Sam Johnston wrote:
> - Priority: Freedom / Attribution
This question is a perfect example of a bad question. It does not mean
anything to the respondent and can be interpreted at will later. Freedom
and attribution are not in opposition to each other.
> - Do you prefer to attribute: Everyone
Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>>> Um... yes we have... unless "full attribution" means something
>>> different to you than it does to me. To me it means giving a full list
>>> of authors of a work along with the work - that's precisely what I
>>> in
.1% is a very large sample, statistically speaking.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Chad wrote:
>
> > I only think a poll of the community could settle the issue. Is
> > there any point in requiring full attribution if only 0.001% of the
> > comm
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Chad wrote:
> I only think a poll of the community could settle the issue. Is
> there any point in requiring full attribution if only 0.001% of the
> community desires it? If 75+% of the community thinks that a
> single mention that an article is "from Wikipedia" i
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Sam Johnston wrote:
> We are moving to the CC-BY-SA license to improve compatibility and
> foster reuse, yes?
Supposedly, but any attempt to loosen the attribution requirements hinders
both compatibility (external works from authors who want attribution now
can't
2009/2/4 Sam Johnston :
> That case is completely different - it's about "misappropriation of a
> software program by a company that publishes model train hobbyist
> software"[2], not a community seeking to relicense its 'own' content.
>
The community has no legal standing. From the POV of the cou
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> When you do not like the notion that in real life people want a clean
> print, you will find that your legalistic approach hardly survives the real
> world. There are people who like their jeans with labels. I remove them if I
> can. In a way you take the position of the
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Sam Johnston wrote:
> CC are most likely to go along with what is sensible and are very
> likely to listen to WMF when defining 'sensible'.
I have little doubt that's the case.
> The license as it is
> is pretty damn close to good enough (hence the dropping of the
Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between cheap
>> and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the back is
>> two prints and that IS expensive. My point has
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:59 AM, geni wrote:
> Flexibility has it's limits.
Right, and this one has a deadline that's fast approaching. Here's
some things I'd like to know from a poll:
- Demographics?
- Contributions to date: Authored articles / Edited articles /
Uploaded media / Minor edits /
I just want to be clear that I think these pseudo-legal interpretations are
holding us back from figuring out what people want.
Hopefully we can discuss the poll questions before they get posted to make
sure they fairly present the options under consideration.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:59 PM, geni
2009/2/3 Brian :
> You have a very clear sense of what is legal and what is not.
>
> However, I am under the impression that in this case the FSF and CC
> determine what is legal since there are very few cases where these issues
> have been brought up in court.
They don't come up often but that do
2009/2/3 Robert Rohde :
> What I mean is options for attribution schemes and similar provisions
> that deal in a practical manner with CC documents published
> iteratively with a large number of authors. For example, a license
> might include a provision: "For works published in multiple iteration
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> "Where the majority of an article is contributed by one user they must
>> also be attributed by real name."
>
> How does that work? Most Wikipedians work pseudonymously...
Au contraire - the commons pictures of the day for the last month f
You have a very clear sense of what is legal and what is not.
However, I am under the impression that in this case the FSF and CC
determine what is legal since there are very few cases where these issues
have been brought up in court. The FSF and CC determine what the licenses
"say" and whether or
2009/2/3 Sam Johnston :
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>> If one wants to go down the suggested attribution route, one approach might
>> be:
>>
>> Create an "authors page" associated with each page that contains:
>
>
> There may be a far simpler (and fairer) way that could
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> If one wants to go down the suggested attribution route, one approach might
> be:
>
> Create an "authors page" associated with each page that contains:
There may be a far simpler (and fairer) way that could satisfy a large
segment of the pro
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:15 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/2/3 Robert Rohde :
>> Given the significance of sites like Wikipedia to the free content
>> movement, I would not be surprised to see the next generation of CC
>> licenses make explicit provisions for massive multi-author
>> collaborative works.
>
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>> Um... yes we have... unless "full attribution" means something
>> different to you than it does to me. To me it means giving a full list
>> of authors of a work along with the work - that's precisely what I
>> interpret CC-BY-SA as requir
On Tuesday 03 February 2009 20:43:23 Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/3 Nikola Smolenski :
> > On Tuesday 03 February 2009 20:22:02 Sam Johnston wrote:
> >> Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
> >> the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g. paragraph
>
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>> > Please stop beating the dead horse. No one has ever suggested that full
>> > attributions are necessary.
