Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against "copyleft"

[jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:

> Andre Engels wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:17 PM,   wrote:
> >
> > A video of an amateur singer trying to sing a song is also a copyright
> > violation - they are publishing the song, and do not own the copyright
> > on either text or melody.
>
> It *is* a violation, and that is a part of the problem.  The bloody
> awful YouTube singer does, however, receive performance copyrights for
> what he does.  Copyright by default means that anything, however bad or
> trivial, has copyrights; this includes the weekly flyer from your local
> supermarket. For all of the faults of US copyright law there was much
> positive to be said about the former registration and renewal system.
>

see this article on the work someone did to license some songs for a cover
cd :
http://www.cleverjoe.com/articles/music_copyright_law.html

For public performance of a song on youtube , it would fall under copyright:
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html

hope that helps :

James Michael DuPont
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?

[Tim Starling]

On 29/06/10 09:11, Martin Maurer wrote:
> The question is, what level of self-determination do the 260 language
> versions of Wikipedia have as to the design of their user interfaces
> (skins)? Can individual wikis choose independently modifications of
> their skins, and which of the available skins to use as the default
> for unregistered users, or is this controlled centrally by the
> Foundation?

[...]

> The question seems to be a very fundamental one and I would also
> appreciate insights into the big picture. How independent are the
> language versions? To what degree can they govern themselves and to
> what degree are they bound by decisions made centrally by the
> Foundation?

Editor communities do not have any fundamental rights to choose how
MediaWiki is configured. However, the Foundation's goals are closely
aligned with those of the communities, and the Foundation respects the
central role communities play in the success of the projects, and so
the Foundation has usually honoured such configuration requests.

In this case, I would recommend a process of negotiation. Detail your
concerns in Bugzilla, and give the developers time to respond to them.
A premature vote on the issue would make compromise difficult. The
Foundation has spent a lot of time and money on the Vector skin, and
it would be a pity to see it thrown away.

-- Tim Starling


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] final (*) strategy office hours on Tuesday

[susanpgardner]

I'm actually not sure if I managed to get scheduled for office hours anytime 
soon -- James has been a bit swamped with board meeting prep, so I haven't 
asked him.

But I'll CC Cary and James on this note, and maybe they can get it fitted into 
my sked sometime pre-Wikimania.  That'd be good, I think, since the 2010-11 
plan will be published soon, and I'd be happy to talk about it.

(I'm in Madrid pre-Wikimania too, which would make Euro-centric office hours 
way more doable for me than they normally are.)

Thanks,
Sue
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Dalton 
Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 01:55:50 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] final (*) strategy office hours on Tuesday

On 29 June 2010 01:50, John Vandenberg  wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Eugene Eric Kim  wrote:
>> Our final (*) strategic planning office hours ..
>> ...
>> * Several people have discussed continuing the weekly office hours
>> beyond the scope of this project, which I think is a wonderful idea.
>> I'm sure this will also be discussed tomorrow.
>
> Sue said she would like to attend an IRC office hours.
>
> http://old.nabble.com/WMF-investment-strategy-td28837343.html
>
> Is this still on the cards?

The "office hours" (a Q&A session with a particular member of WMF
staff) are different from the "strategy office hours" (a weekly
meeting of anyone interested in the strategy project). The strategy
office hours are coming to an end, but the office hours will continue.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] final (*) strategy office hours on Tuesday

[Thomas Dalton]

On 29 June 2010 01:50, John Vandenberg  wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Eugene Eric Kim  wrote:
>> Our final (*) strategic planning office hours ..
>> ...
>> * Several people have discussed continuing the weekly office hours
>> beyond the scope of this project, which I think is a wonderful idea.
>> I'm sure this will also be discussed tomorrow.
>
> Sue said she would like to attend an IRC office hours.
>
> http://old.nabble.com/WMF-investment-strategy-td28837343.html
>
> Is this still on the cards?

The "office hours" (a Q&A session with a particular member of WMF
staff) are different from the "strategy office hours" (a weekly
meeting of anyone interested in the strategy project). The strategy
office hours are coming to an end, but the office hours will continue.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] final (*) strategy office hours on Tuesday

[John Vandenberg]

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Eugene Eric Kim  wrote:
> Our final (*) strategic planning office hours ..
> ...
> * Several people have discussed continuing the weekly office hours
> beyond the scope of this project, which I think is a wonderful idea.
> I'm sure this will also be discussed tomorrow.

