2011/10/24 Carl Fürstenberg :
> It's a difference deciding if uploads of babes with big boobs are
> stolen from the Internet at large or not, than to figure out if a line
> drawing from World War II is free or not.
Indeed. In legal terminology, the difference is between a matter of
fact and a matt
On 24 October 2011 09:25, Orionist wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure a consenus of
>> wikimedians is the best way to make legal decisions anyway, shouldn't we
>> consult an expert?
>
>
> In a perfect world we'd have a legal department that vets each and every
> image uploaded to Commons. The thing is, we'
I agree. There is no way a derivative work being PD invalidates the
underlying copyright. That would be ridiculous. It would undermine the whole
concept of derivative works.
The deletion discussion on commons seems to have been closed prematurely.
There was hardly any discussion at all. I'm not su
On 21 October 2011 16:02, Andrew Garrett wrote:
> These discussions have gone in circles for a month now, and it's the
> same five or ten people (yes, I am again being rhetorical, please
> don't bother checking that number) arguing past each other and posting
> their entrenched positions again and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15360864
I'm not sure of the details of this case, but it looks like it would
be worth us keeping an eye on it since it could potentially have
repercussions for us. Hopefully, the case will either be thrown out or
it will turn out to depend on the existing
On 10 October 2011 15:27, MZMcBride wrote:
> I think the issue of "I'll put down my gun when you put down yours" is still
> being a bit side-stepped, but it isn't really the responsibility of a single
> Board member (or even the Board) to make agreements not to impose this
> feature on a particula
On 10 October 2011 10:19, Florence Devouard wrote:
> On 10/9/11 11:57 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> * Sue Gardner wrote:
>>> Please read Ting's note carefully. The Board is asking me to work with
>>> the community to develop a solution that meets the original
>>> requirements as laid out in its r
On 9 October 2011 22:03, Bob the Wikipedian wrote:
> Calm down. No one is "forcing" or "pushing" anything, more like
> "offering". Everything I've read indicates it will be opt-in (though the
> manner for opting in will be easily accessible upon arrival at
> Wikipedia).
Tobias was talking about t
On 9 October 2011 17:49, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:32:31PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> I don't think the community really can avoid it, since it isn't a
>> coherent body. An individual member of the community can't really
>>
On 9 October 2011 18:16, Lodewijk wrote:
> Discussing 'what if' scenarios in public rarely does any good if those same
> people have full power to avoid that scenario in the first place. Both the
> community and the board can avoid the sitation that we don't reach
> agreement. Therefore, discussin
On 9 October 2011 17:46, Sue Gardner wrote:
> On 9 October 2011 09:31, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> On 9 October 2011 17:19, Sue Gardner wrote:
>>> Nobody wants civil war.
>>
>> I'm sure they don't actively want one, but it seems the board do
>> conside
On 9 October 2011 17:19, Sue Gardner wrote:
> Nobody wants civil war.
I'm sure they don't actively want one, but it seems the board do
consider one an acceptable cost.
> Please read Ting's note carefully. The Board is asking me to work with
> the community to develop a solution that meets the or
On 9 October 2011 16:31, church.of.emacs.ml
wrote:
> On 10/09/2011 04:56 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> If the WMF picks a fight with the community on something the
>> community feel very strongly about (which this certainly seems to
>> be), the WMF will lose horribly and the f
On 9 October 2011 15:12, Ting Chen wrote:
> the text of the May resolution to this question is "... and that the
> feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both
> logged-in and logged-out readers", and on the current board meeting we
> decided to not ammend the original r
On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen wrote:
> The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not opposed
> to the feature. However, a significant minority is opposed.
How do you know? The "referendum" didn't ask whether people were opposed or not.
> We are not going to revisit the res
Church's email worked fine for me. The only attachment was a signature, the
content itself was in normal email form. What mail client are you using?
On Oct 7, 2011 12:27 AM, "Phil Nash" wrote:
> church.of.emacs.ml wrote:
>
> I don't read your posts, because (a) I don't trust attachments anyway, an
On 4 October 2011 14:12, Donaldo Papero wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Here are the facts: the Italian parliament will discuss within few days –
> and most likely approve – a law which, among the other things, will
> introduce the duty, for every web site (included, and not limited to,
> Wikipedia) to publis
On 30 September 2011 18:24, Theo10011 wrote:
> Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
> euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and
> what not.
