Talk:Satellite Sentinel Project

I will soon receive email granting me permission to use text from Satellite Sentinal website and will submit to Wikipedia asap. Nell 04:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

<email redacted for privacy>

While the permission is sufficient for the logo since those are usable under fair use, for the map and for text we need more than just permission to use them on Wikipedia. If you wish for text from another website to be included in Wikimedia projects, it must be released by the copyright holder under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license, which may be viewed at http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0.

Images and other media are allowed if they are under a free license (such as the above and certain other Creative Commons licenses). You can see the allowable licenses at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses.

If you provide us with a clear statement that the copyright holder is releasing this content for redistribution under an allowable license, then the content may be used on Wikimedia projects. The email template at Wikipedia:CONSENT can be used if needed.

Thank you for your understanding! Please see Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

thank you.

am in process of doing what you requested with regard to text.

the photo of map is from flickr - under creative commons license - thought i indicated that. No?

Nell 18:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You tagged File:Satellite image of the burning of Tajalei, March 6, 2011, Credit- DigitalGlobe.jpg as being under a CC-By-SA license, but it's sourced to http://www.satellitesentinel.org/ and not Flickr. Do you have the URL for the specific image on Flickr? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

hi, here is permission, also emailed to wiki:

Jonathan Hutson <jhutson@enoughproject.org> sender time Sent at 4:22 PM (GMT-04:00). Current time there: 17:06. ✆ to Nell Okie <nell.okie@gmail.com> date 23 March 2011 16:22 subject release under CC-by-SA mailed-by enoughproject.org Important mainly because of the people in the conversation.

hide details 4:22 PM (43 minutes ago)

Hi Nell,

Wikipedia has permission to use text from the Satellite Sentinel Project website, http://satsentinel.org. We post our images on the Enough Project Flickr site under Creative Commons license, asking only that the imagery be credited to DigitalGlobe.

Likewise, feel free to reproduce, quote from or paraphrase text from our website. We release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA).

-- Jonathan Hutson Director of Communications Enough Project www.enoughproject.org ___________________________

for image you requested:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/enoughproject/5504137285/in/set-72157626212287166/

Nell 21:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

hi, license has been changed on flickr for image in question.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/enoughproject/5552344814/in/set-721576262055 53879/

permission from wiki granted to me to reinstate photo.

"If you find such images and ask for them to change the licenses on Flickr to be CC-By as the prior image is now licensed, this could be done without the need for further email communication with us - they could be uploaded as soon as the Flickr page was updated." Nell 17:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

These are not further reading they are good for use as citations to expand the article if there is anything additional or updates in thgem is not then .. we are not a link station we write our own articles. Off2riorob (talk)#

• Satellite Images Show Build-up of Northern Forces in Sudan’s Abyei Region, By Joe DeCapua, Voice of America, March 23, 2011
• Satellites Offer New Window into Documenting, Preventing Genocide, By Tom Bearden, PBS NewsHour, March 17, 2011
• Rival troops build up in Sudan's Abyei: satellite, Reuters, March 11, 2011
• U.S. warns that standoff in Sudan is 'unacceptable', By Alan Boswell, The Miami Herald, March 9, 2011
• ‘Ground Truthing’ Satellite Images of Violence in Sudan, By Andrew C. Revkin, The New York Times, March 8, 2011
• Orbiting Eyes Capture Sudan Village Destruction, By Andrew C. Revkin, The New York Times, March 7, 2011
• Signs of Razing in Contested Part of Sudan, By Josh Kron, The New York Times, March 7, 2011
• A 21st-Century Statesman, By John Avlon, Newsweek, February 21, 2011
• Satellite Sentinel Project Uses Commercial Satellite Imagery to Monitor Sudanese Conflict, By Susan Smith, GISCafé, February 14, 2011
• UPDATE: Paparazzi Descend on...Genocide?, By Virginia Prescott, New Hampshire Public Radio, Thursday, January 27, 2011
• Clooney's satellite project shows troops near Sudan's border, By Andrew Meldrum, GlobalPost, January 26, 2011
• Harvard Researchers Monitor Violence in Sudan, By Jane Seo, Harvard Crimson, January 05, 2011
• Harvard team to analyze Sudan satellite images, By Bryan Bender, The Boston Globe, December 29, 2010
• Clooney's 'Antigenocide Paparazzi': Watching Sudan, By Mark Benjamin, Time, December 28, 2010
• George Clooney and Harvard give resonance to UNITAR work, United Nations Institute for Training and Research

These are not further reading they are good for use as citations to expand the article if there is anything additional or updates in thgem is not then .. we are not a link station we write our own articles.