Sue said she would like to attend an IRC office hours.

http://old.nabble.com/WMF-investment-strategy-td28837343.html

Is this still on the cards?

--
John Vandenberg

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikimania-l] Program Schedule

[phoebe ayers]

Fwd'ing to Foundation-l for those not on the Wikimania list. Jacek has
managed to wrangle a great Wikimania schedule out of chaos :)

-- phoebe


-- Forwarded message --
From: Jankowski, Jacek 
Date: Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:21 PM
Subject: [Wikimania-l] Program Schedule
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"



Dear All,



I have just made the “final schedule”* for Wikimania 2010 available
online here: http://wikimania2010.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schedule.

Dear authors, I was doing my best to plan the sessions according to
your requests regarding time needed for presentations/workshops/etc.
and your availability. However, I still need you to review it and tell
me if you can be present on given time.



Best regards,

 Jacek Jankowski

 Wikimania 2010 PC Chair



*Subject to change…;)

___
Wikimania-l mailing list
wikimani...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against "copyleft"

[Ray Saintonge]

Andre Engels wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:17 PM,   wrote:
>   
>> When I go to YouTube, the number of videos which are some bad amateur
>> singer trying to sing some good song far outweigh the number of original 
>> videos
>> of that song/group.  The amount of free content in music, in general is
>> rapidly approaching or perhaps past par with all professional music ever 
>> created
>> to this day.
>> 
> A video of an amateur singer trying to sing a song is also a copyright
> violation - they are publishing the song, and do not own the copyright
> on either text or melody. They probably won't be prosecuted over it,
> but legally they are violating copyright.
>   

It *is* a violation, and that is a part of the problem.  The bloody 
awful YouTube singer does, however, receive performance copyrights for 
what he does.  Copyright by default means that anything, however bad or 
trivial, has copyrights; this includes the weekly flyer from your local 
supermarket. For all of the faults of US copyright law there was much 
positive to be said about the former registration and renewal system.

> Copyright laws were mostly created in a time when situations were
> different. There used to be a group of content creators, and a general
> public. Copyright was mostly a right from one content creator to
> another - you should not publish the book, song, whatever that I own
> the copyright on. The public at large did not have the means to
> publish, so copyright laws might as well not apply to them. What they
> could do was so inconsequential (write over a chapter of a book, sing
> a song in presence of their coworkers) that nobody minded exceptions
> being made for them.
>   
I see it as more between content father creators and filial publishers 
than between content creators alone. Since the general public's holy 
ghost had no dog in the fight it had no part in the eventual 
agreements.  Copyright was a social contract between creators and 
publishers, and that still underlies its philosophy in common law 
countries.  Leave it to the  French to fuck up the balance by 
associating it with the rights of man and moral rights!

Now the public does have an interest in the fight, but mostly without 
any interest in making money out of it. That calls for a review of what 
copyright is all about from the ground up. That's a far more substantial 
discussion than the enforcement discussions that the publishers would 
prefer.  It's the publishers, not the creators, that stand to lose the 
most; they have every reason to see the holy ghost kicked out of the 
trinity.

> In the last few decades this changed. Automatic copying became cheaper
> and simpler with photocopiers, tape recorders, video recorders
> becoming mass products. Still, their impact was relatively minor.
> Although copyright industry saw these things as very problematic, they
> were mostly used to make single or few copies. Few people would make
> hundreds of copies of a single work to send them out. Fewer still did
> so for money. Many more people had the ability to become content
> publishers, but most of them did not use it.
>
> Then came the internet, enabling every single one of us to make our
> work available on an unprecedented scale. And with that the borderline
> between public and content publishers really came down. And with that,
> copyright became applied to situations totally different from the ones
> for which it was created. It used to be clear that if you put a poem
> in a book that sold in the shops, part of the proceedings should go to
> the poet. It used to be clear that nobody had anything to do with it
> if you put that same poem in your diary. But now, people are making
> their diaries (blogs) available for everyone, without getting any kind
> of compensation for the effort. Large amounts of non-professional,
> non-commercial publishing to potentially huge audiences is a situation
> that copyright laws did not foresee. Unfortunately, instead of
> realizing that the effect of copyright laws, intended to protect the
> rights of one commercial publisher against another are draconian when
> applied to such a different situation, where the average citizen is
> the one being affected, the main reaction seems to be to make the laws
> even stricter.
>
>   
In theory at least, the laws were there primarily to protect the 
creators, not the publishers.  Enforcement of copyright law should 
primarily be the responsibility of the owner of the right, not of the 
state except in the case of egregious and wilful violation where a 
higher burden of proof would also prevail.  The other point is that 
damages should need to be proven with evidence, and should in no way 
depend on speculative analysis about what the public might want to see 
or hear.  It serves no-one (except lawyers) when the costs of legal 
actions far exceed actual damages.

