or something like it should happen.

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

So... we can create a page in somewhere?

Like outreach:Video production?

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I received this message from Manuel Schneider with instructions to post here - Victor Grigas (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Hi Victor,

Great initiative! I'd like to mention that there is a video project in the german-speaking region under the name "WikiTV". Actually we try to engage people globally to produce free video footage for the Wikimedia projects. Some of you might have visited my Wikimania workshop on WikiTV or might be able to do so at next Wikimania.

I am in a Wikimedia Meeting with only my phone right now, so I am a bit quick here.

Look at Meta "WikiTV" or if you speak german at german Wikipedia under "Wikipedia:WikiTV". On Commons you find a Category:WikiTV.

What we do at the moment is:

• documentation of real-life events (eg. conferences, talks, Sue's visit at chapter assemblies...)
• interview Wikimedians to gather additional knowledge for Wikipedia articles (we got an internet-based TV production tool from a public broadcaster)
• we got two slots (45 minutes) per month on a public broadcaster's channel to publish a Wikipedia and a Wikiversity programme each month
• we have people interested in creating video tutorials but we lack of knowledgeable people on how to produce them at the moment

I could imagine that WikiTV becomes a new Wikimedia project, so we would have video communities working on their language-based wikis planning and creating footage, shows etc. which will use Commons as the storage archive and publish the results in different Wikimedia projects where useful.

Feel free to publish this mail on the Village Pump discussion because I can't do so right now.

/Manuel

---

Just skimmed this, looks great! If you're not already in touch, these are people you should reach out to: Andrew Lih, Ward Cunningham, David Evan Harris of the Global Lives Project, User:Pharos. I will ping them all and point 'em here. -Pete F (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the others, but Mr. Cunningham already did a fundraising appeal thingy. See here or here. πr² (t • c) 18:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure of where the discussion is heading, but I have a question: will this or something else help the community have access to the (raw?) footage from Wikimedia interviews and so on, done for instance at Wikimania 2011, and never published for lack of time or whatever? Is there sensitive data or something in them? What are the blockers for their publication, which would allow remixing by anyone interested etc.? --Nemo 18:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nemo, I'm really glad that you mentioned that. I had intended to publish all the raw content of the interviews exactly for the reasons you mention. So after Wikimania 2012, one of the first things I did was send the transcripts of the interviews to all the people interviewed and ask them (out of respect) if there was anything that they had said that they did not want released. I told them to please highlight those portions and I will be sure to not publish those sections of the interviews. Some people said things that were too personal, some people said things that were factually inaccurate & some people simply misspoke or said things to me and had forgotten that there was a camera rolling. Most people were totally fine with publishing 100% of the raw content. Every time I publish an interview or someones likeness under the name of Wikimedia I always try to be sure to show them what I am publishing before I publish it -- even though they have signed a consent waiver because this is their likeness and reputation and I try to hold Wikimedia to a high standard of respect towards people in that regard. This process has proved very useful becausue there have been a few people who have declined to have their interview used after it was recorded.To answer your question, it hasn't been done because it is an expensive and very time consuming process to delete each sensitive portion of the interview, show it to the interviewees for their approval, encode and upload it to commons. There were around 100 interviews done at approximately 30 minutes a piece. My rough estimate is that this process might take a month for one person, and that process would likely drag out as each person saw themselves on camera and decide that they wanted more removed. I do agree however that this should be done, it would give the community content with which to edit material and it is a more open, transparent process -- it's just a lack of resources at the moment. Vgrigas (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I understand this. You said: «Most people were totally fine with publishing 100% of the raw content». How much time would it need to ask people and then publish only the interviews of those who don't object to publishing unedited videos? Thanks, Nemo 19:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nemo - Likely weeks to do this Vgrigas (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)