Brian wrote:
Who owns the copyright for the selection, coordination or arrangement of the
dumps?
Given that no one selects, coordinates or arranges the dumps, no one
owns the copyright on them.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/8 Brian
Hoi,
That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The dump
of the English language Wikipedia is even notoriously difficult to create.
It is for this reason easy to argue that the WMF has the copyright on the
collection. Given that it is a composite of separately copyrighted
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The dump
of the English language Wikipedia is even notoriously difficult to create.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow
Huge effort is not copyrightable.
And simplistic arguments are not convincing. If you would like to explore
the space with me, you'll have to try more than one sentence at a time.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
That is only for US law. It is also debatable if this is just sweat of the
brow because a lot of creativity is involved in creating this collection.
It does not even necessarily apply to you as you are in a different
jurisdiction.
Other laws do have similar provisions,
Today Chinese wikinews in China Blocked. GFW keyword is zh.wikinews.org.
other wikinews can acess.
--
Chinese wikipedia: http://zh.wikipedia.org/
My blog: http://shizhao.org
twitter: https://twitter.com/shizhao
[[zh:User:Shizhao]]
___
foundation-l
Ha?
-- White Cat
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony writes:
Fine with me if and only if you c) remove all references to my last
name
from all Wikimedia projects.
So you're claiming to be able to revoke our right to use your last
name?
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The
dump
of the English language Wikipedia is even notoriously difficult to
create.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/8 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/1/8 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton
But they aren't violating GFDL 1.3, since they aren't using it, so
what was you complaint about?
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my
copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any
license I have granted them.
Sure, but
2009/1/9 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my
copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any
license I have granted them.
I doubt it. You are probably considering the wrong part of the GFDL
with
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia would only satisfy the license if the author specifically
said that was ok. The FAQ says there will not be a requirement to
designate
2009/1/9 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
But they aren't violating GFDL 1.3, since they aren't using it, so
what was you complaint about?
Being querulous?
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:59 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Secondly you hit the issue that the license states that attribution
should be reasonable reasonable to the medium or means. Quite apart
from the problem that this will vary from legal system to legal system
the range of medium
foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 17:27:23 +0800
From: shi zhao shiz...@gmail.com
Subject: [Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews in China Blocked
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the
Foundation?
Why do developers have such priviledged access to the source code, and the
community such little input?
Why must the community 'vote' on extensions such as Semantic MediaWiki, and
yet the developers can implement any
Plese install China Channel Firefox Add-on, test GFW of China :)
http://chinachannel.hk/
2009/1/10 Jason Safoutin jason.safou...@wikinewsie.org
foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 17:27:23 +0800
From: shi zhao shiz...@gmail.com
Subject:
2009/1/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the
Foundation?
Why do developers have such priviledged access to the source code, and the
community such little input?
Why must the community 'vote' on extensions such as Semantic
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the
Foundation?
It's an issue of scale. Do you have any idea how big the foundation
projects are? Inefficient code could cripple our donation-supported
In order to solicit community feedback on this very important issue, I
suggest the Foundation put up a multi-language banner on all Wikipedia's
soliciting input via a survey.
*How can Wikipedia be more usable?*
I also suggest the Foundation put up a We're Hiring banner. In tough global
economic
Hello, Brian.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the
Foundation?
The plan for Usability Initiative includes intensive reviews of MediaWiki
extensions which are already available. Then we will
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
In order to solicit community feedback on this very important issue, I
suggest the Foundation put up a multi-language banner on all Wikipedia's
soliciting input via a survey.
Are you willing to make the translations and the
2009/1/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the
Foundation?
Most of them aren't applicable (YouTube, Google Maps extensions, etc.)
or not tested to the scale of Wikipedia and would therefore require
significant investments of
Erik,
I am skeptical of the current development process. That is because it has
led to the current parser, which is not a proper parser at all, and includes
horrifying syntax.
The current usability issue is widespread and goes to MediaWiki's core.
Developers should not have that large of a voice
2009/1/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
800,000 / 30,000 = 26. Is that not a fair wage? If the Foundation only plans
to hire three developers to work on this project then it must be spending
the money on something else entirely.
First of all, we're hiring three people because we already have
As you surely know, the work of all staff, including 'how they spend
money' is continuously assessed by the ED who in turn is evaluated by
the board. There is also 3rd party financial audit. What are you
hinting at?
Erik/Naoko: does the Stanton grant include a condition for (external)
specific
Erik I am glad you are still around and keeping an eye on things.