That is just completely untrue. The image filter will allow people to
choose what to see an
On 29 September 2011 23:55, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 September 2011 23:53, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> Not dealing with pending comments promptly doesn't sound like
>> arbitrary filtering to me...
>
>
> Note comments from others in this thread experiencing the s
On 29 September 2011 23:49, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 September 2011 23:45, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> On 29 September 2011 22:46, David Gerard wrote:
>>> The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be
>>> being arbitrarily filtered, e.g. mine.
&g
On 29 September 2011 22:46, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
>
>> http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
>> Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please
>> discuss the blog on the blog and not thread
On 21 September 2011 18:37, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 19:10, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> What is the advantage of that compared with the feature as it was
>> originally proposed? All you've done is made the URL more complicated.
>> You'll still
On 21 September 2011 14:06, Milos Rancic wrote:
> You didn't understand me well. It's not about fork(s), it's about
> wrappers, shells around the existing projects.
>
> * en.safe.wikipedia.org/wiki/ would point to
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> * When you click on "edit" from en.safe, you would get th
On Sep 16, 2011 7:39 PM, "phoebe ayers" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
> wrote:
> > 86% of the German contributers opposed the feature. Does the same
> > pattern apply to the global poll, or was it just the difference in
> > question? We don't know as long per project
On 15 September 2011 07:31, phoebe ayers wrote:
> I've been away for a week offline, so am trying to catch up. I'm
> picking a random point in the thread to try and answer lots of
> questions at once, from my own viewpoint.
Thank you for this email. I'm going to pick just a few portions of it
to
On 15 September 2011 05:12, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 20:17, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> If volunteer written news is an impossible model to make work, then we
>> should just close Wikinews. We shouldn't turn it into a professional
>> project. That'
On 14 September 2011 18:34, Kim Bruning wrote:
> Actually, wikipedia did have a paid full-time editor at bootup.
Yes, and that went really well, didn't it? ;)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wik
On 13 September 2011 13:06, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:24, wrote:
>> It's my opinion, that Wikimedia should try to support a Wikinews by
>> paying a editor in chief and a core team of reporters to secure that
>> the project always stays above the critical mass.
>
> That's a
On 13 September 2011 00:04, MZMcBride wrote:
> Wikimedia indisputably now exists to serve the English Wikipedia. Wikimedia
> is quick to call Sue "Wikipedia Executive Director," isn't it? Or plaster
> "Wikipedia founder" on every fundraiser-related publication? Out of the last
> X extensions enabl
On Sep 12, 2011 11:10 PM, "Thomas Morton"
wrote:
>
> It's a tiny bit disappointing that the tone here is "oh well, we tried and
> failed".
>
> When really it should be "cool - now we have a competitor, what do we need
> to give WN to help them stay in the market"
In what way are we competing? Our
Sounds interesting. It is certainly true that wikinews was never as
successful as we had hoped. Perhaps this new project will manage more. Good
luck!
On Sep 12, 2011 9:51 PM, "Tempodivalse" wrote:
> Greetings everyone,
>
> I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a large portion of
WIkin
2011/9/10 Etienne :
> It would be mainly for wikis without dispute resolution. EBE123
Is that a problem that actually exists? I would expect wikis to create
dispute resolution processes when they reach the size where they need
it. Before then, they can probably resolve disputes through informal
m
On 10 September 2011 21:26, Etienne wrote:
> I have proposed an wiki for managing disputes (cross-wiki and local). It¹s
> at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dispute. This wiki would have many
> venues, mediation, arbitration and other ways. There would also have an
> private wikis for arbitrator
On 8 September 2011 22:13, Geoff Brigham wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the legal department at the Wikimedia Foundation, we have been examining
> for some time whether, as the 5th largest website in the world, we need a
> new terms of use agreement. Given our size and the need to ensure good
> communicatio
On 6 September 2011 05:53, Shii wrote:
> I am an American Wikipedia administrator living in Japan. Recently, as
> you may have seen on the news (but not Wikinews), Japan got a new
> prime minister. I watched his press conference and decided to grace
> Wikinews with this breaking story within minut
On Sep 5, 2011 9:35 PM, "Stephen Bain" wrote:
>
> The questions are all relating to the development of the feature, save
> for the 'culturally neutral' question: the first is about how to
> prioritise it, and the others are about setting out the specs for the
> feature.