Ray

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.

[Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?

[Martin Maurer]

Hello,

I posted this yesterday at wikitech-l and was told to ask this
question here at foundation-l.

I'm a member of the German language Wikipedia community and have a
question that no-one could give me a definite answer to so far. I hope
someone here can answer it, or point me to where I should go to get a
definite answer.

The question is, what level of self-determination do the 260 language
versions of Wikipedia have as to the design of their user interfaces
(skins)? Can individual wikis choose independently modifications of
their skins, and which of the available skins to use as the default
for unregistered users, or is this controlled centrally by the
Foundation?

For backgrund, this question arose after the German language Wikipedia
(de.wikipedia.org) was switched from Monobook to Vector as the default
skin on the 10th of June 2010, resulting in considerable criticism
from the community. On the more sober side of the debate, it was asked
whether it would be theoretically possible to return to Monobook as
the default skin, at least for some time until the biggest known
issues with Vector have been fixed. Under the theoretical scenario
that a majority voted for a return to Monobook as the default skin,
would it be possible at all to switch it back? Or would the Foundation
not permit that?

The question seems to be a very fundamental one and I would also
appreciate insights into the big picture. How independent are the
language versions? To what degree can they govern themselves and to
what degree are they bound by decisions made centrally by the
Foundation?

Thanks,
Martin

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] final (*) strategy office hours on Tuesday

[Eugene Eric Kim]

Our final (*) strategic planning office hours will be on Tuesday, June
29, at 21:00-22:00 UTC. Local timezones are available at:

http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?year=2010&month=6&day=29&hour=20&min=0&sec=0&p1=0

As always, you can access the chat by going to
https://webchat.freenode.net and filling in a username and the channel
name (#wikimedia-strategy). You may be prompted to click through a
security warning. It's fine. More details at:

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours

We'll be talking about an upcoming Call for Action, movement
priorities, and Wikimania.

Since it will be our last (*), we hope many of you will join us. If
you can't make it, don't worry; we're also planning a virtual
celebration.

=Eugene

* Several people have discussed continuing the weekly office hours
beyond the scope of this project, which I think is a wonderful idea.
I'm sure this will also be discussed tomorrow.

-- 
==
Eugene Eric Kim  http://xri.net/=eekim
Blue Oxen Associates  http://www.blueoxen.com/
==

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia"

[Ting Chen]

Hello Ziko,

speaking for myself. I am for such an approach. But I would also like to 
see such a project, because it is so important, to be prepared 
carefully. The suggestions is not made the first time, and last time 
when the suggetion was on meta, it was discussed until no one can give 
it a chance anymore.

I also don't see such a project really as a compititor to the "adult" 
Wikipedia. I think both projects can benefit from each other alot.

Now one step back. Encyclopedia for kids is not new. A lot of classic 
encyclopedia has their kid version. This shows that a kid encyclopedia 
is not just an encyclopedia in "dumn" language. Contrarily, I think a 
kid encyclopedia is far more challenging to write, because you need more 
pedagogic skills. And building up such skills by our contributors can 
again benefit Wikipedia. There are also other online kid encyclopedia 
from which we can learn from their experiences. I definitively would 
like to see what Robert would find out in this respect and how his 
research can encourage us or help us in this new endeavor.

