On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi folks,
This is just a quick interim update on the BLP issue I raised here last week.
First, there seems to be a general view that BLPs are a problem that
is worth addressing. I won't recap all the reasons for
Hi,
Wikimedia Polska Conference 2009 s a fourth event organized by the
Wikimedia Polska to encourage ideas, exchange of Wikimedia projects
users in Poland and people connected with free software, free
knowledge and free culture in a information
society. We invite everyone interested in all areas
Hoi,
It is with pleasure that we announce that we have enlarged the language
committee with SPQRobin. Robin is the longest serving administrator on the
Incubator and we hope to make the procedure of getting new projects started
more obvious and clear.
On the incubator many projects start without
Sue Gardner wrote:
So .. that is my rough, quick recap of where I think we're at.
In terms of next steps – as I said, I'll be speaking about this issue
with the board in early April. This is just an interim note: Please
feel free to help me further my thinking on all this -particularly #1
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/6 Mike Linksvayer m...@creativecommons.org:
Yes.
Mike (not the CC counsel but just spoke to her)
And what was the exact wording of the question asked and what was the
line of reasoning?
The question was whether
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer m...@creativecommons.org
wrote:
p.s. Personally, discussions of offline here and everywhere (say,
accessibility of educational materials) are absurdly myopic.
Consideration of offline use is about as relevant now as consideration
of horse
2009/3/9 Mike Linksvayer m...@creativecommons.org:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/6 Mike Linksvayer m...@creativecommons.org:
Yes.
Mike (not the CC counsel but just spoke to her)
And what was the exact wording of the question asked and what was the
2009/3/8 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/3/7 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
Ultimately it does not seem reasonable to force the printing of a URL
on non-hypertext mediums.
I still believe we ought to avoid explicit distinction between media
forms because I think these distinctions
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer m...@creativecommons.org
wrote:
p.s. Personally, discussions of offline here and everywhere (say,
accessibility of educational materials) are absurdly myopic.
Consideration
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer m...@creativecommons.org
wrote:
p.s. Personally, discussions of offline here and everywhere
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com:
And Kenyans would care about US and European copyright laws? :))) And
we would care why they didn't attribute us? In such cases, those who
care from both sides are maybe ignorants, maybe idealists, but they
are definitely stupid.
Kenyan copyright law
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:28 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com:
Should we treat such persons systematically or it is better to add
some exceptional rules? Something like to give a mandate to WMF to
solve problems
horrificly bad question?
Surely you can't be serious? This is just sensationalism.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:40 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/9 Mike Linksvayer m...@creativecommons.org:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/6 Mike Linksvayer
2009/3/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
horrificly bad question?
Surely you can't be serious? This is just sensationalism.
1)It isn't actually a question so pretty much by definition a bad question
2)It's a rather vague pseudo question about a legal matter which is
always a bad idea which
2009/3/8 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
1) There is a big unresolved question around whether, if
marginally-notable people ask to have their articles deleted, that
request should be granted. My sense -both from the
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Zaharias Diakonikolaou
zadiak1...@gmail.com wrote:
The Pontic wikipedia has launched! Everyone is welcome to participate in the
project. Also, I would like to thank Brion Vibber because he responded to my
mail and arranged the launch of the wikipedia.
Why is the
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com:
So, they don't care about their own copyright law.
Common law is very much driven by legal precedent. Looking to see what
similar legal systems have done is a fairly common approach.
That
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/3/4 Anthony:
What constitutes a significant majority? What if the survey results had
said that a significant majority was happy with their work being released
into the public domain. Would you then find it reasonable to release
*everyone's* work into the public
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
I am curious to know if there is a wiki page somewhere, summarizing the
major points (and differences) between the different languages BLP
policies (and actually, if there is or not a BLP policy...).
Did someone
We should take it as seriously as we would any other statement from
someone with Conflict of interest--seriously, but with great caution.
It does not have the usual presumption of encyclopedic purpose.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/3/8 Nathan
David Gerard wrote:
Remember that licenses are not merely a game of Nomic, but responses
to a given legal threat model.
Not necessarily a given legal threat, but an even weaker perceived
legal threat.
In this case, the threat model is: what if some raving and/or
malicious lunatic who has
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Sage Ross wrote:
This is a typical pattern when a complex technology is introduced in
the presence of a simpler one; it's not a simple matter of
replacement, and old technologies (where the infrastructure is easy to
Hi folks,
The last Report to the Board that I published here was the October
one, published December 13. I owe you November, December, January and
February.
First, I'd like to sincerely apologize for the delay. There's no
justification for it, just a number of factors coincided to make me
23 matches
Mail list logo
