Wikimedia chapters are not only an example of what should not be seen
in Wikimedia projects (an institution[...], of any kind, [...]
claiming to represent [...] individuals [1]) they also absorb funds
and hire people, pushing with more weight the goal to make money (a
salaried person expects
2011/8/16 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com:
realized that we have to elect our ambassadors to Meta [1]. So, the
first three persons on the list were actually elected. Unfortunately,
the idea of Embassy was never really alive.
Interesting! Actually, from the 5 persons on that list for
Re (is anyone really going to say that they don't think it's important to
be culturally neutral?) That depends on what the referendum means by
culturally neutral.
If it will be interpreted as meaning that the setting of filters will be
neutral between all cultures, so Moslems will be able to use
Hi Teofilo,
most likely some people will tell me afterwards that I should not have
answered your email, because of famous internet laws, but I will do so none
the less to avoid that people are being misinformed by your email.
Teofilo: (...) they also absorb funds (...)
Chapters do not 'absorb'
Litigation under the rules of plagiarism
Can you cite that law for me?
-Original Message-
From: Robin McCain ro...@slmr.com
To: foundation-l foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, Aug 16, 2011 7:43 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues
On 8/16/2011 2:50
My attention being caught by the sitenotice to the image hiding
referendum, I came to read the 29 May 2011 board Controversial
content resolution [1]. And I was astonished. I have two main
criticisms.
A) The principle of least astonishment was one compound in a set of
balanced principles, limited
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
My attention being caught by the sitenotice to the image hiding
referendum, I came to read the 29 May 2011 board Controversial
content resolution [1]. And I was astonished. I have two main
criticisms.
A) The principle of
Hi Teofilo,
Chapters are geographic entities, I don't think they have a role in disputes
about Commons templates. As for the controversial content referendum, I
suspect some chapters or proto chapters in Islamic countries will be
strongly for having such filters. But the content filtering thing
On 8/17/2011 7:02 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
Litigation under the rules of plagiarism
Can you cite that law for me?
I'm not a lawyer, but I seem to recall that a Tort can be filed for just
about anything that is perceived to cause injury. Note that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
For plagiarism to cause injury you have to specify the type of injury in your
suit.
And then the case is not about laws about plagiarism per se, of which there are
none, but laws about the type of injury you are claiming.
For example unfair trade as in I made all these designs and posted them
On 8/17/2011 9:20 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
For plagiarism to cause injury you have to specify the type of
injury in your suit.
And then the case is not about laws about plagiarism per se, of which
there are none, but laws about the type of injury you are claiming.
For example unfair trade as in
Robin there are no laws (in the US) about plagiarism, that's what I'm saying.
None. Zero. They don't exist.
Why? Because plagiarism does not de facto create any injury.
Wikipedia and the foundation operate under U.S. law so that's what is germane
to this list, not what some other country
Can you guys please take this discussion off-list? Thanks.
Ryan Kaldari
On 8/17/11 9:55 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
Robin there are no laws (in the US) about plagiarism, that's what I'm saying.
None. Zero. They don't exist.
Why? Because plagiarism does not de facto create any injury.
Wikipedia and
Technically you are correct. As I've stated, I'm not a lawyer.
My original statement did not refer to any specific laws about
plagiarism - rules are not necessarily laws and I'm sure that by 1831
many institutions of higher learning had some sort of statement like an
honor code that included
Teofilo, I think you're looking at the wrong Principle of Least
astonishment page. You should look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment
not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Principle_of_least_astonishment
At the time the resolution was passed, there was much
B) Is there a philosopher aboard the plane ? Did-it not occur to
anybody in the board that astonishment and knowledge are synonymous ?
If you are against astonishment, you are against knowledge. Learning
is about being astonished.
I do not have to personally view santorum, mixed lubricant
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
B) Is there a philosopher aboard the plane ? Did-it not occur to
anybody in the board that astonishment and knowledge are synonymous ?
If you are against astonishment, you are against knowledge.
Hello Teofilo,
Imagine I
On 08/17/11 10:33 AM, Robin McCain wrote:
As for litigation - I don't think anyone was going to actually attempt
to go into court on this matter. The Book of Mormon was extremely
controversial and received a lot of adverse publicity - it is one thing
to claim that you are going to file an
Actually, this has all been fun, but we've managed to provoke others
into telling us to take this elsewhere and we all got sidetracked.
In the beginning of the thread I was simply commenting on the nit
picking that can occur over the most trivial changes in copyritten
material and how in the
19 matches
Mail list logo
