Talk:QRpedia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sources

Another source, but I'm unsure if it actually adds anything new: Phillips, Lori Byrd. Going Multilingual with QRpedia MIDEA (blog post). June 15, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoriLee (talk • contribs) 13:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

{{tooshort}} tag

I shouldn't really need to explain this, but the article introduction should serve as an adequate summary of the article's contents, rather than just a bare-bones introduction to it. Two sentences hardly suffices. The lede currently mentions nothing about how QRpedia works, who invented it of where it is deployed. Adding a tag to note this ensures that this will be picked up and worked on in time. The page should be re-tagged for now; I do try to get around to correcting this myself on pages I've tagged, but only if they're still on my radar (through cleanup categorisation). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've now restored the tag pending expansion of the lede. As I say, I'll get round to this eventually myself, but having the article tagged appropriately increases the probability of the work being carried out quickly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any evidence for that—we have tens of thousands of articles with tags like that that have just been lingering there for months (sometimes years). Most editors will be able to see that the lead is inadequate and don't need a tag to tell them, and for all other purposes, it's just a badge of shame. Having said that, I despise all these tags, so my opinion isn't exactly neutral. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've slightly expanded the lead (one sentence) and it now sufficiently summarises what is really quite a short article. I can't see much else that could be added without needlessly duplicating parts. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No submit button.

http://qrpedia.org/ doesn’t work. There is no Submit button. Jidanni (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The code just appears when you put the URL in. Regards, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash 06:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

…and only works with Wikipedia URLs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012

We've pitched a session on QRpedia, at the forthcoming Wikimania, in Washington DC. Please add your name to the event page if you'd like to attend. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Secure URLs

I tried using this. For demo purposes I navigated to our english language article on Zurich Tram Museum, and took the URL out of my browsers address bar. The URL I got was:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Zurich_Tram_Museum

I posted this into qrpedia.org. Nothing happened. At first I thought I was missing a submit button, but then I read the above comment. Scratched my head for a while, then remembered that many moons ago I used to access WP over http rather than https. After scrabbling around for a while, I managed to locate the http equivalent, which is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zurich_Tram_Museum

That worked. I think either QRpedia needs to be taught about secure Wikipedia URLs (after all, I hope that is what we are all using these days) or the text needs amending to say 'Paste an insecure Wikipedia URL ...'. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zurich_Tram_Museum works. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That is strange. The link on the http login page takes you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserLogin, and logging in there gives you article URLs in the style Pigsonthewing quotes above. But my chrome browser has cached https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin as the login page, and logging in there gives you the article URLs in the format I used. Not sure how and why this has happened; I doubt chrome has invented it but perhaps the URL has changed since I started using secure logon. Either way, both formats of URL are in use, and should be supported. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Because otherwise users follow the instructions and nothing happens. No QR code, no error message. So they are likely to go away (as I nearly did) thinking 'this QRpedia thing is broken'. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

HTTPS access to Wikimedia sites saw a major overhaul a few months ago, which included a switch to the simpler URLs such as the one given by Andy above, with the secure.wikimedia.org domain now deprecated (but still working). See [1] (or the somewhat outdated page WP:HTTPS). Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I never saw any publicity for said overhaul so it seems I have unknowingly been using a deprecated form of the URL for the last four months or so. I would agree that there is no reason for qrpedia to support a deprecated form. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the reason to support that format just has been demonstrated by the original question. A strange but not extraterrestrial address has arrived, and the user did not see any motion. The QRpedia code generator is probably created for "users" having not too much practice with solving obscure situations. That's why I definitely miss some kind of warning if there is some problem with inserted URL. (And a hint what to do with the given code.) Do happen something. We need more users, not winners of a quiz game. - Orion 8 (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ownership