___________________________

to the other editor and to me - they are viewed differently. we see them as further readings.

do not understand: "if there is anything additional or updates in thgem is not then" Nell 16:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wondering if including the informational video below would enhance the article. thanks. Nathaniel Raymond on the SSP --Jespah (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

George Clooney and John Prendergast recently co-authored, Dancing with a dictator in The Washington Post. I would like to include in this Wikipedia page that SSP has visual evidence of Government of Sudan War Crimes in Abyei.

Additionally, would like to inlude a slideshow [1] if both acceptable?

Thank you --Jespah (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's appropriate to use the encyclopedia article to catalogue self-sourced accomplishments or developments (particularly sources appearing as pieces on op-ed pages). if and when reliable and independent third party sources begin to report on the project's findings and their importance then perhaps it would be okay. In the meantime the statement seems to push past the limits of WP:Advocacy. Likewise the slideshow, which is either 1) the Project's product itself or worse, 2) wholly unsourced. JohnInDC (talk) 11:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

For clarity's sake I would note that *even when* the project's efforts are reported, it's not appropriate to keep updating the article as each new bit of information is uncovered and described. See WP:NOTNEWS. JohnInDC (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am trying to find original source. However, SSP is quoting remarks made about a very unusual occurrence in the history of the world. I think that merits mention. Don't you? --Jespah (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Apparent war crimes as an "unusual occurrence in the history of the world"? I'm willing to engage in discussion on the merits of this link, but not with that kind of hyperbole flying about -- JohnInDC (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've undone your edit. The Global Post article is sourced from (and apparently only from) SSP's own press release. (Every single link in the Global Post article is back to the Satellite Sentinel web page.) Please stop trying to shoehorn these entities' own PR into the Wikipedia articles about them. Your unrelenting advocacy is really a chore to police. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please feel free to not edit. No one is holding a gun to your head. You misunderstand...

documenting war crimes via satellite and via satellite in Sudan is an achievement. But I'm sure you can find a way to denigrate that, too. Also, "apparently sourced from" doesn't seem to be a fair basis for your deletion. --Jespah (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

When four experts issue statements in a press release, then that is by definition a primary source document, no matter whose name is on it. You may think this is advocacy; I think it is important to document and do not accept your opinion regarding this. Seems to me the burden of proof is on you. If you would like to call each of these experts... --Jespah (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Use of primary sources alone is tricky - have you reviewed WP:Primary? For instance, while the former officials' statements may be primary sources, you have in fact linked to, and are supplying the synthesis and headline of, a secondary source (GlobalPost), whose article was taken almost word-for-word from a press release by the subject of this very article. (Do a Word compare on the two if you are skeptical.) More broadly, I am concerned that by insisting on this edit, under these circumstances, you are again choosing to ignore the POV / advocacy / sourcing and ownership issues that have been the subject of lengthy discussions between you and variety of other editors over the past several weeks. I think this link should be removed. And now that you've raised the matter at WP:EAR, we can hear from others. JohnInDC (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here for convenience are links to the Global Post article and the SSP press release. JohnInDC (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are just a mean person. I am insisting on this edit because I think it is important. I don't think it should be removed, and I want it to remain. We do not have a consensus here and if and until there is one, I will reinsert the edit you so rudely removed.

I have permission from Fora-TV to use their video!!! Stop harassing me!

from

sender-time Sent at 6:42 PM (GMT-04:00). Current time there: 4:25 PM. ✆

to copyright@fora.tv

date Sat, May 14, 2011 at 6:42 PM

subject ? about permission

mailed-by gmail.com

hide details May 14

Hello,

Is it possible to receive your permission to include this video:

Satellite Sentinel Project : Opening Access to Crisis Areas

on Satllite Sentinel Project's Wikipedia page? Link

Thank you!

Reply

Reply

from FORA info info@fora.tv

sender-time Sent at 1:53 PM (GMT-07:00). Current time there: 1:25 PM. ✆

to

date Mon, May 16, 2011 at 1:53 PM

subject Re: ? about permission

May 16

Hi, Of course. Thanks for checking.