I believe that, with the audience the Foundation has access to, it could
save a lot of money by hiring people who love Wikipedia and want to work for
it. I don't think its true that the only way to get seasoned developers is
to
2009/1/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
In order to solve usability, even for new users, I believe that you must
write a new parser from scratch.
I disagree, though the project team may ultimately agree with you. The
biggest barriers to entry for new users aren't likely to be obscure
edge
2009/1/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
I am skeptical of the current development process. That is because it has
led to the current parser, which is not a proper parser at all, and includes
horrifying syntax.
Er, that would be a direct descendant of UseModWiki. That this has
been a
2009/1/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
Erik I am glad you are still around and keeping an eye on things.
Thank you, I appreciate that. :-)
I believe that, with the audience the Foundation has access to, it could
save a lot of money by hiring people who love Wikipedia and want to work for
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:19 PM, mbimm...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Erik/Naoko: does the Stanton grant include a condition for (external)
specific program evaluation?
Yes, we are required to submit a quarterly report to the Stanton Foundation
to inform the project progress and status which
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:30 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
I am skeptical of the current development process. That is because it has
led to the current parser, which is not a proper parser at all, and
includes
horrifying syntax.
Er,
I think this is probably true.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Chad wrote:
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu
wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The
2009/1/8 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
We discussing a move to CC-BY-SA, attribution is still
required. I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of
CC-BY-SA (I've just read them, but it isn't entirely clear to me
whether Original Author is, in the context of a wiki,
Hi all;
I would like to know how is going to be rated the success of this
operation/project. Do you hope a big wave of new users? More edits per
day? To improve the visits/edits ratio? What are your wishes and your
realistic predictions?
Regards,
emijrp
Naoko Komura escribió:
On Fri, Jan 9,
And - the banners should now be gone in all languages.
In the coming days weeks we'll discuss what a consistent,
non-obnoxious but visible Donate / We're a non-profit link could
look like across projects. (Right now we have a Donate link in the
sidebar, and some projects have experimented with
2009/1/10 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/1/8 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
We discussing a move to CC-BY-SA, attribution is still
required. I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of
CC-BY-SA (I've just read them, but it isn't entirely clear to me
whether
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/1/8 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
We discussing a move to CC-BY-SA, attribution is still
required. I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of
geni wrote:
2009/1/9 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com:
As a major organization with legal council, the WMF is in a much
better position to understand what the license requires than most
reusers.
The law however doesn't care how easy licenses are for reusers to
understand. The WMF cannot
I can confirm that http://zh.wikinews.org is blocked in Beijing and several
other cities in China.
Ian
[[User:Poeloq]]
2009/1/10 Jason Safoutin jason.safou...@wikinewsie.org
foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 17:27:23 +0800
From: shi
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/9 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing
my
copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under
any
license I have granted them.
I
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
The WMF is not just making and distributing verbatim copies of my works.
Not effectively, not even remotely close to it. The only time they're even
arguably distributing verbatim copies of my works would be for articles
where I am the last author or for
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:18 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On the other hand, it would remove the requirement to deposit two
copies of the best edition of every single revision ever created with the
copyright office.
No such requirement exists
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:15 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
The WMF is not just making and distributing verbatim copies of my works.
Not effectively, not even remotely close to it. The only time they're
even
arguably distributing verbatim
2009/1/9 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
I don't know if these interpretations are correct or not. But I'd rather
not chance it. Especially since if they're not correct, there's not much
point in switching to CC-BY-SA in the first place.
You are completely free to oppose the switch because you
The proxy servers of the China Channel Firefox Add-on seems to be out of
order.
An alternative way of testing can be found here:Website Test behind the
Great Firewall of
Chinahttp://www.websitepulse.com/help/testtools.china-test.html
Here are some results from the above web page.
Tested From:
Erik Moeller wrote:
The proposed attribution (crediting authors where it is reasonably
possible and linking to the version history where that would be
onerous) is completely consistent with
1) established practices on Wikipedia;
2) the ethics and spirit of the GNU Free Documentation
geni wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
It isn't clear what it means.
There seems to be a belief that it can be interpreted to only require
attribution of 5 authors, and I don't like that at all.
The word five doesn't appear in the license and 5 only appears in
a section name
Anthony wrote:
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and
distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that
expressly provided under any license I have granted them.
Apart from the expressly provided (GFDL), there is the tradition
of how Wikipedia and other
49 matches
Mail list logo
