Please consider this proposal for the WikiGuide project:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiGuide
The goal of WikiGuide is to be a place for valid information that can't
be accepted at other WikiMedia sites due to various quality guidelines,
and to clarify some of the more confusing articles in
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
[...]
And therefore if the Wikimedia logos are used with permission on
Wikimedia-hosted projects, the earth will
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Hello --
Some of the people posting to this mailing list don't seem to understand
how
to write a decent, readable reply to a mailing list thread.
Yes, but the opinion on what makes a readable reply may differ from person
Was that supposed to be an example of a terrible use of inline posting? If
so, ha, great job, I couldn't even figure out what was written by you and
what was written by Mr. McBride.
BTW, this is supposed to be an example of a good use of top posting.
But in the end, you're just not going to
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
This post below, I've pretty much ignored
because it wasn't worth trying to sort through who said what.
Yet instead of deleting it, you included the whole thing.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.b...@gmail.com
On 31 March 2010 14:43, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
This post below, I've pretty much ignored
because it wasn't worth trying to sort through who said what.
Yet instead of deleting it, you included the whole
MZMcBride wrote:
This makes for far more noise than signal, as people wade through six copies of
the
foundation-l footer or eight old and irrelevant replies trying to find the
content of the reply to the previous message.
I've pretty much be ignoring this thread, and mark everything as read
Hoi,
I am quite pleased to correct you because you are wrong. The usability
initiative is based on the findings of usability tests that indicated many
issues with the old user interface. Some of these are cosmetic but that does
not make the change any less effective.
The objective of the
My name is David Castor and I am known on Swedish Wikipedia (and less known
but somewhat active on Commons and a few foreign language Wikipedias) by the
user name dcastor. I am one of the users who have been pushing for a change
in the way we handle the copyrighted WMF logos. I would like to
2010/3/31 Petr Kadlec petr.kad...@gmail.com:
On 31 March 2010 04:28, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'll note that the licensing policy passed by the Wikimedia Foundation
Board of Trustees (
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy )
specifically permits project
Thank you, David; this clarifies a lot. I just wish you had managed to send
this some 50 messages ago. :|
MarianoC.-
--- El mié 31-mar-10, David Castor e-p...@pastorcastor.se escribió:
De: David Castor e-p...@pastorcastor.se
Asunto: [Foundation-l] Status report on logo copyright issues at
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:40 AM, David Castor e-p...@pastorcastor.se wrote:
My name is David Castor and I am known on Swedish Wikipedia (and less known
but somewhat active on Commons and a few foreign language Wikipedias) by the
user name dcastor. I am one of the users who have been pushing
Mariano Cecowski hett schreven:
Thank you, David; this clarifies a lot. I just wish you had managed to send
this some 50 messages ago. :|
I doubt that that would have spared you from receiving the 50 messages.
Almost all of the facts presented by David were known right at the start
of the
Hi there,
I am working alot on openstreetmap.org and there seems to be a big
difference in how the copyrights of the maps are handled in Wikipedia.
In wikipedia you will find maps that have no real sources claimed, and
they are not checked.
People can just upload any and all maps that they
In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items
based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from
geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a
Hoi,
In Wikipedia we have many subjects that have geo coordinates associated with
them. They are facts. Facts cannot be copyrighted. When these facts are
harvested by data mining Wikipedia, you do not have a derived work from what
is the origin of these facts, you have a new collection of facts
(This is meant as a reply to GerardM, not WJhonson)
Pure data such as longitude and latitude, in the US, is treated significantly
differently from the act of creation and determination of a map, particularly
one that involves inherent pictorial or photographic nature.
It is true that maps are
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 19:30, Guillaume Paumier gpaum...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I invite you to read
http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multimedia:About for a summary. All
the documentation is published on the usability wiki, so you can dive as
deep as you like from the Multimedia hub:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
(This is meant as a reply to GerardM, not WJhonson)
Pure data such as longitude and latitude, in the US, is treated
significantly differently from the act of creation and
determination of a map, particularly one that involves
I would say claiming copyright on a map is legitimate but I think the big
issue here is the geotag's themselves (i.e the locations) since so many
people use google maps or another tool to find the geo location. The
locations themselves is what we have decided are facts and therefore
copyrightable
Sorry. they are facts and therefore NOT copyrightable.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:19 PM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.comwrote:
I would say claiming copyright on a map is legitimate but I think the big
issue here is the geotag's themselves (i.e the locations) since so many
people use google
Hoi.
The facts harvested from Wikipedia have to be compiled in order to be used
in an overlay. The format of the overlay may be determined by the
application that uses such an overlay. The process of creating such an
overlay however is mechanical, slavish, it has no relation whatsoever with
the
Now some background :
Today, I found a map of Albania with no sources mentioned , and
currently I am working on mapping Albania. That is why I bring this
up. With all these maps in wikipedia, how can the authors possible be
the creators of the whole map, there are very few cases of maps that
are
In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
(e) use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other person
access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content, including but
not limited to numerical latitude or longitude
The use of the google maps (and other copyrighted maps) are restricted and
derivatives of those maps similarly restricted. However what the actual geo
points that you may get from those systems are not restricted (because they
are not copyrightable).
It is an understandable confusion to be
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:45 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
(e) use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other person
access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content,
In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:56:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
The issue is the location of things that are only visible using high
quality sat images from googlemaps and co. We don't have those
positions for many of the locations and they are only
On Mar 31, 2010, at 4:04 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Since Google themselves did not produce these, they don't
own their own satellites. So from where did they get them?
I don't have to own your camera to use it, and claim copyright. :)
___
David Castor writes:
The use of these logos are thus the only thing standing in the way of
stating that all material from Swedish Wikipedia can be freely reused,
without any further permission.
Is there any obvious legal problem with stating that (for example) All
material from Swedish
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:45 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
(e) use the Products in a manner that gives
In a message dated 3/31/2010 2:08:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org writes:
I don't have to own your camera to use it, and claim copyright. :)
--
You are *taking* the picture however, with a mechanical device while you
are excersizing creativity over it's
I'm not familiar with the particular project/maps/geodata in
question, but a blanket statement that claiming copyright on a map
is absurdity is itself wrong.
-Dan
If I'm not mistaken, the thread is not about the copyrightability of
maps themselves, but the copyrightability of
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:19 PM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote:
I would say claiming copyright on a map is legitimate but I think the big
issue here is the geotag's themselves (i.e the locations) since so many
people use google maps or another tool to find the geo location. The
Mike,
Thank you for starting this thread. The most important point, from my
perspective, is that the policies on OSM and Wikipedia are not
compatible, in a way that makes geodata from Wikipedia time-consuming
or impossible for some OSM editors to use.
We should certainly see how we can align
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Mike,
Thank you for starting this thread. The most important point, from my
perspective, is that the policies on OSM and Wikipedia are not
compatible, in a way that makes geodata from Wikipedia time-consuming
or
35 matches
Mail list logo