>>
>> Yes they have.
>
> Citation?
Thomas Dalton.
>> - Partial attribution creates opportunities for external conflict
>> (think
2009/2/3 Robert Rohde :
> Given the significance of sites like Wikipedia to the free content
> movement, I would not be surprised to see the next generation of CC
> licenses make explicit provisions for massive multi-author
> collaborative works.
>
> -Robert Rohde
Spend much time dealing with lice
2009/2/3 Chad :
> I never said anything about disregarding the law. I don't give a rat's
> ass *how* I'm attributed, as long as I'm not forgotten for the work I've
> done. If there's a legal requirement for a certain method and/or
> degree of attribution, then obviously that takes precedence over
>
2009/2/3 Sam Johnston :
> I'm not aware of any print-on-demand providers who facilitate the
> sending of arbitrary documentation with prints so my ability to reuse
> is still unnecessarily restricted.
>
> Sam
That must make it rather hard to use the postal service.
--
geni
___
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, geni wrote:
> > 2009/2/3 Gerard Meijssen :
> >> Hoi,
> >> The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between
> cheap
> >> and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on th
On 3 Feb 2009, at 21:59, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> Your wish for attribution comes at a monetory cost so the
> difference is
> negligible. They want their reward for the creation for IP and so
> do you.
> Thanks,
>GerardmM
Huh? Where am I asking for money? Depending on the meth
Hoi,
Your wish for attribution comes at a monetory cost so the difference is
negligible. They want their reward for the creation for IP and so do you.
Thanks,
GerardmM
2009/2/3 Michael Peel
>
> On 3 Feb 2009, at 21:39, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The change of the license will h
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Chad wrote:
> I never said anything about disregarding the law. I don't give a rat's
> ass *how* I'm attributed, as long as I'm not forgotten for the work I've
> done. If there's a legal requirement for a certain method and/or
> degree of attribution, then obviously
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/2/3 Gerard Meijssen :
>> Hoi,
>> The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between cheap
>> and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the back is
>> two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been an
On 3 Feb 2009, at 21:39, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> The change of the license will happen not only for Wikipedia but
> for all
> projects as I understand things.
The change of license can only apply to wiki-created GFDL works,
which does not apply to the images. They will remain with th
2009/2/3 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between cheap
> and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the back is
> two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is that it is
> nice to come up with "soluti
Hoi,
The change of the license will happen not only for Wikipedia but for all
projects as I understand things.
When you do not like the notion that in real life people want a clean
print, you will find that your legalistic approach hardly survives the real
world. There are people who like their j
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:30 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/2/3 Chad :
> > We talk a lot on this list about what level of attribution is "enough."
> > Is a link to Wikipedia enough?
>
> no
>
> > A link to the article?
>
> No
>
> > A list of top
> > authors?
>
> No
>
> > A link to the full history?
>
> If
But here's the virtue of contributing to Wikipedia in the first place:
anyone anywhere who wants to see who did what, will go to the actual
Wikipedia and will find your credited contributions, regardless of the
details in subsequent reproductions--as long as they know it's from
Wikipedia.
On Tue,
2009/2/3 Chad :
> We talk a lot on this list about what level of attribution is "enough."
> Is a link to Wikipedia enough?
no
> A link to the article?
No
> A list of top
> authors?
No
> A link to the full history?
If the full history is on your website then it depends on what you are doing.
On 3 Feb 2009, at 21:01, Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance
>> between cheap
>> and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on
>> the back is
>> two prints a
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/3 Brian :
>> I've seen this point made at least three times today.
>>
>> What leads you to believe that the attribution must be on the same medium?
>
> It doesn't necessarily need to be the same medium, but it needs to be
> included in
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between cheap
> and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the back is
> two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is that it is
>
We talk a lot on this list about what level of attribution is "enough."
Is a link to Wikipedia enough? A link to the article? A list of top
authors? A link to the full history? Include the full history? There's
a lot of varying opinions on this list, and its very easy to see that
any sort of compro
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Sam Johnston wrote:
> - It is impossible to reliably determine the top contributors in a
> mechanical fashion, because:
> - There are no reliable metrics for identifying 'top contributors'
> (e.g. edit count vs wikiblame vs creator vs something else?) but:
> -
2009/2/3 Brian :
> I've seen this point made at least three times today.