Greetings
Ting

Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It seems to me doubtless that there is a substantial number of active
> Wikimedians who see the need in a simple or children-encyclopedia and
> would like to invest some of their own sweat, blood and tears. Others,
> who disagree, may stand on the side line and comment if they like.
>
> There are a lot of single questions when defining the exact scope
> etc., but the main question remains: Would WMF accept such a project,
> or would it reject it for being just another Wikipedia in already
> existing languages. So, how different the new project must be from
> Wikipedia. The original fear is that a linguistic group is split into
> two communities whereas the forces usually should be concentrated in
> one Wikipedia. A Wikipedia in "simple English", we were told, is
> essentially a Wikipedia in English.
>
> But if a project, for example, directs itself to a relativeley limited
> group of readers (children), with consequences for the content
> (limited length of articles, no explicit images), usage of language
> (no hard words), wouldn't it be different enough from a "usual"
> Wikipedia?
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
> 2010/6/27 Ting Chen :
>   
>> Hello Milos,
>>
>> reading your mail below I am wondering why your reaction on my first
>> mail was so aggressive. It looks to me as if your consideration is not
>> that far away from mine. Especially I wrote in my suggestion that first
>> of all the project must have a very clearly defined scope and audiance,
>> second that it should have a more rigid editorial and anti-vandal
>> mechanism and third that we need more research.
>>
>> Greetings
>> Ting
>>
>> Milos Rancic wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Mark Williamson  wrote:
>>>
>>>   
 The difference was that Wikipedia was not made for young people.

 If I run a social group for adults and there are issues with children
 who visit, I can blame it on their parents and say they should control
 them better. If I run a social group for children, I'm now a childcare
 provider and have a greater degree of responsibility.

 
>>> It is not [just] about blaming each other. It is about underestimating
>>> child capacities and playing with their trust.
>>>
>>> Child is perfectly able to recognize what is "for adults" and what is
>>> "for children": everything not marked ("marked" in various ways) as
>>> "for children" is for adults. And they are able to treat differently
>>> those two types of phenomena. "For adults" is not safe, while "for
>>> children" is safe. Depending on circumstances, "for children"
>>> phenomena could be also boring to them, but safe.
>>>
>>> And if we want to make a project in which children will trust as safe,
>>> we have much higher responsibility than we have for creating any other
>>> project not marked as a "project for children".
>>>
>>> ___
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>   
>> --
>> Ting
>>
>> Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>> 
>
>
>
>   


-- 
Ting

Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against "copyleft"

[Ray Saintonge]

Jeffrey Peters wrote:
> Dear David,
>
> I'm going to donate to their cause.
>
> Music lyrics, just like poems and novels, should not be stolen and published
> everywhere, and yet it is. It is people like you that give the internet a
> bad name. I produce my own content and donate it because I chose to. You
> promote the taking of others who have not consented. To use this list to
> promote your own selfish desires bothers me.
>
> I would think it would only be right for you to lose access to this list for
> acting so inappropriately.
>   

Old bullshit never dies. I was just reading an article in a similar 
vein, "The Ethics of Copyright" by Grant Allen in the December 1880 
issue of /Macmillan's Magazine/.  It still hasn't grown any roses. . . 
which says something about its lack of fertility.

By and large those who most loudly harangue about piracy fail to notice 
that interest here is seldom about reproducing the lyrics of current 
popular music, but about gathering the flotsam of intellectual efforts. 
The law of the sea clearly distinguishes between piracy and gathering 
flotsam. If the taking of music lyrics constitutes theft, no-one is more 
capable of maintaining that monopoly than the recording industry.

It often seems too that the Law of Copyright comes into conflict with 
the Law of Supply and Demand.  Your excellent articles about various 
significant poems of the English language may be excellent examples of 
original research that clearly deserves to be in Wikipedia, but demand 
is not solely derived from the excellence of an author's efforts.  The 
patent office records are replete with records of ideas that easily 
passed the test of originality, but whose utility was abysmally 
laughable.  Those inventors, like many authors, inflate the value of 
their own efforts well beyond the demand, and without regards to the 
effects of competition.  The costs of producing physical copies of even 
the best articles of literary criticism far exceeds the price that the 
market will bear.  The writer's efforts could be assembled in an 
anthology, but the the buyer needs to buy a packet of irrelevant 
material to have that one gem.  If that one gem constitutes 5% of an 
anthology, no publisher is suggesting that I could have a copy of that 
article alone for 5% of the price.

Novels may contain enough material to support separate marketing, but I 
would welcome a realistic analysis of the economics of a single sonnet.

Ray
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:35 PM, geni  wrote:
>
>   
>> On 25 June 2010 23:04, David Gerard  wrote:
>> 
>> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/
>> 
>>> They're actually gathering money to fight free content.
>>>
>>> We may need to do something about this.
>>>
>>>
>>> - d.
>>>   
>> They are effectively trying to fight contract law though which is
>> unlikely to end will for them.
>>
>> 


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia"

[Samuel J Klein]

Hi Ziko,

On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> It seems to me doubtless that there is a substantial number of active
> Wikimedians who see the need in a simple or children-encyclopedia and
> would like to invest some of their own sweat, blood and tears.

