Today the Wikimedia Foundation posted an important update on how the Stop
Online Piracy Act (SOPA) legislation being considered in DC this week
threatens an open and free web, and particularly how it threatens Wikipedia.
The post is authored by WMF's General Counsel, Geoff Brigham, and can be
I've actually been doing a lot of research on the history of copyright law
on-wiki - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ironholds/statute for
example - and I've been focusing on the Berne Convention, later on. The
rationale for encyclopaedias (something that is not just common law, but in
some
Hi all;
Looks like Wikimedia Foundation is very worried about censorship and the
cut off of fundraising payment processors. Now.
What did WMF do when WikiLeaks domains were seized and its fundraising
payment processors (PayPal, Visa, MasterCard) were cut off? Did WMF protest
against Internet
On 14/12/2011 2:04 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
I am genuinely not anti-american. The logic here does escape me though.
From a lawmaker's point of view, this is clear enough: US-based
websites are reachable through the usual legal means and thus can be
shut down with local intervention
On 12/12/11 9:47 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 12 December 2011 19:22, Möller, Carstenc.moel...@wmco.de wrote:
Who has asked for such a silly feature?
Every uploader sees the image he/she is uploading and has made the necessary
rotation beforehand.
I've certainly uploaded screwily-rotated files
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 14/12/2011 2:04 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
I am genuinely not anti-american. The logic here does escape me though.
From a lawmaker's point of view, this is clear enough: US-based
websites are reachable
On 14 December 2011 16:46, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
You can call me an idealist -- if there are still some taking passengers at
this late hour. I was in fact referring to the problem of our legal counsel
expressing a view that it is to WMF favor to have laws that make
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:08 AM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all;
Looks like Wikimedia Foundation is very worried about censorship and the
cut off of fundraising payment processors. Now.
What did WMF do when WikiLeaks domains were seized and its fundraising
payment processors (PayPal,
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I've actually been doing a lot of research on the history of copyright law
on-wiki - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ironholds/statute for
example - and I've been focusing on the Berne Convention, later on. The
Can someone summarise for me the current status of this strike idea?
Jimmy held an informal strawpoll on his talk page to see if there was
any support for such action, which there was (to my regret - as bad as
this act sounds, I really don't think it's a good idea). Presumably
there will be a more
What did WMF do when WikiLeaks domains were seized and its fundraising
payment processors (PayPal, Visa, MasterCard) were cut off? Did WMF protest
against Internet censorship? No.
Wikimedia defends itself, not the ''justice in America and worldwide''.
Remember we are not a political party.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't claim to have made a special study of the issue, but have had it
pretty much forced down my throat by circumstances. While our
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 19:23, Mateus Nobre mateus.no...@live.co.uk wrote:
What did WMF do when WikiLeaks domains were seized and its fundraising
payment processors (PayPal, Visa, MasterCard) were cut off? Did WMF protest
against Internet censorship? No.
Wikimedia defends itself, not the
It's complex, Milos.
We are not activists. Being a volunteer in Wikimedia do not torn ourselves
activists.
It could be, but the option to be a volunteer in Wikipedia is just a option to
share the free knowledge, not about political issues.
I totally agree to fight against censorships in
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 21:38, Mateus Nobre mateus.no...@live.co.uk wrote:
It's complex, Milos.
We are not activists. Being a volunteer in Wikimedia do not torn ourselves
activists.
It could be, but the option to be a volunteer in Wikipedia is just a option
to share the free knowledge,
*At some point of time we'll have to articulate ourselves politically.*
If we decide to be honest with ourselves we must remember that we crossed
that line when it.wiki got off-line for a very similar reason.
And WMF also participated in Internet Censorship Day. not only participated
-
On 13/12/11 06:22, Möller, Carsten wrote:
i.e., was there strong reason to apply it to past images, not
just new ones?
Don't ask, you need no reason if you work directly with the WMF.
