On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
If bitcoin is still in use after the minting reward dries up, we will
have a situation where ever larger pools of GPUs will compete for
tranasction fees.
So I don't think it can be called zero-overhead.
I imagine that having non-US GLAMs undersand that the foundation wants
to be able to ignore what they regard as their more legitimate
copyright claims will be really helpful.
It's not about ignoring legitimate copyright claims-- we can always
decide for ourselves what is a legitimate
Hi everyone,
Just a quick reminder that Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue
Gardner will be having office hours in about 10 hours, at 17:00 UTC. There
is no pre-set topic for this conversation. As usual, documentation is on
Meta.[1]
We look forward to chatting. :)
pb
Such works belong to our global knowledge.
You can't copyright knowledge. The usual term used there is culture.
Clearly, you can copyright knowledge, for a time. True, you can't
copyright facts or scientific laws (yet)-- but some forms of knowledge
absolutely get copyrighted, and they're
On 23 June 2011 01:18, Alec Conroy alecmcon...@gmail.com wrote:
why. It's not that we're 'novel currency enthusiasts', it's not that
we're trying to undermine the US federal reserve or anything crazy or
overtly political.
I've looked at the forums. The above doesn't appear to hold.
Random
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 08:47, Alec Conroy alecmcon...@gmail.com wrote:
Such works belong to our global knowledge.
You can't copyright knowledge. The usual term used there is culture.
Clearly, you can copyright knowledge, for a time. True, you can't
copyright facts or scientific laws (yet)--
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:27 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 June 2011 01:18, Alec Conroy alecmcon...@gmail.com wrote:
why. It's not that we're 'novel currency enthusiasts', it's not that
we're trying to undermine the US federal reserve or anything crazy or
overtly
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.comwrote:
On 6/22/2011 10:14 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
I thought it was reasonably understandable, even without perfect
grammar, that Ting was saying that since Matt is no longer at Omidyar,
if your
On 23 June 2011 07:54, Alec Conroy alecmcon...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not about ignoring legitimate copyright claims-- we can always
decide for ourselves what is a legitimate copyright claim for
WMF-hosted projects.
Except the WMF just signed up in support of the EMF side which means
it's now
On 23 June 2011 15:39, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Arcane legal arguments about what the law is falls outside the
foundation's remit. We are not a lawyers benefit foundation. No the
foundation has taken a very practical real world campaigning position
which probably sounds great to a
On 23 June 2011 16:09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
At this point you are just being contrary for the sake of a row.
Citation needed. That in any case is not a valid counterpoint.
If you think the foundation's involvement will have no wider impact
feel free to make that case.
--
On 6/22/11 7:13 PM, geni wrote:
Ohh bad example. You haven't consulted commons policy have you? We
don't carry stuff on commons unless it is PD in the US and it's
country of origin.
I think you're missing the point here. This court decision isn't about
allowing us to ignore other country's
On 23 June 2011 16:17, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
If you think the foundation's involvement will have no wider impact
feel free to make that case.
Considering that that's precisely the point - that if the US starts
re-enclosing the public domain, it will use its influence to get other
On 23 June 2011 19:38, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Considering that that's precisely the point - that if the US starts
re-enclosing the public domain, it will use its influence to get other
countries to do the same - and I expressly said so upthread, well, no,
I'm not going to argue
Europe is already in line. Where the U.S. is exercising its muscle on IP
issues is mainly Latin America (where many countries like Brazil,
Belize, and Jamaica still have reasonable IP laws). The U.S. commonly
pressures Latin American countries on IP issues when negotiating trade
agreements.
Giving extremely generous donors a board seat is somewhat common
practice for charitable organizations in the United States. It's not
done as a pure quid pro quo so much as a way to foster a valuable
relationship and provide benefits in addition to cash. Wikimedia is a
little different in that its
The number of 3 million surpises me. Common hosts about 10 million items.
Are you certain this amount is approximately correct?
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Geoff Brigham gbrig...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Yesterday, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed an amicus
(friends of the
On 23 June 2011 05:05, Joseph Seddon seddonw...@gmail.com wrote:
I honestly that Matt's appointment was a fantastic thing. He is someone with
a lot of knowledge and I wouldn't have battered a eyelid if his appointment
had been made at any other time.
