On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 7:35 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/3 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
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
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com 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
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/3 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
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
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu 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
Wikipedia', while
others would be 'from Wikipedia by Sam Johnston'.
Sam
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com 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
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:29 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
So far I have not heard any arguments why the CC-by-sa cannot do this.
It can but can only do this when everyone agrees. Since wikipedia currently
has 282,180,603 edits by people who have not agreed such a change is
imposible.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
I advocate a much more flexible attribution scheme than listing the authors
or printing a url to the history page. I think a simple (Wikipedia) is a
sufficient attribution for text. If you have the text it is trivial to
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
On Sunday 01 February 2009 10:22:23 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
No, we want to create a free encyclopaedia. The restrictions imposed for
narcissistic reasons do get in the way of making the encyclopaedia Free.
No, they
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
This is an important point. It is precisely why it is not a good idea to
remove attribution.
I wasn't aware that anyone was suggesting that we remove attribution
altogether, just that we attribute Wikipedia as a
Should we take no steps to protect people who have no wish to have their
photos published worldwide on a site owned by a charity devoted to
knowledge?
Or to put it another way, is an identifiable image of a person really free
if that person has not given a model release (irrespective of whether
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Guillaume Paumier guillom@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Sam Johnston s...@samj.net wrote:
... now the French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial
publishing...
As already pointed out by several people (including me [1
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:55 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/30 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net:
I'm sure it's not the first time this subject has been raised, but now
the
French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial publishing
it's
probably worth [re
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
David Moran hett schreven:
I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the idea
that sexual images equal harm.
Not the images themselves equal harm. But it can mean harm to people. As
far as I have
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:39 AM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote:
This is a sort of 'essay spam' I guess, so for those aspects of this post,
I
apologise! I've also been criticised on some Wikimedia projects for
proposing
policy
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Sam Johnston wrote:
My primary concern is that all the potential ramifications of such
actions
be properly considered - the income is irrelevant in the context of the
WMF
budget and yet the risk could be extreme
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm obviously in favor of having more books at Wikibooks, but then
again it does make some sense to keep the documentation close to the
website it documents. If the book is GFDL, couldn't we just copy/fork
it to
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.ukwrote:
2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net:
Material in the public domain or under a fully free licence does not
require any kind of fair use consideration.
I'm not talking about genuinely free material, I'm talking
? Not
the WMF not its chapters. So please THINK
Why bother us with such tripe that is irrelevant to the thread anyway ?
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
wrote:
2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi,
In your post the crucial bit is that a liability results as a consequence
of an invoice from either the Wikimedia Foundation or from a WMF chapter.
False.
Furthermore, while WMF *may* be safe from attack
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Just how much control do you expect from the Central Committee? Sure,
it's a given that some will-intentioned initiatives will go dreadfully
awry. Bad things have happened in the past, and bad things will happen
in
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 7:18 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com
wrote:
My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely
and unquestionably legally necessary is a violation of the moral
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
We can develop tools that would identify principal authors with sufficient
accuracy; and this list of authors is likely to be short enough to be
practically included in full.
I disagree with this assertion regarding
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
It's by no means guaranteed that if we include
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dentistrycurid=8005action=history
in a printed book in 2009 it will still be accessible in 2019.
You're right, which is another great
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.comwrote:
His decision has to be respected by Wikipedia absolutely.
And it will be... in the edit summary for the import which is in turn
referenced either directly or indirectly in the attribution.
The critical difference is
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:26 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
If the change to CC-BY-SA goes through I will be proposing a new
wikimedia project to record what authors and reuses consider
acceptable (and what people actually do if that happens) in terms of
attribution for every form of
Hear hear!
Das Wikipedia Lexikon in einem Band[1] is another stunning example of
attribution gone mad and reusers would always have the option of crediting
authors anyway (perhaps guided by author preferences expressed on the talk
page or some other interface).
Most critically however, the
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
Das Wikipedia Lexikon in einem Band[1] is another stunning example of
attribution gone mad
A few pages of names in a 1000 page book doesn't seem that mad to me.
I think it makes an excellent point about how
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
What about text works which were licensed under CC-BY-SA but were released
somewhere other than Wikipedia? Can these be incorporated into Wikipedia?
How will their right to attribution be respected? Is this allowance of
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm curious: why isn't a copyright notice displayed at the bottom of
each article, stating the copyright owners of the material?
Because the copyright owners is often a very long list. The notice:
All text is
(Photo by Sam Johnston), as opposed to being referred to as Photo from
Wikipedia. This is equally true, I think, for articles where there is just
a single author, or for pictures which have been subsequently edited a few
times.
I would consider this an exception rather than the rule and in any
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/1/16 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net:
That is, you must at least reference Wikipedia and the article, but it
may
be appropriate to additionally *or* alternatively refer to individual
contributor(s).
Yes - I agree
Hi,
I've been following with great interest the endeavour to relicense Wikipedia
for some time, though this is my first meaningful contribution to it.
Attribution is an important and sensitive issue but I think the discussions
so far are missing a great opportunity to promote Wikipedia itself
33 matches
Mail list logo
