Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 1/8/09 11:02 PM, Alex at mrzmanw...@gmail.com wrote:
>> And how is the foundation supposed to resolve this? Counsel people into
>> changing their opinions? Ban people who appear to be suppressing
>> criticism? Forcibly change policies? Act as proxies for people afraid of
>>
2009/1/8 Marc Riddell :
> * A person at the Foundation level who has true, sensitive inter-personal as
> well a inter-group skills, and who would keep a close eye on the Project
> looking for impasses when they arise. The person would need to be objective
> and lobby-resistant ;-). This would be th
>>
on 1/8/09 11:02 PM, Alex at mrzmanw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> And how is the foundation supposed to resolve this? Counsel people into
> changing their opinions? Ban people who appear to be suppressing
> criticism? Forcibly change policies? Act as proxies for people afraid of
> criticism? I'm str
Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 1/8/09 9:20 PM, Erik Moeller at e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
>
>> 2009/1/8 Marc Riddell :
>>> This is pure unsubstantiated rhetoric. There are real-life, real-time
>>> problems - serious problems - that directly involve the people occurring in
>>> the English Wikipedia for ex
2009/1/8 Klaus Graf :
> You have to read the license carefully. The principle of attribution
> is codified in the preamble. "Secondarily, this License preserves for
> the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not
> being considered responsible for modifications made by othe
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:07 AM, Klaus Graf wrote:
>> it is a myth that only the 5 main authors have to be mentioned
>> according the GFDL. This refers only to the title page and I cannot
>> see such a thing like a title page in the Wikipedia.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:07 AM, Klaus Graf wrote:
> it is a myth that only the 5 main authors have to be mentioned
> according the GFDL. This refers only to the title page and I cannot
> see such a thing like a title page in the Wikipedia.
This is significant. I would like to see what does Mike G
on 1/8/09 9:20 PM, Erik Moeller at e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
> 2009/1/8 Marc Riddell :
>> This is pure unsubstantiated rhetoric. There are real-life, real-time
>> problems - serious problems - that directly involve the people occurring in
>> the English Wikipedia for example. Where is your help?
>
I have read some nonsense written by Moeller and others in this thread.
Erik Moeller
"Full duplication of history sections is only
one aspect of that overall complexity.
That said, it's always been an accepted practice for web use to
attribute by linking to the history. Because CC-BY-SA allows
at
2009/1/8 Marc Riddell :
> This is pure unsubstantiated rhetoric. There are real-life, real-time
> problems - serious problems - that directly involve the people occurring in
> the English Wikipedia for example. Where is your help?
Marc, can you give examples of what kind of help you'd like to see?
2009/1/9 Marc Riddell :
>
>>> A linguistic analysis by several experts in the
>>> field concluded that you don't have a clue about effective group management.
>
> on 1/8/09 8:41 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> WMF
>> doesn't manage its volunteer base, it keeps its hands of
>> A linguistic analysis by several experts in the
>> field concluded that you don't have a clue about effective group management.
on 1/8/09 8:41 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> WMF
> doesn't manage its volunteer base, it keeps its hands off and lets the
> community sort
> A linguistic analysis by several experts in the
> field concluded that you don't have a clue about effective group management.
Who is "you" and what group are they meant to be managing? Are you
complaining about the WMF not managing the community effectively? WMF
doesn't manage its volunteer bas
* was discussed extensively
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Brian wrote:
> Not only that, but what the relationship between the Foundation and the
> community would be was extensively on this list well before the Foundation
> become as monolithic as it is today.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:2
Not only that, but what the relationship between the Foundation and the
community would be was extensively on this list well before the Foundation
become as monolithic as it is today.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Jesse Plamondon-Willard <
pathosch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Having not
Hello,
Having not read the original thread, I can only comment on this new
thread. All the rhetoric I see here is from you, with high-minded
phrases like "people are at the heart" (as if Wikimedia staff were
non-people), a total lack of concrete points or examples, citing
"several experts in the f
I'm very happy to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation is now opening
hiring for the Wikipedia Usability Initiative!
Realized by a grant from the Stanton Foundation, the goal of this
initiative is to measurably increase the usability of Wikipedia for new
contributors by improving the underlyi
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/8 Robert Rohde :
> > I'm looking for guidance of the sort: Doing X, Y, and Z, is generally
> > sufficient to comply with CC-BY-SA. It need not be minimally
> > sufficient, and probably shouldn't be, since any advice we give ought
> > t
2009/1/8 Robert Rohde :
> I'm looking for guidance of the sort: Doing X, Y, and Z, is generally
> sufficient to comply with CC-BY-SA. It need not be minimally
> sufficient, and probably shouldn't be, since any advice we give ought
> to be at a level that is clearly black and white, and not gray.