That first question would
On Sep 5, 2011 9:19 PM, "Stephen Bain" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:59 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> >
> > I didn't see that question on the survey.
>
> The first question asked people how important they considered it to be
> that the projects offer the feature. The perceived importance of
> o
On Sep 5, 2011 7:08 PM, "Stephen Bain" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Thomas Dalton
wrote:
> >
> > If the poll had been done properly, we wouldn't have a problem. The
> > only problem is the the poll was so poorly designed that it will need
&
On 5 September 2011 14:57, Juergen Fenn wrote:
>
>
> Am 04.09.11 22:18 schrieb Kim Bruning:
>
>> * There's nothing wrong with the filter program itself
>
> That's wrong. What's wrong with the whole programme is that the
> Foundation did not ask Wikimedians whether they liked to have it or not
> Th
On 5 September 2011 00:46, David Gerard wrote:
> On 5 September 2011 00:26, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> Please define "censorship" because I think the word must mean something very
>> different to you than it does to me. To me it means one person stopping
>> an
On Sep 5, 2011 12:20 AM, "Kim Bruning" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 11:54:44PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, exactly! You're smart! :-)
> > >
> > > Now, one definition of censorship is :
> > > * Filtering
On Sep 4, 2011 11:34 PM, "Andre Engels" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> > The selection of labels isn't supposed to be unbiased. Users select
> > whichever labels they want. All you have to do is make sure it's easy
&g
On Sep 4, 2011 11:02 PM, "Kim Bruning" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 10:50:26PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > On 4 September 2011 21:18, Kim Bruning wrote:
> > > I really wish people would read previous discussions.
> >
> > I read the dis
On 4 September 2011 22:52, David Gerard wrote:
> I'm glad the ALA-unbiased method of selecting labels is clear to
> everyone. Oh, wait.
The selection of labels isn't supposed to be unbiased. Users select
whichever labels they want. All you have to do is make sure it's easy
for people to create ne
On 4 September 2011 21:18, Kim Bruning wrote:
> I really wish people would read previous discussions.
I read the discussions, I just don't see any merit in the arguments.
Of course the labels are prejudiced, that's the whole point. People
can choose which prejudice they want and filter on those l
On 4 September 2011 20:28, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 09:16:42PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> > The trouble is that at its edges, education is fundamentally
>> > disconcerting, upsetting and subversive. And that this is a matter
>> > only of degr
On 4 September 2011 21:12, David Gerard wrote:
> Well, yes, quite plausibly (I'm not German so I can't say from
> personal experience). That said, you can't go to an article called
> [[Swastika]] and not expect to see swastikas, any more than you can go
> to an article called [[Cock ring]] and not
On 4 September 2011 20:50, David Gerard wrote:
> On 4 September 2011 20:42, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> On 4 September 2011 20:11, church.of.emacs.ml
>> wrote:
>
>>> That is where I disagree. The personal image filter doesn't make much
>>> sense in Germ
On 4 September 2011 20:11, church.of.emacs.ml
wrote:
> On 09/04/2011 07:43 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
>> Assuming that the .de community is similar to the wikimedia community at
>> large […]
>
> That is where I disagree. The personal image filter doesn't make much
> sense in German Wikipedia, since th
I said from the beginning that this poll was too badly designed for anyone
to be able to draw useful conclusions from whatever the results are. I think
that has been proven correct.
A very large proportion of voters said they don't consider the feature
important. If they simply mean "not important
On 3 September 2011 19:43, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> Indeed. And it is actually a good thing that the WMF board can invite
> new board members also from without the Wikimedia movement. One can
> argue about the numbers, but the principle by itself is good.
I agree. The expert seats are a good thing.
