Can you explain why we need this proposed process? The decision has
been made to form a committee to make recommendations to the WMF board
about funds dissemination. The only decision still to be made, as far
as I can see, is who should be on the committee.
What questions do you want to answer
Thanks for posting this, Phoebe. My question about what you intend to
do over the next 3 years wasn't answered. There is no point waiting
three years and then re-evaluating the situation if you haven't made
sure you've been gathering all the right information during those 3
years and that you are
On 5 April 2012 19:14, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, Tom. If you don't mind I'll put it on the talk page; this will
likely require some discussion to answer.
By all means.
___
foundation-l mailing list
On 5 April 2012 02:05, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:45 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
wrote:
Has this been an observed issue within the WMF?
In some areas. In my view, a well-functioning agile team is
self-organizing and self-managed, and it's
On 31 March 2012 06:45, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no requirement to know everything. There is a requirement to
make decisions in the best interests of the organisation, *as you see
it*. If a trustee persistently abstains on the big decisions because
they cant see *it*
On 31 March 2012 22:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
P.s.: It's a bit weird to focus so much on the reasons to oppose; why should
opposing be justified /more/ than supporting?
There's supposed to be a QA coming that will explain the supports.
I just sent this to internal-l, because I hadn't seen this thread.
This discussion should, of course, happen in public, so I'll repeat
myself here:
Thank you very much for this prompt announcement. I am glad to see the
WMF board is open to some fundraising by chapters, but I would
appreciate some
On 30 March 2012 23:17, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Since payment processing is not contemplated as a vector for receiving
funds, either in 2012 or beyond, it makes sense to permit processing only
where it provides a significant advantage in raising funds and where the
reliability and
On 31 March 2012 01:37, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas, I think 2015 is chosen because FDC is set to be evaluated at the
end of 2014, following which, either it would act as the buffer on those
issues or get back to the drawing board.
But evaluated against what criteria? And what
On 31 March 2012 02:03, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
I expect that the minutes will explain the varied positions of the
board. If not, then the board should put in place procedures to
prevent abuse of abstains.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by abuse of abstains?
On 31 March 2012 05:56, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
An abstention is a refusal to vote. By doing this, a trustee must
have a good reason, such as conflict of interest, and it should be
minuted why, or they are refusing the duties of their appointment and
should be removed.
To
On 31 March 2012 06:13, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
if you cant decide whether something is good or bad for the
organisation, you are ill prepared for the vote (a procedural
problem), or you are incompetent.
Either that, or you're honest. Nobody knows everything (except me, of
Phoebe,
As important as the ongoing discussions and debate over fundraising
and funds dissemination are, it concerns me that the WMF board is
using one of its few in-person meetings to discuss almost nothing but
fundraising and funds dissemination. Fundraising is a means to an end,
nothing more.
On 21 March 2012 13:53, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
Everybody knows that reversing stagnating/declining participation
in Wikimedia's projects is our top priority.
Thank you for sharing this.
How much discussion has there been internally about this being the wrong
On 18 March 2012 21:18, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
Some further comments, having read the related pages in more depth:
- To what legal body will the duties be paid?
The idea is that the council will be a new legal body.
- What is the purpose of duties exactly (there
I thought they had already stopped... I'm sure I remember an
announcement like this a year or two ago... does anyone know what it
is I'm remembering?
On 13 March 2012 22:49, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
2010's 32-volume set will be its last. (Now I want to get one, to
replace my old
On 11 March 2012 11:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 March 2012 11:19, Robert Alvarez vez...@gmail.com wrote:
I see at least two current Arbcom members posting there quite recently and
even responding to requests of banned users to do things on their behalf on
Wikipedia (such
There is really no point posting something like this without giving a
link to the images and discussions in question. The best posting here
is going to do is attract more attention to the question and get a
more vigorous discussion about it, but it can't do that if you don't
give a link.
I don't
On 11 March 2012 13:23, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't that be because the WMF, and the bulk of its spending, is based in
the U.S.? It would seem logical, then, that most of its funding is needed
there as well.
The bulk of its spending might be in the US, but a large minority
isn't.
On 5 March 2012 20:22, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 March 2012 14:54, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk
wrote:
Silly question for you all:
Is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_cake.jpg actually
copyrighted to the WMF as a WMF logo? The cake was made for
On 5 March 2012 23:14, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
eating the cake would damage the moral rights of the logo author. Since he
cannot give general permission to violate moral rights, eating the cake
would be illegal.