2009/1/9 Robert Rohde :
> As a major organization with legal council, the WMF is in a much
> better position to understand what the license requires than most
> reusers.
The law however doesn't care how easy licenses are for reusers to
understand. The WMF cannot provide legal advice and in that ca
Brian wrote:
> And I can't see voting to approve the license switch until an analysis of
> dumps is included in the FAQ. That is how most re-users get the data, and
> what everyone ignores.
>
Not to dismiss the importance of dumps, certainly, but the reference to
"data" reflects an implicit lim
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
>
> > 2009/1/8 Anthony :
> > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> > Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
> > >>
> > >> Why? Wikipedia uses 1.2.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> Marc Riddell writes:
>
>> The Foundation - and those who represent it - seem to have forgotten
>> that
>> people are at the heart of what they are there to do. And, without the
>> heart, it cannot live.
on 1/8/09 4:22 PM, Mike Godwin at mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
>
> This is really an insup
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:59 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/8 Robert Rohde :
>> I concur. The WMF should clearly state what they anticipate
>> attribution to look like. Whether one agrees that the WMF position is
>> adequate might end up being an important issue in the decision on
>> whether to support
2009/1/8 geni :
> 2009/1/8 Robert Rohde :
>> I concur. The WMF should clearly state what they anticipate
>> attribution to look like. Whether one agrees that the WMF position is
>> adequate might end up being an important issue in the decision on
>> whether to support the vote. However the absen
Anthony writes:
> Fine with me if and only if you c) remove all references to my last
> name
> from all Wikimedia projects.
So you're claiming to be able to revoke our right to use your last
name? I had no idea you had licensed it under GFDL to begin with!
--Mike
_
2009/1/8 Anthony :
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/1/8 Anthony :
>> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton > >wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
>> >>
>> >> Why? Wikipedia uses 1.2.
>> >
>> >
>> > Because the WMF claims to have a license
2009/1/8 Robert Rohde :
> I concur. The WMF should clearly state what they anticipate
> attribution to look like. Whether one agrees that the WMF position is
> adequate might end up being an important issue in the decision on
> whether to support the vote. However the absence of any guidance
> a
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/8 Anthony :
> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> > Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
> >>
> >> Why? Wikipedia uses 1.2.
> >
> >
> > Because the WMF claims to have a license under GFDL 1.3 as well.
>
> Yes,
2009/1/8 Anthony :
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> > Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
>>
>> Why? Wikipedia uses 1.2.
>
>
> Because the WMF claims to have a license under GFDL 1.3 as well.
Yes, but they're not using it.
___
f
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
>
> Why? Wikipedia uses 1.2.
Because the WMF claims to have a license under GFDL 1.3 as well.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsu
> Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
Why? Wikipedia uses 1.2.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
And I can't see voting to approve the license switch until an analysis of
dumps is included in the FAQ. That is how most re-users get the data, and
what everyone ignores.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009
Anthony writes:
>> It was unclear to me that you believe you have the right to revoke
>> the
>> GFDL license you freely granted under copyright law. I'm unclear as
>> to what legal theory could be relied upon to revoke a free license.
>>
>
> I'm surprised you never learned that, but fortunatel
2009/1/8 Mike Godwin :
>
> Thomas Dalton writes:
>
>> I guess if you leave it up to the editor to do it themselves, it could
>> work, although it would still require someone to go along after them
>> fixing the mess that would inevitably result from removing random
>> chunks from the middle of arti
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:44 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/1/8 Anthony :
>
> > No, the requirement for me to inform you of the violation was just
> > introduced in GFDL 1.3.
>
>
> Presumably the legally safe thing to do would be to (b) remove all
> edits contributed by Anthony to any Wikimedia pr
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>>
>>> Anthony writes:
>>>
>>> > Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You
>>> > have no
>>> > license to distribute
2009/1/8 Anthony :
> No, the requirement for me to inform you of the violation was just
> introduced in GFDL 1.3.
Presumably the legally safe thing to do would be to (b) remove all
edits contributed by Anthony to any Wikimedia project, but firstly (a)
ban him in perpetuity from all Wikimedia pro
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Section 9 doesn't provide for a licensor to revoke, willynilly, the
> GFDL licenses for a particular user. What it does do is provide for
> automatic termination in the event that the licensed material is
> (inter alia) distributed in some way
Anthony writes:
>> I don't recall the GFDL saying the licensor can unilaterally revoke
>> the license...
