On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Here's a first crack at revised attribution language. When the
language is completely finalized, I'll send a separate note explaining
some of our reasoning for this general approach in more detail. In the
meantime, I'd
2009/3/11 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
Here's a first crack at revised attribution language. When the
language is completely finalized, I'll send a separate note explaining
some of our reasoning for this general approach in more detail. In the
meantime, I'd appreciate it if you could point
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
Hello,
I think this is a communety thing. Its to bad that you lost your
adminship but why should people from other projects step in?
I mean this is something on the en.source not a global thing.
huib
--
I have
snip
We also
received major gifts totaling USD 94m.
/snip
:O is this a typo or is it actually correct? Also if its possible could we
have slightly more info about who the donations were from and whether they
were targeted/restricted to any use?
regards
mark
2009/3/11 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
I'm curious about the plans behind meeting with branding specialists. What
is the Foundation looking to achieve? Wider brand recognition of the
Foundation itself (as opposed to the English Wikipedia)? Research into brand
penetration and audience perception,
Sue Gardner wrote:
Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees [...]
From December 9-15, Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner visited India.
It is great to read this report. But the archived version has been
cut (by a software bug) at the line starting with From,
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Lars Aronsson l...@aronsson.se wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees [...]
From December 9-15, Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner visited India.
It is great to read this report. But the archived version has been
cut (by a
I'd be happy to field that.
At this stage it's very simply conversations with those who have a
deeper understanding of brand, brand architecture, and brand
development. You raise probably the most important point of
discussion (which has been around for a long time, I'm sure) - How do
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
I see you've posted a blog post (
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/13232) which suggests that
attribution by link was added in 2.5. You point to this a blog post by Mia
Garlick
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees [...]
From December 9-15, Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner visited India.
It is great to read this report. But the archived version has been
cut (by a software bug) at the line starting with From,
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Mike Linksvayer
m...@creativecommons.orgwrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
I see you've posted a blog post (
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/13232) which suggests that
attribution by link was added in 2.5.
either by, at your choice, including
at your choice is unnecessarily verbose. The sentence has the same
meaning without the extra clause.
Ryan Kaldari
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
In 1.0 and 2.0 I assume the appropriate section is 4(d).
Nevermind that, it's 4(c).
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
2009/3/11 Lars Aronsson l...@aronsson.se:
Since the report was distributed just fine, I think that Mailman
is fine, but the bug hides somewhere in Pipermail 0.09. It is
perhaps related to ^From being a message separator in the mbox
format.
I noticed this as well; I'll try resending the
2009/3/11 Mark (Markie) newsmar...@googlemail.com:
snip
We also
received major gifts totaling USD 94m.
/snip
:O is this a typo or is it actually correct? Also if its possible could we
have slightly more info about who the donations were from and whether they
were targeted/restricted to
[Resending for archival purposes on Sue's behalf; also fixed typo:
94m-94K --Erik]
Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
Covering: December 2008
Prepared by:Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Prepared for: Wikimedia Foundation Board
2009/3/10 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Erik Moeller wrote:
b) a link to an
alternative online copy which is freely accessible and conforms with
the license and includes a list a list of all authors,
What is the purpose of the wording and
includes a list a list of all authors,
2009/3/10 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com:
This is unclear. but must otherwise can be read to apply only to
rich media that are 5+ collaborations and for which a reuser chooses
not to use the above same fashion author list. But I assume
attributed in the manner specified by the
2009/3/11 Ryan Kaldari kald...@gmail.com:
either by, at your choice, including
at your choice is unnecessarily verbose. The sentence has the same
meaning without the extra clause.
Removed it from the draft.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge:
2009/3/11 Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com:
From an attribution point of view, the definition of full list of authors
that excludes very small contributions is not really acceptable to me.
Imagine, that Joe only corrects spelling mistakes: arguably very small
contributions - you wouldn't say
2009/3/11 geni geni...@gmail.com:
Importing wikipedia content would be an absolute pain
Why? The language doesn't require you to include a full list of
authors. Only if you want your copy to be a link-creditable copy,
you would need to do so.
and moveing
article titles would result in some
I exactly agree with Brigette on this one. This is the way to treat
all articles on their actual merits. But in
many cases the subject himself will come to the afd and express an
opinion, and we can not prevent that.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
In 1.0 and 2.0 I assume the appropriate section is 4(d). The
change from 1.0 to 2.0 adds a requirement to specify a URL.
Copyright (and also the European author's rights / Urheberrecht)
used to be all about making copies, presumably physical copies. In
trials such as the one
[I've changed the subject line.]
2009/3/11 Lars Aronsson l...@aronsson.se:
If the content is free, people don't need to drink from our
watertap. It's the water that's important, not the tap. We could
have a minimal webserver to receive new edits. Serving replication
feeds to a handful of
2009/3/11 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/3/11 geni geni...@gmail.com:
Importing wikipedia content would be an absolute pain
Why? The language doesn't require you to include a full list of
authors. Only if you want your copy to be a link-creditable copy,
you would need to do so.
Is
2009/3/11 geni geni...@gmail.com:
Why? The language doesn't require you to include a full list of
authors. Only if you want your copy to be a link-creditable copy,
you would need to do so.
Is provideing credit reasonable to the medium or means an additional
requirement?
No; the attribution
2009/3/11 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/3/11 geni geni...@gmail.com:
Why? The language doesn't require you to include a full list of
authors. Only if you want your copy to be a link-creditable copy,
you would need to do so.
Is provideing credit reasonable to the medium or means an
Erik Moeller wrote:
2009/3/10 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Erik Moeller wrote:
b) a link to an
alternative online copy which is freely accessible and conforms with
the license and includes a list a list of all authors,
What is the purpose of the wording and
Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
Covering: January 2009
Prepared by:Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Prepared for: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
MY CURRENT PRIORITIES
1. World Economic Forum at Davos
2. Annual
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
Covering: January 2009
Btw, Brion, this last one had the same problem... maybe it just hates
Sue? (Sending to list too, because there's no doubt
Erik Moeller wrote:
2009/3/11 geni geni...@gmail.com:
Importing wikipedia content would be an absolute pain
Why? The language doesn't require you to include a full list of
authors. Only if you want your copy to be a link-creditable copy,
you would need to do so.
The language
Erik Moeller wrote:
2009/3/11 Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com:
From an attribution point of view, the definition of full list of authors
that excludes very small contributions is not really acceptable to me.
Imagine, that Joe only corrects spelling mistakes: arguably very small
Brian wrote:
I'm not really clear on what a link is. You specify it as a URL, but a
URL alone does not constitute a link. A link is the rendering of this
code:
a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page;label/a
But the proposed attribution guideline says absolutely nothing about
what
33 matches
Mail list logo