If you take a slice out of the cake, that could be an issue
On Mar 1, 2012 10:55 AM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote:
I would correct that not *all* chapters board members have access in
internal.
The number of subscriptions were limited to three per chapter, as I know.
It was five per chapter, but that limit was removed a while back.
On 27 February 2012 20:18, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
It looks like it's just a promotion for Wikinews. It doesn't refer to or
link anywhere else. It's not totally accurate, from what I understand of
Wikinews, but I'm not sure how it's a threat?
Yes, it is clearly talking about our
On 19 February 2012 18:06, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, 19/02/2012 08:12:
Do the people at MeatballWiki know?
Why should they care?
This is where it all started,
On 19 February 2012 20:13, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
How can we remove ten thousand comments and signatures using the users
real name or well-known handle?
With a bot (or AWB) going through the What Links Here list for your
user page. People have done that before (although maybe
On 18 February 2012 14:48, CherianTinu Abraham tinucher...@gmail.com wrote:
Am I the one person feeling that the way this debate is going in a stupid
direction that is totally irrelevant to the scope of this list ?
I thought we were to discuss Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 . Just a
gentle
I find oi, you works pretty well! ;)
On Feb 16, 2012 3:09 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 16 February 2012 12:32, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 February 2012 11:27, John Du Hart compwhi...@gmail.com wrote:
Is this really something to get upset over? It's not
On Feb 16, 2012 3:22 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
While we're on the topic, here's a public service announcement. It's
Bishakha Datta, not Bishaka Datta. The single most-frequently
misspelled name on our
On Feb 16, 2012 3:47 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I used to be really antsy over my name; to the point where, at school, I
refused to be taught by one teach for a time because she kept calling me
Tom. Nowadays even I call myself that.
Surely normal social convention
Thank you for sharing this, Ting. I think this is an excellent set of
proposals with which to start a more structured discussion than we've
currently had on this topic.
I fail to see the attack on chapters that other people are talking
about. There is a distinct difference between Chapters and
Ting,
Thank you for this. I'm confused, though. You say you want to have another
month of discussions, but I don't see any questions in your letter. What is
it you want to discuss?
Everyone that wants to has expressed their views. The numerous debates on
meta and elsewhere have reached their
On 9 February 2012 20:01, Emmanuel Engelhart emman...@engelhart.org wrote:
Without any financial autonomy (that means the ability to raise and invest
funds), a chapter can only beg for money. I do not share your vision of the
chapter's future - neither for the old nor for the young ones.
On Feb 7, 2012 1:50 PM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
Why are not that decissions taken under community consensus?
that some articles will not be featured on the main page
(although he prefers to keep that list short and it currently consists
only of the article Jenna Jameson):
On 4 February 2012 13:57, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
Strike against the collection of personal data through edit links
I have started a strike to protest against the collection of personal
information through edit links. I won't edit articles with
articleFeedbackv5_ct_token= ids in
On Feb 2, 2012 8:22 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
Would you please also comment on Russia which has a chapter consisting of
I believe seven (or nine?) members, which does not accept new members and
maintains an invitation-only mailing list (which is open not only to
chapter
On 1 February 2012 03:43, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
* Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia
community to see? *
The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the
candidate has no problem with that.
Last time, the chapters
On 1 February 2012 11:59, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote:
Really strange because the title of president and that of
vice-president belong to the board.
The title President is sometimes used by the chair of the board, but
Vice President is usually an executive, non-board, position.
On 1 February 2012 22:17, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
This is well and good, but it gives the impression that the current three
elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of
the movement, and that the opaque selection and appointment process for the
chapter
On 1 February 2012 22:36, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF,
Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no
basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any more
effective or helpful
On 1 February 2012 22:38, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
In the 2011 community board election, less than 3400 users voted.[1]
In the 2012 chapter board election, 39 chapters consisting of more
than 4000 identified people will be voting.[2]
Those 4000 people won't be voting, though.
On 1 February 2012 23:44, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedia Portugal held votes between their members to 2008 and 2010
elections. I know WMFR, WMUK and WMAR do the same, and the list can go on...