>
>
> Reread section 9.
Section 9 doesn't provide for a licensor to revoke, willynilly, the
GFDL licenses for a particular user. What it does do is provide for
automatic termination in t
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
>> Anthony writes:
>>
>> > Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You
>> > have no
>> > license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under
>> > the
>>
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> "Wikipedia" would only satisfy the license if the author specifically
> said that was ok. The FAQ says there will not be a requirement to
> designate "Wikipedia" or anything else to receive the attribution. I
> would expect the attribution req
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Anthony writes:
>
> > Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You
> > have no
> > license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under
> > the
> > GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those ri
2009/1/8 Anthony :
> Now read the version in GFDL 1.3.
Err you realise that there is at present no GFDL 1.3 only content on
wikipedia (there is a very small amount on commons due a
misunderstanding)?
--
geni
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l
Anthony writes:
> Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You
> have no
> license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under
> the
> GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those rights over
> 30 days
> ago in an email to you).
It was uncl
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Brian wrote:
> The specific reason I would claim that the telephone directory case does not
> apply is that the dumps are in a machine readable format that is intended to
> be read by one, and only one, machine: MediaWiki. There must be another
> domain of applicabl
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You have no
>> license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under the
>> GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those rights over 30 days
>> ago in an
2009/1/8 David Gerard :
> 2009/1/8 geni :
>
>> Not at all. There are quite a number of benefits. In fact one thing
>> the switch doesn't do is address the problem that copyright law as we
>> know it doesn't work to well about 20 authors. Other than MITT and
>> BSD style licenses all free licenses
Thomas Dalton writes:
> I guess if you leave it up to the editor to do it themselves, it could
> work, although it would still require someone to go along after them
> fixing the mess that would inevitably result from removing random
> chunks from the middle of articles. There would also be dispu
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/8 Anthony :
> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> > Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You
> have
> >> no
> >> > license to distribute them (you might have once had a license un
The specific reason I would claim that the telephone directory case does not
apply is that the dumps are in a machine readable format that is intended to
be read by one, and only one, machine: MediaWiki. There must be another
domain of applicable case law.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Thomas Da
Hoi,
The first question, in my opinion the most relevant, is the one that you do
not answer.. What is it that you aimed to achieve and why is copyright so
important to you?
In my opinion your current behaviour is as destructive as that of any other
owner of proprietary information. I do not unders
2009/1/8 Anthony :
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> > Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You have
>> no
>> > license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under the
>> > GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those r
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You have
> no
> > license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under the
> > GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those rights over 30
> days
> > a
> Which part is unclear? The dumps contain my copyrighted work. You have no
> license to distribute them (you might have once had a license under the
> GFDL, but I explicitly and permanently terminated those rights over 30 days
> ago in an email to you).
I don't recall the GFDL saying the licens
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> Anthony, what is it that you want to achieve by cooperating in Wikipedia?
> Why is it that you give such an emphasis on YOUR copyright in this. What
> makes what you have done so special ?
I only have a right to complain about the v
2009/1/8 Brian :
> http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20081008/
>
> These subcollections obviously pass the threshold for creativity. A court
> case on telephone directories, which is simply a two or three column output,
> has very little applicability to the complex formats published by the WMF.
2009/1/8 Michael Peel :
>
> On 8 Jan 2009, at 22:16, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> I don't think that's clear at all. I don't know how many authors you
>> are meant to attribute things to under CC-BY-SA, it may well be all of
>> them. I need to do more research (or, I need someone to tell me the
>> an
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Anthony writes:
> >> I was under the impression that the WMF does hold a copyright over
> >> the
> >> entirety of a particular Wikipedia as they offer that collection for
> >> download. And re-users often use these dumps as seeds for their
> >>
http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20081008/
These subcollections obviously pass the threshold for creativity. A court
case on telephone directories, which is simply a two or three column output,
has very little applicability to the complex formats published by the WMF.
I also recognize this to
> I *think* I was thinking clearly -- I didn't mean to suggest that it
> would be trivial for an editor massively concerned about the
> changeover to remove all his or her edits. Obviously, for some editors
> it would be practically impossible. For others it might be possible,
> and for still other
Hoi,
Anthony, what is it that you want to achieve by cooperating in Wikipedia?
Why is it that you give such an emphasis on YOUR copyright in this. What
makes what you have done so special ?