Anni

FORA.tv

--69.0.27.165 (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest not reinserting the material for what would now be the fourth time. You don't want to add edit warring to the list of concerns about your efforts. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry you think that I'm mean; and I appreciate that you believe the link is important. Neither however addresses the concerns I've raised. Meanwhile, your having again reinserted it, I've placed a 3RR warning template on your Talk page concerning it. As for the YouTube video - I don't honestly know enough about how copyrights and permissions work hereabouts to say whether the "permission" you obtained from fora.tv is sufficient to overcome the general concerns about YouTube links and attendant copyright issues. I also don't know that it is not, so I will leave it as is, adding only that next time you *do* obtain that sort of permission, it would be a good idea to disclose it prior to linking the page rather than after. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I do not object to the VOA link that you substituted after the foregoing edit. That is a legitimate secondary source, with original reporting (several quotes in it do not appear in the SSP press release); it also bears a more temperate headline. JohnInDC (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the link you find objectionable and replaced it with one I don't think you will be able to fault.

You really don't seem to be interested in improving this article but only in policing to an extreme and disturbing extent. --Jespah (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I removed the shortened YouTube version of the video link per WP:YouTube; it may very well be that the creators of the material intend it to be widely viewed but the licensing on that page (link here) is the standard YouTube license, not Creative Commons. If someone better versed in these issues believes this doesn't raise potential copyright issues and that the link to YouTube here is appropriate, please restore it. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have requested that Fora-tv change their YouTube license to one of Creative Commons. --Jespah (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's good. I still don't know how that will cause things to shake out, but as I said above, I don't know enough about this area to change anything here. I would suggest that in the future you be very careful about including YouTube video links. They are really disfavored, and frequently create more questions and more trouble than they are worth. JohnInDC (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Meier's point about the expense of satellite imagery is moot because DigitalGlobe was donating the imagery as an in-kind donation.

Therefore, I am in favor of removal of the "Criticism" section from this page.

Eeekster : You did not explain what your reason is for reinstating the criticism. Perhaps my point above will elicit a change of mind for you?69.37.221.22 (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't say that the project was wasting money but rather it was a waste if (presumably scarce) resources, and so it doesn't matter if it's "free" to the project. JohnInDC (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would characterize the article more as a series of reflections by a knowledgeable source rather than as "criticism". And the author's concern doesn't seem to be so much about any waste of resources than it is the more basic thought that other, less-expensive technologies might simply be better than satellite imagery. On the whole the article is balanced and thoughtful and I think its inclusion is useful here. JohnInDC (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

What other, less expensive technologies might those be? In cases where Sudan has blocked UN observers and journalists from observing and reporting, satellites sometimes offer the only way to corroborate eyewitness reports and document potential evidence of war crimes.69.37.221.22 (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The article speaks for itself, I think; and contesting its conclusions does not really go to the issue of whether or not it should be mentioned here. It seems cogent and reputable, and the "criticism" (such as it is) is mild. I think it's fine. JohnInDC (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

As you think the article is fine (thank you), may we then remove this: This article's introduction may be too long for its overall length. Please help by moving some material from it into the body of the article. For more information please read the layout guide and Wikipedia's lead section guidelines. (July 2012)

Additionally, is it typical for encyclopedias to include criticism and/or commentary on a subject and, if so, why is it not more prevalent in Wikipedia articles?69.37.221.22 (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I didn't say that the overall article was fine. I was referring only to the inclusion of this information. I think the article can easily be condensed or tweaked in a way to fix the concern of the template, which is I think correct. I don't know why more articles don't have criticism sections (which BTW this article doesn't any more). I do think that when an article has been written almost entirely by supporters of a project, and draws heavily on the subject's own website, a little 3d party commentary can be helpful. JohnInDC (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how it is helpful. I don't find it in any way helpful. I find it to be provocative. SSP is not asking anyone to adopt their way of doing things. It collaborated with highly-respected groups, including the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, of which Patrick Meier is involved.

The crisis mapping project that he leads, Ushahidi, was created and spun off from Harvard Humanitarian Initiative (HHI), and was seeking a partnership with Google. At the time he was leveling his criticism, HHI and Google were partners of SSP.

