On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
The vendor violates moral rights on all the items it offers for sale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%29
If you have not created a creative work, you are not the author and do
not have
stevertigo wrote:
Saw it. Liked most of it.
Diffuse, weaker on facts than theory?
So Wikipedia Review gets credited with the idea of attack page, or
something. Oddly, I think we knew all that anyway, or at least the
rudiments of the debate, pre-BLP qua policy. But that could be one for
Steve Bennett wrote:
I don't
think I'd write most known, but I wouldn't be rushing to correct it
either. I guess I'd see it as an example of poor quality writing
rather than an error as such.
Time to bid this thread goodbye. But even best known is scarcely
verifiable, so all this can be
A strawman argument occurs when a response attempts to redefine a statement
into something it isn't--something simpleminded and easier to rebut--and
then pokes at the holes it created.
Note the actual statement:
The vendor violates moral rights on all the items it offers for sale.
And the
Just FYI, I know people had talked about this before in the context of
using reCAPTCHA on wikipedia. The consensus, if I remember correctly,
was that while it was open source, they required you to use their
servers which would be an unacceptable point of failure.
Anyway, google acquired them
Hi Greg -
You're barking up the wrong tree here: none of us as individuals are
involved in moderating wiki-en-L. The moderators are found here:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l#Admins
As a general suggestion, you may find you have more success in having your
posts accepted
Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Diffuse, weaker on facts than theory?
Hm. People strong on facts, are typically weak on the theory, and
vice versa (and so on).
Also, let's not forget, the point of BLP was to give the OFFICE a
reason to continue existing. (That, and of
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
A strawman argument occurs when a response attempts to redefine a statement
into something it isn't--something simpleminded and easier to rebut--and
then pokes at the holes it created.
Note the actual statement:
The
Have you identified any items for sale which are from Wikimedia
projects and not clearly marked as being in the public domain?
Part of the reason for notifying the list was to alert other Wikimedians to
that possibility.
Luckily the ebay items have sufficient metadata that we should be
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:51 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, let's not forget, the point of BLP was to give the OFFICE a
reason to continue existing.
Wtf? This sounds like a bold, nasty claim, but perhaps I'm not
understanding what you're implying. What are you trying to say,
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
and no share of authorship. If *Time* were to plagiarize a text editor the
matter certainly would be taken seriously.
Do you think? Based on past experience, the reaction is usually to
laugh at the offending party for a)
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
Restored:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06b.jpg
Also, I'm confused. There is absolutely nothing at that page which
would indicate to me that I wasn't entitled to do what that
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
Several months ago I wrote to this list after discovering that my
restoration of US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis was being used
uncredited by *Time* magazine. To date, no one has joined my letter
writing
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Rich Holton richhol...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd say that Time magazine and the eBay culprit(s) *should* have given
Durova credit for the restoration. But the should I'm using has to do with
common decency--something that is becoming rather uncommon.
As that page
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Rich Holton richhol...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd say that Time magazine and the eBay culprit(s) *should* have given
Durova credit for the restoration. But the should I'm using has to do
15 matches
Mail list logo