Really? If I had known WMPT had breached confidentiality like that at
the time, I
On 2 February 2012 00:06, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, from the results of the least chapter and community seats
election my opinion is that the former are *wyyy* more
en.wiki-centered than the first.
Really? How do you work that out? The current occupants of
On 2 February 2012 01:53, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, I haven't read the 50 mails yet, but how should the
candidate be chosen? By community vote? By chapter's members ? (do you
need registering ?). Will the WMF chose among them? Sorry if I missed
the relevant
On 23 January 2012 14:53, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
On the surface this is a very frivolous post. Funnily enough I have
a serious point I have been nursing along for a while. Any
list moderators listening? There are times when the mailing
list itself can be a source of
On 23 January 2012 18:09, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
Since it's unlikely the foundation mailing list will agree to enable
such a comment section on every Wikipedia article (although enabling
it is quite easy: just choose a comment extension from
On 22 January 2012 19:24, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com wrote:
Basically a charity in the USA can spend up to 20% of its expenses on direct
lobbying of related issues. Basically that means they can say this is good
and that's good - but they can't actually endorse a party or
People can subscribe and set their preferences to not receive any emails,
then they can email the list with no problems.
On Jan 22, 2012 6:44 PM, keisuke koyanagi koyakeiaa...@gmail.com wrote:
Due to a large amount of spam, emails from non-members of this list
are now automatically rejected. If
There is already a discussion page attached to every article. It's for
discussing the article, though, rather than its topic.
While we are more than a conventional encyclopedia, we are still an
encyclopaedia and I don't think we should add job and product adverts to
our articles.
If people want
On 22 January 2012 22:26, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
At this point, I'll understand if you hit me with a [citation needed]
here, and I confess that what I'm telling probably is best classified
as original research. But don't take my word for it -- talk to other
NGOs that work in the
On 22 January 2012 22:31, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
Besides this, another disadvantage of the current Talk tab is it
uses the wiki way to talk, not the typical comment section we see
under every YouTube video, Flickr image, Facebook status update, etc.
The wiki way to talk may be
On 22 January 2012 22:54, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
There's a massive selection bias there! Of course the NGOs that do
lots of lobbying think lobbying is a great idea, otherwise they
wouldn't be doing
On 22 January 2012 22:56, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Ziko,
I appreciate your email, but it seems you forgot the link. Also, I
personally strongly prefer it if you could include the actual reports in
the email. It makes searching finding much easier, as well as offline
On 22 January 2012 23:09, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I disagree - the null hypothesis is that the gain from lobbying isn't
worth the cost, not that the gain is zero. (Cost includes far more
than just
On 22 January 2012 23:08, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
They can do what academics have always done: read each other's
published works and go to conferences. If a subject is so obscure that
only a handle of researchers are involved in it, then it probably
isn't sufficiently notable to
On 22 January 2012 23:25, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
This comment section idea can be an experiment. If it does more good
than bad, we can keep it. Otherwise we can remove it. It's just as
simple as enabling/disabling a MediaWiki extension.
How would you measure how much good and
On 18 January 2012 11:48, Pronoein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 18/01/2012 05:25, Ting Chen a écrit :
* Minimal cost and minimal disruption. All Wikimedia fundraising
activities must aim to raise the maximum possible amount of money from
donors while minimizing administrative costs as much as
I advise you delay it again - we need the mailing lists at the moment
to coordinate the blackout.
On 13 January 2012 13:54, Mark Bergsma m...@wikimedia.org wrote:
(rescheduled after the cancelled maintenance of last Friday)
Hi,
Today I will be migrating the mailing lists from a very old
Just seen the datestamp... why did that email just come through now?!
On 18 January 2012 13:42, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I advise you delay it again - we need the mailing lists at the moment
to coordinate the blackout.
On 13 January 2012 13:54, Mark Bergsma m
On 12 January 2012 19:52, James Forrester jdforres...@gmail.com wrote:
To re-iterate my comment in November, I'm sure the whole Wikimedia
community would love to see as many good bids as possible. There are
already a few bids[2] on Meta, but if you or your local community are
thinking about
Check the page history - I don't think those bits were added by the
foundation.