The transfer of the ownership of QRPedia to Wikimedia UK was agreed this afternoon. Press release (ie cite) follows Victuallers (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

connected contributor is attempting to whitewash this article

a contributor with close ties to qrpedia has resorted to removing sourced material. nobody is fooled by this, and i'm certain the community would not approve of this, if the matter was brought up at ANI. i suggest that Andy Mabbet use the talk page to hash out any controversial changes. 174.141.213.10 (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait... was it "Andy Mabbet" who introduced the changes, or someone else? The burden is on the person that introduced the changes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

i asked pigsonthewing on his talk page to abstain editing QRPedia before bringing it to the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. it might not be perceived good for the reputation of all involved parties and wikipedia itself, if one of "the people behind QRPedia" is the main author of this article. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your blatant breach of WP:BLP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You reverted with the edit summary "Not in cited source; WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP". The Civil Society article says "And Bamkin's acceptance of consultancy fees provided an opportunity for the charity's reputation to be damaged, it added.". The edit you removed said "...and that Bamkin's acceptance of consultancy fees provided an opportunity for damage to the reputation of WMUK". I have reverted. If you have a case to make about how this violates WP:BLP, rather than edit-warring, please make it here. You are a 'connected contributor" and really should be more careful in your edits. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

And where does that source say that's to do with QRpedia? That's not only COATRACK but SYNTHESIS, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please readWP:COATRACK. It does not apply in this case. Now please read the reference under discussion. QRpedia is the subject of the paragraph immediately before the one which contains the sentence quoted above. The sentence immediately preceding the quoted sentence says "The length of time taken to resolve the QRPedia property ownership issue, which remains ongoing with the project inactive, 'created the risk of outsiders perceiving a potential conflict of interest', said the report". This is not "synthesis" - it understanding context. I understand that you are concerned about your colleague, but this is pretty standard stuff in Wikipedia. despite the concerns I have publicly voiced about QRpedia/Monmouthpedia/Gibraltarpedia/WMUK, I would not hesitate to remove it if I thought there were BLP issues. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Alleged IP dispute

A PoV-pushing IP user keeps adding a claim that there was a "dispute relating to the intellectual property" of QRpedia, citing a single, erroneous source. As can be seen from the recent Compass review, there has never been any such dispute. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

i suggest that if the source is mistaken, perhaps WMF could coax a correction from the publisher? or you could cite the report with a page number. i tried reading through it, but it's terribly boring. 174.141.213.9 (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If by " single, erroneous source" you mean Wikimedia_UK_gov_review_rpt_v5.pdf, then perhaps you'd like to start work on the errata for it and point out the problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I mean the inaccurate tabloidesque web page from which the erroneous claim is cited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Then swap the cite. It's the same issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote in the opening comment in this section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

If you need an alternative source then I would suggest this:

Compass Partnership (January 2013). "Review of Governance of Wikimedia UK" (PDF). p. 14. The transfer of ownership of QRpedia intellectual property was not resolved quickly and that lack of resolution and associated matters created the risk of outsiders perceiving a potential conflict of interest

Andy Dingley (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Which does not say there was an IP dispute. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, of course not. After all, the report was only commissioned to commend WMUK on the openness and excellence of its conduct. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

(outdent)then go on and fix it. i'm done now, Gerard has already threatened to block me, so jus go ahead and whitewash it. some wikipedian will catch you and fix it. l8r. 174.141.213.42 (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

What David Gerard actually said was that he wouldn't block you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

what he said was that he would have but could not, because he is involved. either way, i would have been blocked. i see that Wikipedians have caught on, and are handling it. 174.141.213.8 (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Modification to "Implementations" section

Hi,

I'm a member of the WMF legal team, and I'd like to ask for some assistance in updating the "Implementations" section, (located here). The WMF legal team posted a blog concerning trademark licensing practices going forward in the context of QR code projects and Wikitowns. We want to make sure the information offered to those involved in QR code projects is as complete, clear, and up-to-date as possible.