Thanks,
Gerard
2009/1/8 Anthony
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
>
> > 2009/1
On 8 Jan 2009, at 22:16, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> I don't think that's clear at all. I don't know how many authors you
> are meant to attribute things to under CC-BY-SA, it may well be all of
> them. I need to do more research (or, I need someone to tell me the
> answer!).
My preference would be:
Anthony writes:
>> I was under the impression that the WMF does hold a copyright over
>> the
>> entirety of a particular Wikipedia as they offer that collection for
>> download. And re-users often use these dumps as seeds for their
>> "illegal"
>> re-use.
>>
>> http://download.wikimedia.org
>
2009/1/8 Brian :
> Who owns the copyright for the selection, coordination or arrangement of the
> dumps?
There is no selection, they contain everything (or, at least,
everything from certain namespaces, and the community puts things in
those spaces). Coordination doesn't sound like something that
Specifically I cite the historical perspective as laid out by their general
counsel, and not the entire bill. I will read this case.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Brian wrote:
> > Who owns the copyright for the selection, coordination or a
Anthony writes:
> Even Mike Godwin seemed to recognize this principle in his early
> discussions
> on the topic, when he suggested that there would be a way to opt-out
> of the
> relicensing. But my single question which I presented for the FAQ
> was left
> unanswered. How can I opt out?
2009/1/8 geni :
> Not at all. There are quite a number of benefits. In fact one thing
> the switch doesn't do is address the problem that copyright law as we
> know it doesn't work to well about 20 authors. Other than MITT and
> BSD style licenses all free licenses break down when you throw enoug
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Brian wrote:
> Who owns the copyright for the selection, coordination or arrangement of the
> dumps?
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat092303.html
>
You are citing a proposed bill from 2003-04 that never made it to the
floor for a vote.
To the more general
Who owns the copyright for the selection, coordination or arrangement of the
dumps?
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat092303.html
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/8 Brian :
> > I was under the impression that the WMF does hold a copyright over the
> > entirety of
2009/1/8 Brian :
> I was under the impression that the WMF does hold a copyright over the
> entirety of a particular Wikipedia as they offer that collection for
> download. And re-users often use these dumps as seeds for their "illegal"
> re-use.
IANAL, but I think you need to have had a creative
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Brian wrote:
> I was under the impression that the WMF does hold a copyright over the
> entirety of a particular Wikipedia as they offer that collection for
> download. And re-users often use these dumps as seeds for their "illegal"
> re-use.
>
> http://download.wi
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > I don't think there's a problem with GFDL-licensing. I think there's a
> > problem with the fact that the WMF (and before that, Wikia) have refused
> to
> > facilitate the application of it.
>
> What? Wikia predates WMF? News to me...
The
I was under the impression that the WMF does hold a copyright over the
entirety of a particular Wikipedia as they offer that collection for
download. And re-users often use these dumps as seeds for their "illegal"
re-use.
http://download.wikimedia.org
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Thomas Dalton
> I don't think there's a problem with GFDL-licensing. I think there's a
> problem with the fact that the WMF (and before that, Wikia) have refused to
> facilitate the application of it.
What? Wikia predates WMF? News to me...
___
foundation-l mailing
2009/1/8 Brian :
> Another question: Given the WMF admission in the FAQ that the GFDL has *
> never* been followed in re-use of Wikipedia content due to the insane
> difficulty of doing so, and given its rampant "illegal" re-use on the web,
> and the WMF's ignoring this illegal re-use for years on
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/8 Anthony :
> > This switch to CC-BY-SA is clearly going to open the door for offline
> > reusers to use Wikipedia content without attributing authors beyond
> listing
> > one or more URLs. In fact, it's quite clear from discussions wh
>> We discussing a move to CC-BY-SA, attribution is still
>> required.
>>
>
> Maybe, but that's not what the FAQ says.
Um... yes it is...
>> I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of
>> CC-BY-SA (I've just read them, but it isn't entirely clear to me
>> whether Original Author
Anthony wrote:
> There are very few offline reusers of Wikipedia content. I know of none
> that are using more than de minimis portions of my content without
> attributing me. If you know of any, please, tell me who they are, and I'll
> send a cease and desist to them.
>
> This switch to CC-BY-S
2009/1/8 Anthony :
> Maybe, but that's not what the FAQ says.
Where exactly does it say that attribution is not required under CC-BY-SA 3.0?
> Yes, CC-BY-SA is extremely confusing on this point. That's another reason
> not to use it.