On Jan 4, 2012 3:26 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com
wrote:
Re Tom's suggestion that we have an RFC on meta to discuss what we are and
aren't prepared to do when fundraising; We already have a
On 4 January 2012 16:24, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Check the IP history; Jan-Bart added them ;p
Now I'm on an actual computer and not trying to go through page
histories on my phone, I've taken a closer look. The bit about being
truthful was in the initial version. The other bit
On Jan 4, 2012 12:44 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
The WMF's conclusions about what banners work best are based on
extensive testing. What are yours based on?
My guts.
BTW How have those tests worked
On 31 December 2011 14:42, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone -
It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the
banners vs. reducing the number of days we need to run banners at all. It's
hard to find the right balance.
This banner isn't just
On 31 December 2011 15:36, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton, 31/12/2011 15:58:
On 31 December 2011 14:42, Zack Exleyzex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone -
It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the
banners vs. reducing the number
On 31 December 2011 17:31, Mono mium monom...@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously, get over it.
That's your attitude to the WMF misleading donors? Being honest when
raising funds in incredibly important.
___
foundation-l mailing list
On 31 December 2011 19:28, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Geni - You're being mean. On New Years Eve! Happy New Years!
Neither Geni's meanness or the date are relevant to the point he was
making. It certainly seems to be the case that the WMF doesn't
consider reducing expenditure,
On 1 January 2012 00:24, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
And when it was pointed out that a reference to Sue Gardner as
Wikipedia Executive Director was inaccurate, Zack's initial response
was We're going to test Wikimedia against Wikipedia in the banner
right now. (In other words,
On 1 January 2012 02:23, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Enough, Thomas. After a reasonable explanation of the actions taken today,
you are now dredging up complaints about *last year's* fundraiser. The
actions you're complaining about above were not repeated this year. This
is called
On 1 January 2012 02:42, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I have, Thomas - which is exactly why I commented as I did. It is you who
have raised the issue of spending in this thread, which was initially about
how annoyed some people were by a certain fundraising banner. It seems to
me that
On 31 December 2011 00:52, Jan Kučera kozuc...@gmail.com wrote:
I see following wikis hold secred information:
http://internal.wikimedia.org
http://office.wikimedia.org
http://board.wikimedia.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can NOT freely share in
the sum of all
On 27 December 2011 21:01, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
Remember there was MSN Explorer (desktop software) that let you browse MSN
and use MSN services such as Hotmail?
Remember Google Earth (desktop software) that lets you browse the Earth and
provides additional services based on
On Dec 24, 2011 8:55 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
I hope you will forgive me for being a bit terse and blunt. It is
On Dec 24, 2011 12:02 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Not...really. I'm not interested in getting more information on your
opinion *on* the AFT - we've got six emails on that so far in this
thread
Can someone summarise for me the current status of this strike idea?
Jimmy held an informal strawpoll on his talk page to see if there was
any support for such action, which there was (to my regret - as bad as
this act sounds, I really don't think it's a good idea). Presumably
there will be a more
I would say that technically Jimmy's statement that it was just an
informal poll to decide whether it is worth discussing further is binding.
Someone acting on that poll alone might get away with it, but it would
technically be out-of-process.
On Dec 15, 2011 12:53 AM, Kim Bruning
On 12 December 2011 15:26, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
Nothing much went wrong in the planning of this feature,
Really?!
How is not having realised that this new feature would break 1000's of
images and preventing it not something going wrong in the planning?
(And yes, I mean break -
On 12 December 2011 18:18, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:55 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
* How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously
wrongly rotated and were fixed by the feature?
* How many existing uploads, used on the
On 12 December 2011 20:05, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 12/12/2011 3:02 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
I think what he means is that under most European copyright regimes,
an author has far-reaching personality rights, which include the right
to have the work accredited to them
On 9 December 2011 11:37, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Not really. The Foundation has plenty of reserves.
I believe the figure is that they have 6 months of operating costs in reserve.
Whether you regard
On 7 December 2011 15:28, Woojin Kim kwj2...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedia Foundation fundraising is now making a misunderstanding about
Wikipedia. Some mass media report that WMF and WP is now encountering
financial difficulties so WMF urges public donation.[1][2][3] Well, I don't
know that is
On 7 December 2011 18:08, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
Well you know; at the start of the drive the foundation is short of cash.
Not really. The Foundation has plenty of reserves. The fundraising
drives aren't a desparate attempt to avoid going bankrupt. They are a
routine,
On 6 December 2011 11:45, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
+1 to Fae
This is outrageous. I would say COI notices + Disputed Neutrality notices.