Please assist if you can! Rkwon (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've already modified the how-to guide in response to your earlier request. There doesn't seem to be anything in this article, which is part of the encyclopedia and not guidance for those involved in projects, which requires modification. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"IP Dispute" again

Hello. As has previously been raised on this talk page, there is a mention of a "dispute related to the intellectual property of QRpedia" in the article. In my view, and that of others aware of the details of the situation, this is an inaccuracy as the ownership of the intellectual property has never been in doubt. The citation provided in this article is to coverage in Civil Society magazine, which I understand editors felt provided adequate reference to support the claim of an IP dispute. Wikimedia UK has contacted Civil Society and they have altered the referenced article in response to our comments, in particular removing mention of a dispute related to the IP. I would be grateful if editors would review the contents of this article in the light of that amendment. Kind regards, Chris Keating, Wikimedia UK Chair. The Land (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What's your precise claim here?

• That there was no "IP related dispute"?
• That "The dispute over ownership of QRpedia led to the resignation of WMUK trustee Joscelyn Upendran." (the statement sourced from Civil Society) is inaccurate?
• Some other aspect, which isn't (AFAICS) sourced from the Civil Society source?

I can't see a change to the Civil Society piece – they still have the original date, they haven't added an erratum (that I can see) and I'm lacking in enthusiasm to start pulling archive copies out of Wayback and running diffs. Can you please clarify just what precisely is at issue here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The first of those, as is clear from the discussion at #Alleged IP dispute, in which you were involved. It took me a few seconds to find [2] on Archive.org; that contains the text "The main incidents leading to the review included an intellectual property dispute over QRpedia" which is not in the current version of the page [3]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The difference between "IP related" and "conflict of interest" is a hair finer than I'm interested in splitting. The point remains that the chair of WMUK behaved in a manner incompatible with being a trustee of a charity, sufficient that another trustee felt they had to resign. Whether we describe this as being related to the IP ownership question or more blandly as a conflict of interest doesn't change the substantive issue. No matter how you spin it, there's no positive slant for WMUK to be had from this mess. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(NOTE MOVED as placed out of place) You seem very certain Andy (D not M), but I was not chair and the board did not agree with the resigning trustee, took advice and rejected my offered resignation. (Oh and I wasn't chair either when QRpedia was launched). Victuallers (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC) moved Victuallers (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

My claim is the former, though I believe the second logically follows. I'm not trying to claim we come out of this episode brilliantly, just that any criticism follows Wikipedia's regular editorial guidelines as it should, including taking account of amendments made by the press to their articles. The Land (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Further issues

The "Bamkin's acceptance of consultancy fees provided an opportunity for damage to the reputation of WMUK" text appears to be coat-racked. "The dispute over ownership of QRpedia led to the resignation ..." suggests that there was a dispute over who owned it (in an "I do", "No, we do" manner). The latter should be changed to "The issue led to the resignation...". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Separate company

I've reverted (actually rolled back through mis-clicking - apologies) an edit which misrepresented Jon Davies, What he said was "in case there were any litigious issues from outsiders who sometimes come after bits of software. e.g. a South African company made a claim they had invented QRPedia a while back!".

On a similar note, the statement "At least one Wikimedia chapter has received letters from people who purport that QRpedia infringes on various patents" may be true, but breaches WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, as it does not reflect the apparent baselessness of that claim. the cited source continues:

We do not believe this is the case and do not believe the probability of being involved in actual litigation is high.

Patent troll refers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The actual statement you reverted was "On June 25, WMUK Chief Executive Jon Davies announced that a limited company was set up to hold the domain names, in order to shield WMUK from litigation that might stem from the dispute". It was sourced to this email message, wherein Jon Davies says "...the company was set up to hold QRpedia to offer WMUK extra protection in case there were any litigious issues from outsiders who sometimes come after bits of software". In what did the removed statement "misrepresent" Jon Davies? As for your claim that repeating the statement that "At least one Wikimedia chapter has received letters from people who purport that QRpedia infringes on various patents" violates WP:NPOV becuase it doesn't "reflect the apparent baselessness of that claim", I can only suggest that you have a very different understanding of "neutral point of view" than I do. Neutrality does not mean that both sides of any particular view are represented equally, it means that we do not take a side, as you appear to be suggesting we should in this case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the former, the quote does not support "that might stem from the dispute". I note that you do not address WP:UNDUE with regard to the latter; and I do not suggest that we "take a side". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So, what about

At least one Wikimedia chapter has received letters alleging that QRpedia infringes various patents. Though WMUK believes that this is not the case and that the risk of litigation is not high, a limited company has been set up to hold QRpedia, in order to shield WMUK should such a challenge arise.

