Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

2009-11-28 Thread Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
Let me make a few basic points here. 1. Obviously, we usually have no way of knowing what an editor's personal beliefs or even activities are, unless he or she voluntarily discloses them. 2. At least on English Wikipedia, and I assume on other projects where the issue has come up, there has been

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

2009-11-23 Thread Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
By that logic, a book, which costs money to buy, would never be a verifiable source either. We might *prefer* to cite free (gratis) accessible sources over others, all things being equal, but the fact that a source is behind a paywall does not negate verifiability. Newyorkbrad On Mon, Nov 23,

[Foundation-l] Recent copyright case regarding photographs

2009-11-21 Thread Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/081296p.pdf This is a Seventh Circuit case decided earlier this month dealing with the copyright status of photographs under U.S. law, and may be of interest to those following developments in this area. In this case, the court finds that photographs

Re: [Foundation-l] Has anyone been in touch with NPG yet?

2009-07-13 Thread Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
I'm not sure who is the appropriate person to contact the gallery to address this issue, but I hope that it can be done as tactfully and non-confrontationally as possible, and I trust that there will have been consultation with the Office before any comments of a legal nature are made.

Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1

2009-05-28 Thread Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
You know ... I can't think of a single instance in which I've ever seen Wikipedia content reused in which the GFDL was followed. In EVERY instance, the attribution has either been messed up or omitted altogether. I'm not saying this is a good thing, of course. Newyorkbrad On Thu, May 28, 2009

Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1

2009-05-27 Thread Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
Thanks for circulating this. Not to create a self-fulfilling prophecy here, but I suspect that 90% or more of those affected by this issue will not care or will not understand the urgency, and they will not do anything, either on their own sites or on-wiki. What are the practical implications of

Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1

2009-05-27 Thread Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
, with enthusiastic new authors and a constellation of supporters... they'd probably love to convert, but need someone to explain this to them in time for them to work through their own red tape. SJ 2009/5/27 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: 2009/5/27 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkb

Re: [Foundation-l] dumps

2009-02-23 Thread Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
I'm not familiar with the details of the data dump process, so I can't comment on whether it's broken or not. However, one question that I have is whether the dump includes, or should conclude, all namespaces, or only articles. In the past, there have allegedly been instances in which database

Re: [Foundation-l] dumps

2009-02-23 Thread Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
Actually, I was thinking primarily of userspace. Newyorkbrad On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:44 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/2/23 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkb...@gmail.com: However, one question that I have is whether the dump includes, or should conclude, all namespaces