Lets not get too dramatic.
And anyway; if the purpose of doing such tagging is to punish them for
their actions, well, then
On 4 December 2011 17:49, Edward Buckner peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
Interesting that Theology is not a 'vital article'. As for philosophy, none
of the main philosophical schools (nominalism, realism, scepticism,
empiricism, rationalism, existentialism etc) are mentioned. Why is this?
On 3 December 2011 21:57, Alasdair w...@ajbpearce.co.uk wrote:
Hi Megan, it is interesting to see the new fundraising banners as they are
being launched - but it would be good aswell to get more detailed information
about how they are performing. Particularly as the fundraising statistics
On 3 December 2011 22:27, Abbas Mahmood abbas...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Last month I was in Qatar and introduced some people to Wikipedia. While they
were creating their accounts, some of them had their initial suggested
username taken, so they had to repeat it a couple of times until
On 29 November 2011 21:51, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all;
We have heard many times that most Wikipedians are male, but have you heard
about gender and fundraising? Some data from a 2010 study[1] and a 2011
German study[2] (question 20th of 22). People have said that Wikipedia is a
On 29 November 2011 22:19, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/11/29 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
On 29 November 2011 21:51, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all;
We have heard many times that most Wikipedians are male, but have you
heard
about gender and fundraising? Some
On 28 November 2011 07:38, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2011/11/28 Dirk Franke dirkingofra...@googlemail.com:
Seriously: Could we please create something like the Twitter Fail Whale?
Maybe a Sad Jimbo? Could help fundraising as well..
Scattered pieces of the puzzle
It's too late for this year, since a lot of bids have already started, but
in future I would suggest formalising the currently unofficial rotation
policy.
If everyone knew in advance what continent it was going to be in, you won't
have bids that are disadvantaged from the outset because they're
On 20 November 2011 06:22, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
Step 1: Initially, the wiki's category system takes you to a broad
problem type My air conditioner doesn't work.
Step 2: On that page, the wiki will say: Check if the air conditioner
is plugged in. Does this solve your problem?
On 11 November 2011 18:39, Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com wrote:
This case has to be discussed IN THE PUBLIC. As
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe_%28WMF%29#File:DPAG_2011_55_Herren_im_Bad.jpg
gives not sufficient reasons for the decisions and no sufficient
On 30 October 2011 17:44, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
(One of my favorite things about talk pages is that, for most people,
*there is no talk page button*. There's a Discussion tab. So when
someone says Hey, just leave me a message on my talk page and I'll help
you
On 24 October 2011 09:25, Orionist orion@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure a consenus of
wikimedians is the best way to make legal decisions anyway, shouldn't we
consult an expert?
In a perfect world we'd have a legal department that vets each and every
image uploaded to Commons. The thing
2011/10/24 Carl Fürstenberg azat...@gmail.com:
It's a difference deciding if uploads of babes with big boobs are
stolen from the Internet at large or not, than to figure out if a line
drawing from World War II is free or not.
Indeed. In legal terminology, the difference is between a matter of
I agree. There is no way a derivative work being PD invalidates the
underlying copyright. That would be ridiculous. It would undermine the whole
concept of derivative works.
The deletion discussion on commons seems to have been closed prematurely.
There was hardly any discussion at all. I'm not
On 21 October 2011 16:02, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
These discussions have gone in circles for a month now, and it's the
same five or ten people (yes, I am again being rhetorical, please
don't bother checking that number) arguing past each other and posting
their entrenched
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15360864
I'm not sure of the details of this case, but it looks like it would
be worth us keeping an eye on it since it could potentially have
repercussions for us. Hopefully, the case will either be thrown out or
it will turn out to depend on the
On 10 October 2011 10:19, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 10/9/11 11:57 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Sue Gardner wrote:
Please read Ting's note carefully. The Board is asking me to work with
the community to develop a solution that meets the original
requirements as laid out
On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen tc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not opposed
to the feature. However, a significant minority is opposed.
How do you know? The referendum didn't ask whether people were opposed or not.
We are not going to
On 9 October 2011 15:12, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
the text of the May resolution to this question is ... and that the
feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both
logged-in and logged-out readers, and on the current board meeting we
decided to not ammend
1 - 100 of 821 matches
Mail list logo