The main developer for this project was a volunteer, and it was
requested by Commons users. If the WMF was
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 21:38, Mateus Nobre mateus.no...@live.co.uk wrote:
I totally agree to fight against censorships in Internet and in real life, I
agree with that. And I fight against that. We can, as people and
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 05:43:03PM +, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Presumably
there will be a more formal process to decide whether we actually go
ahead with it - has that started somewhere? If not, has anyone at
least figured out what form that process will take?
Strictly speaking, the straw
Strictly speaking, the straw poll there is sufficient, unless people bring
up true blockers.
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
I contributed to the straw poll on the understanding given at the top
of the straw poll:
This is merely a straw poll to indicate overall interest. If this
poll is firmly
On 14 December 2011 21:57, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 05:43:03PM +, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Presumably
there will be a more formal process to decide whether we actually go
ahead with it - has that started somewhere? If not, has anyone at
least figured
87% is more than sufficient.
En.wikipedia (not that one, I'm native of ptwiki and I voted in it too) it's
like a whole country.
It's simple impossible to reach a consensus in a place where have 500 people
voting.
Sometimes polls are the only way. I'm not saying the best. It's the only.
The poll hit a community of many tens of thousands. So...
Tom Morton
On 14 Dec 2011, at 23:10, Mateus Nobre mateus.no...@live.co.uk wrote:
87% is more than sufficient.
En.wikipedia (not that one, I'm native of ptwiki and I voted in it too) it's
like a whole country.
It's simple
Ask for a ''consensus way'' in decisions like that one tends to humor.
I can compare asking a consensus for presidential elections.
_
MateusNobre
MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
(+55) 85 88393509
30440865
From: mateus.no...@live.co.uk
To:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:59:13PM +, Fae wrote:
Strictly speaking, the straw poll there is sufficient, unless people bring
up true blockers.
sincerely,
? ? ? ?Kim Bruning
I contributed to the straw poll on the understanding given at the top
of the straw poll:
This is merely a
On 14 December 2011 22:42, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
...
OTOH, I think that it is pretty close to your intent that we indeed
proceed, is it not?
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
No. My opinion was on the straw man as stated, not for some later
re-interpretation.
None of the
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:57:51PM +, Fae wrote:
On 14 December 2011 22:42, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
No. My opinion was on the straw man as stated, not for some later
re-interpretation.
Um, You opposed the straw man as stated. If you strike your position,
then I'd
Before anyone blanks the en.wiki Main Page, please remember that the
bill is still in committee. It could still be heavily modified or
rejected completely before going to the floor. If it does go to the
floor, it probably wouldn't be until January, so there's still some time
for other,
Hmmm... do some of the editors have such a problem with entries that are
in progress that they decide to propose them for deletion rather than
attempt to support the efforts of the original author by adding to the
content or make any effort to improve the article rather than remove it?
Isn't
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Robin McCain ro...@slmr.com wrote:
I've just been subjected to a rather bizarre bunch of activity by
Mythpage88, who seems anxious to delete everything I've written over the
years in WP on the basis that it isn't notable.
It looks like he nominated one article
I would say that technically Jimmy's statement that it was just an
informal poll to decide whether it is worth discussing further is binding.
Someone acting on that poll alone might get away with it, but it would
technically be out-of-process.
On Dec 15, 2011 12:53 AM, Kim Bruning
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 02:49:00AM +, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I would say that technically Jimmy's statement that it was just an
informal poll to decide whether it is worth discussing further is binding.
Someone acting on that poll alone might get away with it, but it would
technically be
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 04:04:36AM +, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On Dec 15, 2011 3:20 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
That, and remember that it is preferable to stage a protest BEFORE
passage of
the bill. :-P
I'm not sure about that. If we strike before they pass the bill
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 04:04:36AM +, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On Dec 15, 2011 3:20 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
That, and remember that it is preferable to stage a protest BEFORE
passage of
the
34 matches
Mail list logo