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As proposed wording? That seems accurate. Whether it meets WP:UNDUE is another matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If the claims are 'baseless', then the WMUK shouldn't need to set up a limited company. Also, the fact that such a company currently holds the domain names seems like an encyclopedic fact that should be included in this article. Optimom (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

[ec] Defending baseless patent claims can be punishingly expensive. As I said, patent troll refers. I don't see anyone objecting to mention of the company per se. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The corporate structure and the thinking behind it are both pertinent. Does anyone agree with me that the infobox should go? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The infobox should stay. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

In what way is that not supported? Davies says the company is for "extra protection in case there were any litigious issues". Is that not stemming from the dispute? The "dispute" in this case being "letters from people who purport that QRpedia infringes on various patents" in the previous sentence. I'm not opposed to wording changes, but I don't see how it is misrepresnting anything or anyone. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The section heading is "Wikimedia UK dispute". The (seemingly bogus) threat of patent litigation is not referred to as a dispute. In any case, Jon's comment does not refer to that specific threat. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Then why didn't you clarify what "the dispute" was (although it should have been clear in context) rather than removing the statement? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy seems to think it's not DUE, Can you live with my proposed wording? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

[EC] Because I didn't anticipate anybody making such a basic mistake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say, but I have reworded the problematic part of the addition and replaced it, separating it from the previous paragraph for clarity. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I prefer my wording because it makes it clear WMUK thinks the risk is not high, which is pertinent, and the email says the company was set up to "hold QEpedia" not just the domain names. And I don't see the point in citing Jon Davies.--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy's fixed the "hold QRpedia" issue [4] and I'm bored with this now, so I'll shuffle off, unless anyone wants to discuss the removal of that awful infobox. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You'll note my initial post here included the point that not reflecting the (common) dubious nature of the patent allegation was NPoV. That remains to be addressed. Would we blindly report that "WMF has received letters alleging that MediaWiki infringes patents", which I'll bet they have? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right, Andy. I agree. How's that? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Request again

Hello, can I point out (again) that I was not chair of WMUK when QRpedia was invented. It was already installed in Derby Museum on April 9th. I was merely a volunteer Wikipedian in Residence (ie unpaid). I was elected chair on April 16th - a week later. THis may seem minor but it feeds misunderstandings like the quoter late where it says "found that the amount of time taken to resolve ownership". There was NO resolution required of ownership! It belonged to me and Terence. It did take a long time. When we started WMUK was a company and on my watch it became a registered charity. We employed staff. We opened our first office. We spent time having regular meetings with WMF. Other stuff was happening! You will see that the domains have finally been transferred due to the intercession of the new chair of WMUK.

So thanks to whoever picks this up. Could you 1. Fix that I was a volunteer and part-time wikipedian in Residence (first British WIR!) 2. There has never been a problem with "resolving ownership" - it was ours until very recently when the IPR was donated to WMUK. 3. Ownership now lies with WMUK.

Thanks Victuallers (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

1. I've removed the "chairman" part as being unsourced. I've not added anything about WIR because I can't immediately see a source making clear (to me) that was the case at the time or exactly how it was relevant.
2. The "amount of time" clause seems to accurately reflect the source cited, so I have not changed it. It might perhaps be possible to expand and clarify this section slightly with an alternative source which is clearer about the situation?
3. Yes this needs updating. What's the best source available?

You might want to add a "COI edit request" template here... I can't remember quite where the template for that is located. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Thanks - the WIR is sourceable but the important point was that I was not an WMUK director or chair. That just allows spin.
2. Its up to you to decide if claiming that a "resolution" was possible (when the ownership was 100% clear) is just spin. No one doubts that it took a long time before it was donated..... but that is the nature of giving. Its voluntary.- having an investigation into why you haven't received a gift yet is a bit odd IMO.
3. I'm not sure there is a good one. But a WHOIS on the domains should be without spin. Victuallers (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)