On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 7:14 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
To: Magnus Manske
Dear active administrator,
[nonsense]
Why are you forwarding this?
To alert people of this. I see others have done the same, so it's
redundant by now.
Les presentamos el nuevo Proyecto para Wikimedia: *WIKIGRAMAS*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikigramas
--
http://sites.google.com/site/cteachc/
LAURA GISSELLE VARGAS
Coordinación Proyecto CteachC
Formación Continuada
Fundación Alberto Merani
Cel. 310 3352514
6377800 Ext 117-123
Hello,
After a long and tiring discussion on the Swedish Wikipedia Village Pump (
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bybrunnen#Wikimedialoggor_i_artiklar),
the logos of the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been deemed unfree
(since they are copyrighted) and have since been removed from the
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Lennart Guldbrandsson
wikihanni...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
After a long and tiring discussion on the Swedish Wikipedia Village Pump (
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bybrunnen#Wikimedialoggor_i_artiklar),
the logos of the Wikimedia Foundation projects
Lennart Guldbrandsson wrote:
Anyways, I just wanted to hear if anybody else have had encountered this
topic and how the matter was resolved. Is Swedish Wikipedia the first
language version to not include the Wikimedia Foundation's logos? Do any of
you find this discussion strange? Or are
On 29 March 2010 22:42, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
This seems to me to be an extremely strange and unusual interpretation
of the Foundation's policy on copyrighted images. I am not aware of
anyone else having brought this up on other Wikis.
There are occasional attempts
Marcus Buck wrote:
The Swedish Wikipedia decision is consequent and logical. Logos are
copyrighted. Copyrighted material cannot be included. So no logos. It's
plain and simple. The problem is not the reasonable decision of the
Swedish Wikipedia, but the unreasonable decision of the Foundation
The related issues have been discussed on Commons, Enwiki, and Meta,
at various times and places in the past.
There is a legitimate concern that the inclusion of non-free logos is
bad for reusers. On sites like Commons, which are expected to be
exclusively free content, it also creates confusion
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Kwan Ting Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote:
Marcus Buck wrote:
The Swedish Wikipedia decision is consequent and logical. Logos are
copyrighted. Copyrighted material cannot be included. So no logos. It's
plain and simple. The problem is not the reasonable decision
George Herbert wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Kwan Ting Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote:
Marcus Buck wrote:
The Swedish Wikipedia decision is consequent and logical. Logos are
copyrighted. Copyrighted material cannot be included. So no logos. It's
plain and simple. The problem
Or just use common sense that it's silly for a Wikimedia project to say it's
not allowed to use a logo own by Wikimedia Foundation
It is not common sense to depend on the relationship between the
project and the hosting organisation when dealing with free content.
downstream users of
George Herbert wrote:
If this was the English Wikipedia, the response would be somewhere
between please do not be silly and Stop this or we will block you
for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point ( [[WP:DISRUPT]] ).
Read this thread before making such claims. The English Wikipedia did have
Cary Bass wrote:
It's amazing that Swedish Wikipedia is fighting tooth and nail to get
rid of the Wikipedia logo, while the English Wikipedia is having the
same battle over keeping the Goatse.cx image (which is receiving 800
hits a day from people receiving shock image links).
Links are
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:06 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Cary Bass wrote:
It's amazing that Swedish Wikipedia is fighting tooth and nail to get
rid of the Wikipedia logo, while the English Wikipedia is having the
same battle over keeping the Goatse.cx image (which is receiving 800
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:03 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
If this was the English Wikipedia, the response would be somewhere
between please do not be silly and Stop this or we will block you
for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point ( [[WP:DISRUPT]] ).
Read
masti writes:
It's crazy. sv.wiki still has unfree logo on every page :)
It is unfree to protect wiki identity.
This is exactly right. If we had no copyright or trademark restrictions on
the Wikimedia logos and marks, it would be trivial for proprietary vendors
to use the unrestricted logos
Mike Godwin wrote:
Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked so hard to give you
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy.
Huh, neat. I'm not sure there was an announcement about that, but it's nice
to know it's there!
MZMcBride
___
Thanks, MZ!
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:28 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Mike Godwin wrote:
Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked so hard to give you
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy.
Huh, neat. I'm not sure there was an announcement about that, but it's nice
No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A free
license is a copyright license.
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
The Swedish Wikipedia decision is consequent and logical. Logos are
copyrighted. Copyrighted material cannot be
Mike Godwin hett schreven:
My guess, admittedly based on nothing but anecdotal evidence, is that the
Swedish Wikipedians who created this largely artificial and unnecessary
dispute have not consulted independent trademark and copyright experts with
regard to the rationale for their decision.
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Mike Godwin hett schreven:
My guess, admittedly based on nothing but anecdotal evidence, is that the
Swedish Wikipedians who created this largely artificial and unnecessary
dispute have not consulted independent
The Cunctator writes:
No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A
free
license is a copyright license.
The point bears repeating (over and over again, if necessary). The free
licenses we use are in fact quite demanding with regard to downstream uses.
And our
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
I feel as if the many months of work I put into developing a new, clearer,
liberal trademark policy for WMF has gone to waste!
snip
And now I really, really feel it was wasted!
snip
Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
The Cunctator writes:
No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A
free
license is a copyright license.
The point bears repeating (over and over again, if necessary). The free
licenses we
Poor Mike. You could blog it on Wikimedia blog, even from now?
Now we have the policy with a detailed FAQ though, still I guess I'll
keep posting some questions - it doesn't mean the policy is poorly
written, but just I'd love to see you around.
/me ducks
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Mike
25 matches
Mail list logo