On 3 September 2011 17:55, Jon Huggett wrote:
>
> On Sep 3, 2011, at 09:25 , WereSpielChequers wrote:
>
>> Increasing the mutual overlap of boards is a tried and tested way of
>> reducing such tension, it doesn't always work, (in wiki speak it isn't magic
>> pixie dust) and we are in this situatio
2011/9/3 Béria Lima :
> No one of the videos can go to Wikimedia Commons without a bugzilla request.
That would seem to be a problem. If you are making separate bugzilla
requests for each video, you need to come up with a better process.
Either make one request for all the videos, or make a reques
On 3 September 2011 11:03, David Gerard wrote:
> On 3 September 2011 10:51, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> The organization itself is not the objective.
>
>
> +1
>
> What things could WMF do to make itself obsolete as quickly as
> possible, in as many individual areas as possible?
All sorts of thing
On 1 September 2011 16:37, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> On 8/28/11 1:00 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> I think that developing such a legal entity should be a high priority
>> for Brazilian Wikipedians to ensure that Wiki activities in Brazil are
>> controlled by Brazilians. At the same time I don't think th
On 1 September 2011 09:45, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
>> You are from WMIT, yes? The tracking chart says there have been legal
>> issues with transfering half your revenue from the last fundraiser to
>> the WMF. Until those are resolved, there is no way the WMF could enter
>> into another fundraising
On 31 August 2011 22:20, Nathan wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>
>> On 31 August 2011 17:02, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
>> > I mean that was not "negotiable" the choice to have grant
>> > agreement/fundraising agr
On 31 August 2011 17:02, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> I mean that was not "negotiable" the choice to have grant
> agreement/fundraising agreement.
>
> Grant agreement have been considered mandatory without any further discussion.
Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry. I believe Sue has stated in no uncertain
te
On 31 August 2011 09:34, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> I asked if the proposal of grant agreement was negotiable and the
> answer has been "no"!
The talk page of the grant agreement on internal-wiki would seem to
disagree with you. It is full of people pointing out problems or room
for improvement and
On 28 August 2011 21:56, Béria Lima wrote:
>>
>> *That depends on what you mean by "affected", really. I don't think it
>> will be just WMDE participating in the fundraiser. The WMF has said that it
>> intends to abide by existing agreements, which several chapters had signed
>> before Wikimania.
On 28 August 2011 18:07, David Gerard wrote:
> On 28 August 2011 14:40, Nathan wrote:
>
>> Has it been worked out how many chapters will be affected by this
>> change?
>
>
> All except WMDE.
That depends on what you mean by "affected", really. I don't think it
will be just WMDE participating in
On 28 August 2011 01:19, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> If Sue and Ting are so much at odds, maybe the rest of us should duck.
I think it was a misunderstanding on Sue's part, rather than any
actual disagreement.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@list
2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard :
> I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against
> what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise
> locally.
Is that what the WMF wants? I know it's what Sue said the plan was,
but then Ting clarified that no such decision had
On 27 August 2011 20:52, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Ah, ok this is a recent thing then.
Not really. It's mentioned on page 9 of the strategic plan:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/WMF_StrategicPlan2011_spreads.pdf
The mention in the July report is just saying that things have sta
On 27 August 2011 20:20, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Uh did I miss something?
>
> 2. Wikimedia Foundation will set up an office in Brazil in order to
> stimulate the development of projects to increase the penetration of
> Wikipedia in Brazil. This process was already launched with the
> search
On 26 August 2011 12:15, Strainu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if there is any way to "officially" free Wikipedia
> content under PD/CC-0? What procedure should one follow to use that
> data on another website with an incompatible license?
>
> Assumptions: we are talking about a single version
On 16 August 2011 20:32, Milos Rancic wrote:
> I have to say that I was thinking to give vote in favor. However,
> after this kind of gaming community's opinion, on the line of many
> infamous referendums in totalitarian regimes and banana republics, I
> will boycott it.
I concur. I do support th
I've just been looking at the image filter referendum. Could someone
from the Foundation please explain what you hope to gain by holding
it? The questions are extremely leading, so I doubt you will learn
anything useful from it (is anyone really going to say that they don't
think it's important to
On 9 August 2011 01:24, Michael Peel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just to check: I've been assuming of late that everyone that's interested in
> reading announcements (including things like chapter reports, committee
> reports and signpost issues) is subscribed to the wikimediaannounce-l mailing
> list
On 19 July 2011 11:54, Lodewijk wrote:
> This list might be a proper forum if you identify that the ombudsman
> commission does not function at all though, but as I understand it, you have
> not yet explored the options there.