>
> What leads you to believe that the attribution must be on the same medium?
It doesn't necessarily need to be the same medium, but it needs to be
included in the distribution otherwise you can't guarantee the person
receiv
I've seen this point made at least three times today.
What leads you to believe that the attribution must be on the same medium?
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/3 Brian :
> > With a system that can find the authors of any given piece of text no
> matter
> > when it
Hoi,
The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance between cheap
and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on the back is
two prints and that IS expensive. My point has been and still is that it is
nice to come up with "solutions". They have to be practical in th
2009/2/3 Nikola Smolenski :
> On Tuesday 03 February 2009 21:07:51 Sam Johnston wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>> >> Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
>> >> the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g. paragraph
>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing interim update
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> 2009/2/3 Brian :
>> Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit of the GFDL is?
>
> Start with the license preambl
On 2 Feb 2009, at 07:11, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>- When I TELL you that something spoils a picture for me, you
> can ignore
>this, or you accept this. When I have a framed picture I do not
> want the
>license printed with it, I do not want a list of authors. I want
> a clean
>
On Tuesday 03 February 2009 21:07:51 Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> >> Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
> >> the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g. paragraph
> >
> > Please stop beating the de
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>> Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
>> the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g. paragraph
>
> Please stop beating the dead horse. No one has ever suggested that full
> attributions are n
2009/2/3 Brian :
> With a system that can find the authors of any given piece of text no matter
> when it existed in any language version:
Where is this system? Is it included with the work when it is
distributed (I doubt it)? If not, it's no help.
___
Wikipedia.org/URL was just a reference to my last e-mail, not to confuse
you. Wikipedia.org/Article is more clear.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Brian wrote:
> This attribution would be consistent with what I've seen suggested as
> reasonable with current tech:
>
>> Wikipedia.org/URL with the
This attribution would be consistent with what I've seen suggested as
reasonable with current tech:
> Wikipedia.org/URL with the optional language code en.Wikipedia.org/URL(the
> redirect page would need to be fixed..)
With a system that can find the authors of any given piece of text no matter
2009/2/3 Nikola Smolenski :
> On Tuesday 03 February 2009 20:22:02 Sam Johnston wrote:
>> Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
>> the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g. paragraph
>
> Please stop beating the dead horse. No one has ever suggested t
On Tuesday 03 February 2009 20:22:02 Sam Johnston wrote:
> Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
> the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g. paragraph
Please stop beating the dead horse. No one has ever suggested that full
attributions are necessar
> So effectively the spirit is that the credit stays with the work. So
> if the work is on a website the credit should be on that website. If
> the work is on a T-shirt the credit should distributed with the
> T-shirt perhaps as part of the packaging (of course things get a bit
> tricky when someon
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 7:35 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/2/3 Brian :
>> Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit of the GFDL is?
>
> Start with the license preamble "Secondarily, this License preserves
> for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work,"
Interesting you should ch
> I would also like to say that a community run by a
> http://meta.epistemia.org/wiki/Council is a community destined to fail...
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listin
> Basically you've just said "we're going to be just like wikipdia except
> we
> won't let incivlity, personal attacks and other bad stuff like that
> happen".
> How will you stop it? Blocking? Then you're just like wikipedia.
Actually, no. Wikipedia no longer enforces civility. At least not again
2009/2/3 Nathan :
> I don't think Thomas Larsen needs to remind us about Epistemia regularly,
> although I can't say it really bothers me. It isn't spam, though.
I don't think this email was spam - it was informing a larger audience
(foundation-l rather than just wikien-l) of the project now that
I don't think Thomas Larsen needs to remind us about Epistemia regularly,
although I can't say it really bothers me. It isn't spam, though.
I'm not sure anyone who is interested in the wider goals of Wikimedia should
describe any other free content project as "destined to fail." That someone
is tr
2009/2/3 Brian :
> Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit of the GFDL is?
Start with the license preamble "Secondarily, this License preserves
for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work,"
Now remember despite claims to the country the GFDL is basically
thinking abou
2009/2/3 Brian :
> Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit of the GFDL is?