""Original Author" means, in the case of a literary or artis
Another question: Given the WMF admission in the FAQ that the GFDL has *
never* been followed in re-use of Wikipedia content due to the insane
difficulty of doing so, and given its rampant "illegal" re-use on the web,
and the WMF's ignoring this illegal re-use for years on end, what chance is
ther
2009/1/8 Anthony :
> This switch to CC-BY-SA is clearly going to open the door for offline
> reusers to use Wikipedia content without attributing authors beyond listing
> one or more URLs. In fact, it's quite clear from discussions which have
> taken place on this list that this is the main point
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/8 Anthony :
> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> As for majority required, I would say something more than 50% should
> >> be necessary. We traditionally favour the status quo in pretty much
> >> everythi
Marc Riddell writes:
> The Foundation - and those who represent it - seem to have forgotten
> that
> people are at the heart of what they are there to do. And, without the
> heart, it cannot live.
This is really an insupportable assertion. The Foundation and those
who represent it are, if an
2009/1/7 Robert Rohde :
> In that regard, one thought I have had is to create an identified
> place (on Meta for example) to solicit questions and feedback about
> the fundraiser from potential donors (and community members) with
> volunteers to respond.
A lot of that happened through don...@wikip
2009/1/8 Anthony :
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> As for majority required, I would say something more than 50% should
>> be necessary. We traditionally favour the status quo in pretty much
>> everything we do (except, for some reason, with the 3RR, I've never
>> under
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> As for majority required, I would say something more than 50% should
> be necessary. We traditionally favour the status quo in pretty much
> everything we do (except, for some reason, with the 3RR, I've never
> understood that... but that's a
> 1) Use the BoardVote software. It's secure, well-tested and
> well-understood. It's more burdensome to set up, the process for
> counting votes is quite rigorous (accurate but burdensome), and it may
> be overkill for this purpose. Votes are private.
> 2) Use a vote on Meta, like we did for e.g.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Mike & I have made some updates to the Q&A today:
I saw your answer. Thanks. "Transition period" began at the time of
announcing license migration up to the license migration; so, we are
in the transition period. Conservatively speaking, Wikim
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Marc Riddell wrote:
> The Foundation - and those who represent it - seem to have forgotten that
> people are at the heart of what they are there to do. And, without the
> heart, it cannot live.
>
> Marc Riddell
>
When this sort of thread devolves into tangential
on 1/8/09 4:30 AM, Ray Saintonge at sainto...@telus.net wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>> As a 23-people organization, it's clear that our communication efforts
>> need to culminate in volunteer-driven efforts of both a proactive and
>> reactive nature. That's already the case to a great degree (tha
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Calling it "a 23-people organization" suggests a growing chasm between
> the volunteers and the hired hands.
Well, I do indeed feel that chasm too, although perhaps it's more a
case of a felt distance between the foundation and the projects.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:
> I do.
Bots do.
> 2009/1/7 Milos Rancic :
>> A friend of mine put my attention to this blog post [1]. I didn't read
>> it as it is too late now (I just heard friend's description of the
>> article), but I think that there is no sense to w
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>> As a 23-people organization, it's clear that our communication efforts
>> need to culminate in volunteer-driven efforts of both a proactive and
>> reactive nature. That's already the case to a great degree (thanks to
>> volunteers like yourself), and I hope that we will co
2009/1/8 Amir E. Aharoni :
> 2009/1/8 Milos Rancic :
>> A friend of mine put my attention to this blog post [1].
>> ...
>> [1] - http://www.alleyinsider.com/2009/1/who-the-hell-writes-wikipedia-anyway
>
> Is the date on it correct? I remember reading this or something very
> similar months ago, if
2009/1/8 Milos Rancic :
> A friend of mine put my attention to this blog post [1].
> ...
> [1] - http://www.alleyinsider.com/2009/1/who-the-hell-writes-wikipedia-anyway
Is the date on it correct? I remember reading this or something very
similar months ago, if not years.
It is a yet-another proof
Hello,
Aaron Swartz is right in so far that the "Jimmy Wales method" of looking at
the number of edits of users is not enough. I would like to know whether
Swartz counts really letters (for an encyclopaedic text), as he says, or
bytes.
According to him, most of the Wikipedia texts are written by
Erik Moeller wrote:
> As a 23-people organization, it's clear that our communication efforts
> need to culminate in volunteer-driven efforts of both a proactive and
> reactive nature. That's already the case to a great degree (thanks to
> volunteers like yourself), and I hope that we will continue
98 matches
Mail list logo