The point of Wikipedia, I thought, was to, in an encyclopedic way, describe. Commentary of opposite persuasion does not fit in.69.37.221.22 (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

There are no "persuasions" in Wikipedia. You should go read WP:Neutral Point of View. JohnInDC (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is an unsubstatiated pov (Meir's). No alternatives were given. You did not address his affiliation with HHI and Google, original collaborators on SSP.69.37.221.22 (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I think that affiliation makes him well-qualified to opine on whether satellite imagery is the best way of spotting and heading off possible mass atrocities. JohnInDC (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think you are totally out of line here. I suggest you go back to every single article you have edited, if you want to be fair, and add criticism and/or commentary. You didn't say why you changed the criticism from commentary to criticism. Also, Meier's statement and involvement with HHI/Google, shows a conflict of interest, so I completely disagree with you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.221.22 (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

First I suggest you review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What happens in one article does not dictate what should happen in others. Second. I did not add the Criticism section originally. I am merely responding to your claim that it has no place here, your first argument being that it was moot and now because the (apparently well qualified) author of the commentary is biased in some fashion. This article does not exist to burnish or maintain the reputation of the Satellite Sentinel Project, and these very subdued observations about SSP's approach are hardly the provocation you assert them to be. Third. Given the almost entirely benign nature of the observation, I did change the caption to "Commentary" before taking out the caption altogether in a later edit. Another editor restored the captions, and changed it back to "Criticism". I am not inclined to change it again; it is a single sentence and readers can take it for what it is worth. I would also note that this now makes three four editors who seem okay with the sentence that you would remove. I think finally too that I'm done with this discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The only other editor I see who has made recent additions, was to add however. Secondly, you do not know Meier's qualifications. You don't know if he knows what he is talking about. You also did not address that his involvement is a conflict of interest.I prefer that an administrator review this.69.37.221.22 (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, I see that he co-founded the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, the very entity that analyzes the SSP imagery today, and where his bio describes him as having "extensive experience in the field of conflict early warning/response", further noting that he "has helped to spearhead the field of crisis mapping". He's also got a nice writeup at National Geographic describing his expertise in this area. I would welcome review by an administrator (though they wield no more editorial authority than any other experienced editor). What they'll probably glean from a review of this page's history, and the Talk discussions, is that these and several other John Prendergast-related pages have been afflicted on and off with POV editing by a few single purpose accounts whose contributions seem designed to enhance the reputations of the article subjects and minimize criticism. The disputed section is a benign, almost offhand comment by a qualified person about the effectiveness of SSP's chosen methodology, and the strenuous effort to exclude it here smacks of that prior POV editing. JohnInDC (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It appears that you have now changed the layout and content. HHI is no longer a collaborator:

With the completion of the pilot phase of SSP on 1 June 2012, the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative (HHI) concluded its participation in SSP. HHI has transitioned out of SSP, launching the Signal Program on Human Security and Technology with the aim of establishing the first codified technical standards and professional ethics for crisis mapping, including the use of remote sensing and data management technologies pioneered by SSP.

The Satellite Sentinel Project will continue to issue reports as a partnership between the Enough Project and DigitalGlobe, conducting monitoring of the border between Sudan and South Sudan to assess the human security situation, identifying potential threats to civilians, and detecting, deterring and documenting war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Enough Project provides field research, policy context, and communications strategy. DigitalGlobe provides imagery from its constellation of satellites and geospatial analysis from the DigitalGlobe Analysis Center. SSP is funded primarily by Not On Our Watch.69.37.221.22 (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I removed references to HHI. I didn't add that press-release language about pilot phases and continuing partnerships though. Wikipedia isn't a reprint service; plus there may be copyright issues. JohnInDC (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Shouldn't we include their communications director, Jonathan Hutson? He is an integral member of SSP.69.37.221.22 (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's not appropriate for the article to provide a point of contact, no. JohnInDC (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

+1 to that. If the website has it, interested people will find the link to the website and contact them through the website. Wikipedia isn't a business directory, but rather a source of comprehensive perspective on insitutions, Sadads (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I didn't mean as a point of contact. Mr. Hutson is a principal member of SSP. I thought that important to note. Also, shouldn't the history, original collaboration, including HHI, be included.69.37.221.22 (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. It's not current, it's not really sourced other than that press release, and the history doesn't seem to bear much on SSP today. It strikes me as kind of like a manufacturer changing suppliers. JohnInDC (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I see. I was thinking of historical accuracy. Re Jonathan Hutson: He led negotiations to launch SSP. Seems he should be included in article, for that reason and that he writes articles, sits on panels... Thoughts? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.221.22 (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Rule of thumb with organizational histories: if it is not documented well by the press or by the organization itself, we can't really include that material in Wikipedia. It is very unfortunate because most organizations are not good at maintaining historical memory.... Sadads (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that sort of background is really kind of "inside baseball". It may be well known as a matter of casual fact within the entity, or even within the industry, but that doesn't make it suitable for inclusion in the article about the firm. JohnInDC (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply