George Herbert wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yuwrote:
On Wednesday 21 January 2009 03:23:51 Erik Moeller wrote:
2009/1/20 geni geni...@gmail.com:
1)This isn't legal within anything close to the current wording of the
page.
CC General Counsel has
Please note that stewards are not an electoral college. Although it is
positive if there are stewards around that have an understanding of a
project in case there is something complicated going on, there is absolutely
no necessity to have stewards from specific angles. It is not like stewards
come
George Herbert wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
Translation: what we are doing right now is wrong and no one complains
too loudly, therefore we may get away with being even more wrong in the
future.
No, what we are doing now is not wrong.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
Was this some sort of unilateral proclamation by Ting, or has the
chapters committee officially made some sort of decision on this topic?
A principal decision on sub-national chapters has been made by the
*board* (the
Hoi,
Congratulations.
As a consequence of the recognition of the Võro language, the Estonian
language with the codes est and et has been made a macro language. This
macro language contains two languages, Võro and Standard Estonian. Standard
Estonian has the code of ekk.
It is appropriate to
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Wow!, just wow. Would you be okay with one country that was
very tiny having two chapters?
If the very tiny country had enough active wikimedians to create
critical mass for two chapters, and if those two groups
Hoi,
Without the five persons that make the difference, there is no chapter
anyway.
Andrew, the NYC does not need my approval but given what I know of their
activities so far, they are doing great. This does however not mean that the
issues that are raised have been answered, far from it.
Your
Ziko van Dijk wrote:
Emotional: Having a NYC chapter next to the French, German etc.
makes France, Germany etc. look the equals to New York.
And in some ways they are. If that makes you feel bad, that's
your problem. Did you feel better when there was no chapter at all
in the United
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 4:29 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
I don't know that listing thousands of authors on popular pages is an
improvement over a link saying Many people wrote and edited this and you
can click here to see them all.
What popular page has thousands of
Hoi,
There is a request to rename the no.wikipedia.org to
nb.wikipedia.orgexactly for this reason.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/21 Jüvä Sullõv juva...@ut.ee
Thanks for congaratulations, Gerard!
I am not still very sure if the fact that codes est and et have made to
a
macrolanguage codes
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew, the NYC does not need my approval but given what I know of their
activities so far, they are doing great. This does however not mean that the
issues that are raised have been answered, far from it.
You
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
These emotional arguments are not practical. In my opinion
there is a need for a USA chapter because there are things that
the Office should not handle and that should be handled by an
USA chapter.
First you say emotions are pointless, then you express your own
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update
the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
There are over 100 Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike Licenses.
___
Thanks again for your explanations (I don't want to open a new mail for
every bit).
Some points:
* Of the organizations Lars mentioned, only ISOC has chapters. I still
find it not clear about whether the national organizations are independent
or merely national agencies of the center (as it is
It is extraordinarily difficult to found a US chapter, because we are in
essence a federation of 50 little nations. Every state has their own unique
characteristics and their own unique laws. Also, we do not have interest for a
national chapter. By empowering these state/city chapters, we
The CC wrote this license and are likely to be considered authorities if there
was ever a court case. If their lawyer says this is acceptable, its probably
acceptable.
From: geni geni...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:13 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
Nathan wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
2009/1/20 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de:
Not quite. One criteria is that the chapters should have
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote:
* Of the organizations Lars mentioned, only ISOC has chapters. I still
find it not clear about whether the national organizations are independent
or merely national agencies of the center (as it is the case with
Anthony writes:
the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
There are over 100 Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike Licenses.
[citation needed]
--Mike
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
Attribution by reference to a URL only seems reasonable for online
reuse to me. For content added directly to Wikimedia projects, you may
be able to get by with including permission to do so in the terms of
service, but for 3rd party content that doesn't work. If I write
something on another site,
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Wow!, just wow. Would you be okay with one country that was
very tiny having two chapters?
If the very tiny country had enough active wikimedians to create
critical mass for
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony writes:
the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
There are over 100 Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike Licenses.
[citation needed]
There are 74 due to versioning and jurisdiction ports, see
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:26 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
If the change to CC-BY-SA goes through I will be proposing a new
wikimedia project to record what authors and reuses consider
acceptable (and what people actually do if that happens) in terms of
attribution for every form of
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In accordance with the recent board decision to increase the number of
ombudsmen from 3 to 5, we have appointed the following users as
successor ombudsmen.
[[User:Schiste]]
On Wednesday 21 January 2009 17:28:23 Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Maybe people don't want to spend 2 hours sorting out authors? Also, the
history link allows someone to look at every single contribution,
How does the history link allow someone to look at every single contribution,
when they don't
2009/1/20 geni geni...@gmail.com:
4(c)(iii) is irrelevant. The foundation not the licensor and the URL
is on top of other attribution and copyright stuff. The only way
attribution methods can be controlled through CC-BY-SA-3.0 is through
4(c)(i).
You are making an unsupported assertion.
Mike Linksvayer wrote:
There are over 100 Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike
Licenses.
[citation needed]
There are 74 due to versioning and jurisdiction ports, see
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/index.rdf
That sounds more likely than over 100, although the relevance of the
2009/1/21 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/1/20 geni geni...@gmail.com:
4(c)(iii) is irrelevant. The foundation not the licensor and the URL
is on top of other attribution and copyright stuff. The only way
attribution methods can be controlled through CC-BY-SA-3.0 is through
4(c)(i).