If the ombudsman aren't doing a good job, then I think contacting
eith
On 14 July 2011 15:32, Alec Conroy wrote:
>>> One easy step they could take would be to simply say, on their
>>> website, "This site considers itself to be part of the Wikimedia
>>> Movement". (alternate text welcome )
>>
>> That would be a trademark violation. We should protect our trademarks.
On 13 July 2011 01:32, Alec Conroy wrote:
> Prompted by discussions in another thread, I ask a related question--
>
> ;1-- A roadmap towards affiliation
>
> How should a currently-unaffiliated project go about becoming 'part
> of' Wikimedia?
>
> One easy step they could take would be to simply s
On 10 July 2011 18:08, wrote:
> Do they have notaries in the Netherlands? Why not simply ask them to mail a
> notarized statement that "I am Foo at such an address and request an ublock
> so I may edit as Bar"? I still am not sure if this is something I would
> completely endorse, but at leas
I'm struggling to see the point of this policy. At first, I assumed it
was a way of proving an account isn't a sockpuppet (each sends a copy
of their passport, thus proving there are two real people involved -
not particularly conclusive proof, given how easy it is to get hold of
a scan of someone
On 26 June 2011 17:46, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Facebook, and Twitter, big with Black folk, gives people something they
> can relate to. Wikipedia is as dry as reading, or writing, an
> encyclopedia.
>
> In a sense they ate our lunch, but millions of Facebook-like user pages
> can hardly be justified
What lovely abuse of statistics!
By showing them indexed to the same scale, it makes it impossible to
draw the conclusion they try and draw. You need to know the *absolute*
increase in facebook usage and the *absolute* increase or decline in
total internet usage. If their numbers are correct, then
On 25 June 2011 19:18, Milos Rancic wrote:
> My general position is that Wikimedian community is diverse enough to
> fill expert seats from itself.
You are probably right, but who would make the better board member: an
average lawyer (or whatever) that's a Wikimedian or a top lawyer that
isn't?
On 23 June 2011 22:58, Sue Gardner wrote:
> I am still confused by the argument here.
I think your confusion is because you are failing to account for
perceptions. It is not good enough to just do things right, you need
to be seen to do things right. You can end up with the best board
member imag
On 22 June 2011 17:25, MZMcBride wrote:
> Ting Chen wrote:
>> Am 21.06.2011 18:15, schrieb MZMcBride:
>>> Thomas Morton wrote:
As a follow up to the discussion about Bitcoins (during the board
elections)
& accepting them as donations... I thought this article by the EFF
expla
On 13 June 2011 09:47, Scott MacDonald wrote:
> Hm, I'm afraid that is not sufficient. :-) It's CC-BY-SA.
>>
>>
>> *Surely* the NPG should be able to figure out that by doing this,
>> they're leaving themselves wide open to copyright suits from all the
>> hundreds of thousands of smart, motivated
Finding ways to get people involved in the movement that wouldn't
normally do so is definitely something we need to do (and are starting
to do, through various schemes - for example, the Campus Ambassadors
programme). Don't forget that we do already have routes onto the board
(chapter selected and
On 7 June 2011 11:17, Huib Laurens wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Almost a week later there has been no responds bij the Foundation nor a
> responds from the OTRS admins to this mailing nor in private.
>
> At this moment I'm starting to believe the Foundation and the OTRS admin's
> doens't care at all about
Try these guys:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission
On 2 June 2011 20:40, Huib Laurens wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> I'm wondering, is there a policy for OTRS agents saying that they can't make
> info send to OTRS public?
>
> --
> Kind regards,
>
> Huib Laurens
> WickedWay.nl
>
> Webhost
On 2 June 2011 18:48, Fae wrote:
> Sure Tom, here's a SciFi user story:
>
> In 2016 San Francisco has a major earthquake and the servers and
> operational facilities for the WMF are damaged beyond repair. The
> emergency hot switchover to Hong Kong is delayed due to an ongoing DoS
> attack from Ea
I'm sorry to hear that, Danese. While we haven't really worked
together, I've heard nothing but good things from those that have
worked with you. The WMF is significantly poorer for losing you.