Yes.  This is happening already, on simple and external sites like Vikidia.


> The main question remains: Would WMF accept such a project,

Yes.

> or would it reject it for being just another Wikipedia in already
> existing languages.

I know of no such Foundation-wide policy.  Please help contribute to
guidelines you would like to see for when a new project can be created
in an existing language.

> The original fear is that a linguistic group is split

I should think that in this case the idea would be to attract new
editors.  We have a general problem of 'old' projects not being so
friendly to newbies, so trying to centralize all effort in old
projects may not be the best way to grow, in any case.


SJ

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Serbia billboard campaign

[Ole Palnatoke Andersen]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> Actually, we've been already discussing the idea how to spread this
> all over Europe, as Alma Quatro has network in a number of European
> countries where WM chapters exist.

They appear to have connection to JCDecaux, who are pretty big in some
countries, including Denmark..

-Ole, WMDK


-- 
http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Serbia billboard campaign

[Milos Rancic]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Mariano Cecowski
 wrote:
> "Džimi Vejls"; makes me laugh every time. :)
> Do the billboards on the street have anything written?

There were a lot of discussions how to transliterate "Wales" in
Serbian. As Jimmy's name is the same as the name for the country Wales
and we have traditional pronunciation/spelling Vels, it was the first
option. Then, we asked Jimmy how he would like to have his surname
transcribed, which was "Vejls" :)

> PS: Kako da Mari ni u cirilici?

It is possible to write in both alphabets on Wikipedia in Serbian. If
you want to see the article in the other alphabet, you should click on
"ћирлица" (or "latinica") tab.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Serbia billboard campaign

[Milos Rancic]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:30 AM, James Alexander  wrote:
>  Cheers! They look great! Something like this is spectacular and I wish we
> could see more around the world. I'd love to see some data on whether you
> guys are getting a good jump in traffic. I'm sure I can find some for the
> wiki in the morning do you know how active your webpage has been so far?

Actually, we've been already discussing the idea how to spread this
all over Europe, as Alma Quatro has network in a number of European
countries where WM chapters exist.

Presently, the project is in its early stages. During the autumn we
will have much better clue for everything related to the project.

I have statistics of the project site. There are ~80 unique visits
today, of which ~20 in the last 30 minutes. 80% of all visits are
direct (other 20% are from this mailing list, from Wikipedia Signpost
and similar).

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Serbia billboard campaign

[James Alexander]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Mariano Cecowski <
marianocecow...@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

>
>
> --- El dom 27-jun-10, Milos Rancic  escribió:
>
> > De: Milos Rancic 
> > Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Serbia billboard campaign
> > Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Fecha: domingo, 27 de junio de 2010, 18:39
> > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:38 PM,
> > Milos Rancic 
> > wrote:
> > > Now we have Jimmy's and Stallman's billboards all over
> > Belgrade. I'll
> > > send photos ASAP. For now, there are their images at
> > > http://likilik.org/
> > >
> >
> > http://likilink.org/
>
> "Džimi Vejls"; makes me laugh every time. :)
> Do the billboards on the street have anything written?
>
> BTW; Isidora looks great!
>
> Cheers,
> MarianoC.-
>
> PS: Kako da Mari ni u cirilici?
>
>
> 
>

 Cheers! They look great! Something like this is spectacular and I wish we
could see more around the world. I'd love to see some data on whether you
guys are getting a good jump in traffic. I'm sure I can find some for the
wiki in the morning do you know how active your webpage has been so far?


James Alexander
james.alexan...@rochester.edu
jameso...@gmail.com
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Serbia billboard campaign

[Mariano Cecowski]

--- El dom 27-jun-10, Milos Rancic  escribió:

> De: Milos Rancic 
> Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Serbia billboard campaign
> Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
> Fecha: domingo, 27 de junio de 2010, 18:39
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:38 PM,
> Milos Rancic 
> wrote:
> > Now we have Jimmy's and Stallman's billboards all over
> Belgrade. I'll
> > send photos ASAP. For now, there are their images at
> > http://likilik.org/
> >
> 
> http://likilink.org/

"Džimi Vejls"; makes me laugh every time. :)
Do the billboards on the street have anything written?

BTW; Isidora looks great!

Cheers,
MarianoC.-

PS: Kako da Mari ni u cirilici?


  

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l