There are various problems with making a distinction between print and
online use when it comes to name inclusion. The first problem is that
there are related questions which immediately pop up: Is it reasonable
for a one page print document to have half a page or more of author
metadata? Is
Hoi,
This change for Estonian is not special. It has happened before where other
codes changed their meaning and became a macro language. German (de) is a
completely different type of language, in several ways it is more like
Italian. I do not understand where you got this standard Estonian from,
Prevent confusion from whom?
I think we should let the et.wp community vote on this change instead
of letting Gerard push it on them.
Võro Wikipedians know to go to http://fiu-vro.wikipedia.org/, non-Võro
Estonian Wikipedians know to go to http://et.wikipedia.org/
Introducing a new URL for Võro
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:55 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/20 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
That doesn't really any of my questions, though I was more looking for an
answer from Erik or Mike anyway.
It's a fairly important question, since compatibility with other works
under
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Mike Linksvayer wrote:
There are over 100 Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike
Licenses.
[citation needed]
There are 74 due to versioning and jurisdiction ports, see
2009/1/21 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
As in CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported? You know, the one that says You must not
distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the
Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or
reputation?
That quote is pulled out of
Is it reasonable for a t-shirt to have to include a metadata
text-block? Is a DVD substantially different from a print product?
I don't see a problem with
listing authors in fairly small print on the back of a t-shirt, seems
perfectly reasonable to me.
Can someone remind me why this
2009/1/21 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
A lot of the problems you are having there are because you are trying
to group things into print and online. The correct dichotomy is
online and offline. Of course you are going to have problems
classifying DVDs if your classifaction systems
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Whether you draw the distinction between
print or non-print, or between online and offline, is always
somewhat arbitrary, as content can change from one state to another
very easily. (A file downloaded to your harddisk
2009/1/21 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/1/21 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
A lot of the problems you are having there are because you are trying
to group things into print and online. The correct dichotomy is
online and offline. Of course you are going to have problems
Florence Devouard wrote:
The confusion mostly came from the fact I had absolutely not
understood that chapters at the national level, or chapter at
any other level would have exactly the same rights and roles
than the currently existing chapters.
I'm confused by your description of
Anthony writes:
Over 100 might have been a slight exggeration - I guesstimated
rather than
counting each one.
My goodness. I can't believe you'd ever exaggerate a factual claim.
I'm astonished.
There are over 1 different versions of CC-BY-SA 3.x.
They are sufficiently interchangeable
By repeating false things they will be not more true.
IT'S ABSOLUTELY FALSE THAT GFDL HAS A PRINCIPAL AUTHOR CLAUSE.
This clause only refers to a title page. READ THE LICENSE PLEASE.
Wikipedia hasn't such a thing.
Attribution in the GNU FDL is done by copyright notices or the section
called
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
It is nice that you oppose, there are reasons why it might be a
bad idea, but the ones that I know are not the ones you put
forward. A reason why a change would be good is that it will
prevent confusion.
Come on, nobody is confused about what language Estonian is.
2009/1/21 Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com:
IT'S ABSOLUTELY FALSE THAT GFDL HAS A PRINCIPAL AUTHOR CLAUSE.
This clause only refers to a title page. READ THE LICENSE PLEASE.
Wikipedia hasn't such a thing.
I've already explained our position on this issue in the prior thread
on the topic; we
Erik Moeller wrote:
2009/1/21 Thomas Dalton:
A lot of the problems you are having there are because you are trying
to group things into print and online. The correct dichotomy is
online and offline. Of course you are going to have problems
classifying DVDs if your classifaction systems
I agree on 'et', but the 'no' case is different. the codes 'no', 'nb'
and 'nn' were present in ISO 639 since the beginning. 'no' is the code
that covers both 'nn' and 'nb'. When 'nn' split from 'no' it would have
been good, if 'no' had been moved to 'nb' the same time.
The main difference
Because I don't think it's good to discuss attribution as an abstract
principle, just as an example, the author attribution for the article
[[France]] is below, excluding IP addresses. According to the view
that attribution needs to be given to each pseudonym, this entire
history would have to be
Thats why i said state/city. Even within states, business licenses have to be
procured for each city/county
From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
Because I don't think it's good to discuss attribution as an abstract
principle, just as an example, the author attribution for the article
[[France]] is below, excluding IP addresses. According to the view
that attribution needs to be given to each
2009/1/21 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
Whether or not something is sufficient to comply with licensing
requirements isn't something that can be decided democratically.
We're operating in a space with a high degree of ambiguity. The point
would be to determine whether there's a clear
Hear hear!
Das Wikipedia Lexikon in einem Band[1] is another stunning example of
attribution gone mad and reusers would always have the option of crediting
authors anyway (perhaps guided by author preferences expressed on the talk
page or some other interface).
Most critically however, the
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/1/21 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
Whether or not something is sufficient to comply with licensing
requirements isn't something that can be decided democratically.
We're operating in a space with a high degree of ambiguity. The point
Das Wikipedia Lexikon in einem Band[1] is another stunning example of
attribution gone mad
A few pages of names in a 1000 page book doesn't seem that mad to me.
I think it makes an excellent point about how Wikipedia works.
___
foundation-l mailing
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
Das Wikipedia Lexikon in einem Band[1] is another stunning example of
attribution gone mad
A few pages of names in a 1000 page book doesn't seem that mad to me.
I think it makes an excellent point about how
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony writes:
Over 100 might have been a slight exggeration - I guesstimated
rather than
counting each one.
My goodness. I can't believe you'd ever exaggerate a factual claim.
I'm astonished.
I can believe
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Sam Johnston s...@samj.net wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
Das Wikipedia Lexikon in einem Band[1] is another stunning example of
attribution gone mad
A few pages of names in a 1000 page book doesn't
55 matches
Mail list logo