Could you elaborate on your reason for leaving? Has a decision been
made to change the direction and pur
On 2 June 2011 14:21, Fae wrote:
> Briefly responding to a couple of points raised so far:
>
> Yes, there is a need for a policy as otherwise the WMF would have no
> long term operational archive plan.
Why would we have an archive plan? Archives are for things that aren't
expected to needed on a
On 2 June 2011 00:00, phoebe ayers wrote:
> I will say that the Board drafted these resolutions with good faith
> and a great deal of care, and the one thing I would ask as you debate
> them is to consider them as a whole. We think all of the principles we
> articulate are important, and have impl
On 1 June 2011 22:05, Michael Snow wrote:
> On 6/1/2011 2:03 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> "Wikimedia projects are curated and edited collections, according to
>> certain principles: namely, we host only content that is both free and
>> educational in nature."
>>
>> So Board said that Wikinews is out
On 1 June 2011 21:35, Nathan wrote:
> Forgive me if I find these resolutions rather toothless; this is
> another in a string of board resolutions that simply "urge the
> projects." I'd love to understand what the Board thinks such
> resolutions will accomplish. I understand there are legal constra
On 23 May 2011 00:03, FT2 wrote:
> Out of interest, when a BLP is created and not speedy deleted, could we not
> write a standard email to the subject stating that a biographical article
> has been created on them on the online encyclopedia "Wikipedia", inviting
> them to review it, explaining wha
On 22 May 2011 20:39, Sarah wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 13:33, wrote:
>> On 22/05/2011 19:32, Sarah wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:00, wrote:
On 22/05/2011 11:58, Chris Keating wrote:
> Also rather interestingly, it appears that a Scottish newspaper has
> reve
On 22 May 2011 17:22, geni wrote:
> On 22 May 2011 11:58, Chris Keating wrote:
>> Also rather interestingly, it appears that a Scottish newspaper has revealed
>> the identity of the footballer in question, on the grounds that English
>> superinjunctions don't apply in Scotland.
>
> I rather doubt
The idea is that any discussion about announcements happens on
Foundation-l, so the reply-to is correct. You can subscribe to
foundation-l and select not to receive any emails, which would still
let you send emails. You wouldn't receive any of the responses to your
emails, though. If you want to ta
On 26 April 2011 03:06, wrote:
> I always thought that translations were considered "wholely derivative",
> that is that a new copyright is *not* created, by translating.
I would expect that to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For
example, jurisdictions that includes some kind of "sweat o
On 25 April 2011 08:13, Andre Engels wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Joan Goma wrote:
>> As Ray saids legal prosecution to claim for formal accomplishing of the
>> copyright terms is expensive and difficult. But the same happens the other
>> way around.
>>
>> I would like to have a clea
I'm sorry, where was the decision made to write a press release? I'm
really not sure that's the best approach. What attempts at direct
communication have been attempted so far?
On 24 April 2011 09:45, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> 16,000,000 out of 3,000,000 articles sounds high to me, it would mean
2011/4/19 Dana Lutenegger :
> Actually, I'm pretty sure that on paper, Chinese law forbids this kind of
> copying without attribution. The issue is whether or not it can be enforced
> in practice. If it was strictly enforced, a lot of Baidu Baike and Hudong
> Wiki would have to be seriously retoole
On 31 March 2011 22:35, Lodewijk wrote:
> I did a preliminary measure, and it actually showed a decline, starting the
> exact week it was implemented on nlwiki :( However, this preliminary measure
> was unscientific, not precise and would need better testing/measuring.
An immeadiate decline isn't
On 25 March 2011 17:55, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> I doubt there is any way the court in question can enforce its ruling,
>> which is probably why the WMF didn't bother responding.
>
> For all we know we have servers in Hong Kong.
I think we know where we have servers...
_
I doubt there is any way the court in question can enforce its ruling,
which is probably why the WMF didn't bother responding.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/founda
101 - 200 of 1059 matches
Mail list logo