At the end of the day, things have moved
people working at teacher schools in switzerland approached us a couple of
times to push into a direction of *having wikipedia for different age groups
*. first discussed ideas included the *groups **kids, junior, standard, *and
* expert*. this would mean maximum four times as many articles,
On Jun 23, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
It seems to me like you're characterizing Matt-joining-the-board as
problematic, while at the same time saying Matt himself is a good
board member. That seems contradictory to me.
I'm not sure it is. I think what Joseph is saying is that Matt
What he said :)
Seddon
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 23, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
It seems to me like you're characterizing Matt-joining-the-board as
problematic, while at the same time saying Matt himself is a good
board
On 23 June 2011 13:59, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 23, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
It seems to me like you're characterizing Matt-joining-the-board as
problematic, while at the same time saying Matt himself is a good
board member. That seems contradictory to me.
It's based on the template transclusion count here:
http://toolserver.org/~jarry/templatecount/index.php?lang=commonsname=Template%3APD-Layout#bottom
Ryan Kaldari
On 6/23/11 1:01 PM, teun spaans wrote:
The number of 3 million surpises me. Common hosts about 10 million items.
Are you certain
On 6/23/2011 1:59 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
The lesson to be learned from this, I guess, is that even if you have a good
process and a good outcome, sometimes the community doesn't necessarily see
it that way, and a greater deal of proactive engagement could be helpful in
those cases. Less
On Jun 23, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
To be frank, I also disagree that changing the timing would have
improved things in any practical sense. It doesn't really obscure the
connection much, if that's even what we would want to do. And for people
who were worrying about the
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 23, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
To be frank, I also disagree that changing the timing would have
improved things in any practical sense. It doesn't really obscure the
connection much, if that's even
The evidence is in.
http://human-rights-in-cyberspace.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Portuguese_Wikipedia_language_issues/Recomenda%C3%A7%C3%B5es_de_sentido_%C3%BAnicoWanton
vandalism
Your move.
Virgilio A. P. Machado (Vapmachado)
Executive Editor,
On 23 June 2011 22:58, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I am still confused by the argument here.
I think your confusion is because you are failing to account for
perceptions. It is not good enough to just do things right, you need
to be seen to do things right. You can end up with the
Let me chime in here. Starting at the basic sentiment:
At the end of the day, things have moved on without incident but lets not
simply ignore this issue. I think that there is something to be learnt and
its that care really does need to be taken when repeating a venture like
this.
That's kinda
Michael Snow writes:
And for people who were worrying about the implications, I think setting
things up in stages is just as likely to make it look worse as to make it
look
better.
I think Michael's point here can't be overemphasized. It seems to me likely
that there would be just as much
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
It is not good enough to just do things right, you need
to be seen to do things right.
I just can't emphasize Thomas's point enough. I spent a lot of words
trying to say what he was able to say in a single sentence.
On 06/24/2011 01:58 AM, Kat Walsh wrote:
It also wasn't an easy decision to make. The question came down to
this one: do we necessarily refuse someone as a candidate solely
because they were proposed by a funder?
As a Nominating committee [1] member, I have to say a few words about
this time,
LinkedIn
James Heilman requested to add you as a connection on LinkedIn:
--
Srikant,
I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.
- James
Accept invitation from James Heilman
*facepalm*
2011/6/24, James Heilman via LinkedIn mem...@linkedin.com:
LinkedIn
James Heilman requested to add you as a connection on LinkedIn:
--
Srikant,
I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.
- James
Please don't spam the list. Kthxbai.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:44 PM, James Heilman via LinkedIn
mem...@linkedin.com wrote:
LinkedIn
James Heilman requested to add you as a connection on LinkedIn:
--
Srikant,
I'd like to add you
Wasn't actually Herman's fault. It's the email addy for the linking
account.
On Jun 24, 2011 12:10 AM, Mono mium monom...@gmail.com wrote:
Please don't spam the list. Kthxbai.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:44 PM, James Heilman via LinkedIn
mem...@linkedin.com wrote:
LinkedIn
36 matches
Mail list logo