> I've already explained why flexible attribution is equivalent to full
> attribution in a recent post. It's easy to do the reverse lookup from a
> piece of content to its authors. Anyone wanting to know who the con
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/3 Brian :
>> I would like to see the most flexible attribution rules possible (just the
>> Article Title, Wikipedia perhaps). If Geni's adamance regarding strict terms
>> of attribution is a correct interpretation of the CC-BY-SA then I
2009/2/3 Brian :
> I would like to see the most flexible attribution rules possible (just the
> Article Title, Wikipedia perhaps). If Geni's adamance regarding strict terms
> of attribution is a correct interpretation of the CC-BY-SA then I can't see
> it as being the correct license for the projec
Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit of the GFDL is?
I've already explained why flexible attribution is equivalent to full
attribution in a recent post. It's easy to do the reverse lookup from a
piece of content to its authors. Anyone wanting to know who the content
should be attributed
2009/2/3 Brian :
> I would like to see the most flexible attribution rules possible (just the
> Article Title, Wikipedia perhaps). If Geni's adamance regarding strict terms
> of attribution is a correct interpretation of the CC-BY-SA then I can't see
> it as being the correct license for the projec
I would like to see the most flexible attribution rules possible (just the
Article Title, Wikipedia perhaps). If Geni's adamance regarding strict terms
of attribution is a correct interpretation of the CC-BY-SA then I can't see
it as being the correct license for the projects. Where is the CC-Wiki
on 2/3/09 11:07 AM, Al Tally at majorly.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> Your initial announcement was fine. Continuing to spam is not.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>
> Agreed, please don't spam here further.
This place becomes less civil, more unfriendly
I would also like to say that a community run by a
http://meta.epistemia.org/wiki/Council is a community destined to fail...
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundatio
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Patton 123 wrote:
> Basically you've just said "we're going to be just like wikipdia except we
> won't let incivlity, personal attacks and other bad stuff like that
> happen".
> How will you stop it? Blocking? Then you're just like wikipedia.
>
No, removing uncivi
Basically you've just said "we're going to be just like wikipdia except we
won't let incivlity, personal attacks and other bad stuff like that happen".
How will you stop it? Blocking? Then you're just like wikipedia.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundati
2009/2/3 Erik Moeller :
> Since Robert raised the question where we stand and what our timeline
> looks like, I want to briefly recap:
>
> * Because the attribution issue is quite divisive, I want us to
> dedicate some more time to reconsidering and revising our approach.
> * I'm developing a simpl
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Your initial announcement was fine. Continuing to spam is not.
>
> Fred
>
Agreed, please don't spam here further.
--
Alex
(User:Majorly)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.o
Your initial announcement was fine. Continuing to spam is not.
Fred
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> I will be indeed the last to say that the Betawiki developers are not part
> of the community of MediaWiki developers. The point that I tried to make
> here is that when the Lingala community produces its *own *developer, they
> will have a better grasp of the issues with t
2009/2/3 Thomas Larsen :
> We now have 25 contributors and 118 articles.
How many of those are copied from Wikipedia (I've checked and at least
some are)? What are your plans for using Wikipedia content, assuming
the licenses become compatible?
___
foun
2009/2/3 Erik Moeller :
> Even on
> the attribution question, it seems that there is wide agreement that
> for online re-use, hyperlinks to a page history or author credit page
> are an appropriate mechanism for attribution. It's sensible to me, and
> apparently most people, that other people's web
One thing that has not been brought forward yet in this discussion,
and which I think is important, is that 'author' does not equate
'editor'. It seems many here do go from that assumption in trying to
get the authors of an article. Suppose, an article has the following
edit history:
A starts the
Hello all,
Recently, I announced Epistemia (http://epistemia.org/), a new wiki
encyclopedia, on WikiEN-L (see my e-mail at
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-January/098140.html).
Essentially, Epistemia was launched by Richard Austin and myself in
response to perceived flaws inhere
Hoi,
There are language issues that are not addressed. It is known for instance
that the Safari browser supports Lingala better then Firefox and Opera. This
is because Safari does NOT use a monospaced font in the edit screen. An
obvious but not so elegant solution would be to have these other two
b
79 matches
Mail list logo
