Дана Wednesday 04 March 2009 19:00:25 Thomas Dalton написа:
maintaining what they consider adequate attribution). The options
given, in order of simplest to most difficult are:
No credit
Credit to Wikipedia (or similar)
Link to article
Link to history
link online, full list of authors
2009/3/10 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com:
So, they don't care about their own copyright law.
Common law is very much driven by legal precedent. Looking to see what
geni wrote:
2009/3/10 Ray Saintonge:
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM, geni wrote:
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic:
So, they don't care about their own copyright law.
Common law is very much driven by legal precedent. Looking to see what
David Gerard wrote:
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:28 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com:
Should we treat such persons systematically or it is better to add
some exceptional rules? Something like
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/6 Mike Linksvayer m...@creativecommons.org:
Yes.
Mike (not the CC counsel but just spoke to her)
And what was the exact wording of the question asked and what was the
line of reasoning?
The question was whether
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer m...@creativecommons.org
wrote:
p.s. Personally, discussions of offline here and everywhere (say,
accessibility of educational materials) are absurdly myopic.
Consideration of offline use is about as relevant now as consideration
of horse
2009/3/9 Mike Linksvayer m...@creativecommons.org:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/6 Mike Linksvayer m...@creativecommons.org:
Yes.
Mike (not the CC counsel but just spoke to her)
And what was the exact wording of the question asked and what was the
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer m...@creativecommons.org
wrote:
p.s. Personally, discussions of offline here and everywhere (say,
accessibility of educational materials) are absurdly myopic.
Consideration
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer m...@creativecommons.org
wrote:
p.s. Personally, discussions of offline here and everywhere
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com:
And Kenyans would care about US and European copyright laws? :))) And
we would care why they didn't attribute us? In such cases, those who
care from both sides are maybe ignorants, maybe idealists, but they
are definitely stupid.
Kenyan copyright law
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:28 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com:
Should we treat such persons systematically or it is better to add
some exceptional rules? Something like to give a mandate to WMF to
solve problems
horrificly bad question?
Surely you can't be serious? This is just sensationalism.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:40 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/9 Mike Linksvayer m...@creativecommons.org:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/6 Mike Linksvayer
2009/3/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
horrificly bad question?
Surely you can't be serious? This is just sensationalism.
1)It isn't actually a question so pretty much by definition a bad question
2)It's a rather vague pseudo question about a legal matter which is
always a bad idea which
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com:
So, they don't care about their own copyright law.
Common law is very much driven by legal precedent. Looking to see what
similar legal systems have done is a fairly common approach.
That
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/3/4 Anthony:
What constitutes a significant majority? What if the survey results had
said that a significant majority was happy with their work being released
into the public domain. Would you then find it reasonable to release
*everyone's* work into the public
David Gerard wrote:
Remember that licenses are not merely a game of Nomic, but responses
to a given legal threat model.
Not necessarily a given legal threat, but an even weaker perceived
legal threat.
In this case, the threat model is: what if some raving and/or
malicious lunatic who has
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Sage Ross wrote:
This is a typical pattern when a complex technology is introduced in
the presence of a simpler one; it's not a simple matter of
replacement, and old technologies (where the infrastructure is easy to
2009/3/4 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
CC lawyers?
We've been in repeated conversations with CC about
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
And that explicitly included offline reuse? If so, it looks like we're
ready to present a final proposal for the community to vote on. Even
with such a small sample size, those numbers are pretty conclusive.
1) Have
2009/3/4 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
And that explicitly included offline reuse? If so, it looks like we're
ready to present a final proposal for the community to vote on. Even
with such a small sample size, those
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/3/4 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
1) Have the numbers been released? All I saw was a selective summary.
2) What do you think they're conclusive of?
The numbers given by Erik at the start of this thread are
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
And yes, 80% of people ranked one of 4 options which I consider
unacceptable
first. But then, 67% of people would have done so even if everyone chose
their answers randomly.
Now, how many of the 20% who wants their name
2009/3/4 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
You're assuming that those who ranked no credit is needed first will be
happy with attribution by URL, and you're assuming that those who ranked
credit can be given to the community will by happy with attribution by
URL. But these people will also probably
2009/3/4 Marco Chiesa chiesa.ma...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
And yes, 80% of people ranked one of 4 options which I consider
unacceptable
first. But then, 67% of people would have done so even if everyone chose
their answers randomly.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/3/4 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
You're assuming that those who ranked no credit is needed first will be
happy with attribution by URL, and you're assuming that those who ranked
credit can be given to the
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
Do we really want to only listen to the opinions of those people
actually willing to make a fuss if they don't get their way?
We should. If someone isn't willing to make a fuss if they don't get their
way, they don't
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
Do we really want to only listen to the opinions of those people
actually willing to make a fuss if they don't get their way?
We should. If someone
2009/3/4 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
What constitutes a significant majority? What if the survey results had
said that a significant majority was happy with their work being released
into the public domain. Would you then find it reasonable to release
*everyone's* work into the public
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
Do we really want to only listen to the opinions of those people
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Marco Chiesa chiesa.ma...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
And yes, 80% of people ranked one of 4 options which I consider
unacceptable
2009/3/4 phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com:
I know there's time pressure on this... but on the other hand, we've
waited years :) It would be worthwhile to get better stats before
making sweeping generalizations about the community's desires.
That we've waited years is irrelevant. We make a
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/3/4 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I imagine
most Wikimedians are sufficiently mature to accept it if the majority
disagree with
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/3/4 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
What constitutes a significant majority? What if the survey results had
said that a significant majority was happy with their work being released
into the public domain. Would
2009/3/4 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
This is more than just an argument if it's being used to purport to give
copyright licenses away. In fact, it's not much of an argument at all -
arguments aren't won by voting, unless you're defining the argument as
which position more people agree with.
(Last email, since I received this I was I was typing what was meant
to be the last one. Then I'll really stop.)
2009/3/4 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
What if the FSF could be convinced to come up with a GFDL 1.4 which makes it
legal?
They can't. The GFDL requires future versions to be in the
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not a statistician, someone else can work out how large a majority
is needed from a sample size of 570 to be confident (at the 95% level,
say?) that a majority of the population as a whole agrees.
If the 570
2009/3/4 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com:
Phoebe writes:
This is a very small, self-selected sample; there would be
no harm or cost associated with turning it on for a much larger
percentage (or all) of logged-in users on the top-ten languages, not
just English or German alone, which both
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
Phoebe writes:
This is a very small, self-selected sample; there would be
no harm or cost associated with turning it on for a much larger
percentage (or all) of logged-in users on the top-ten languages, not
just English
*phoebe ayers* phoebe.wiki at gmail.com writes:
++
I'm not sure there's any way to get a non-self-selected survey about anything
on the projects due to anonymity concerns.
++
I'm a 17-year veteran of implementing professional quantitative survey
research. Self-selection bias is a very
This entire field has been formalized but in my experience the key
things to worry about are experimenter and subject bias.
Experimenter bias in a survey context means that the survey writer
(Erik) has expectations about the likely community answers. This has
been clearly demonstrated, as he
Gregory Kohs wrote:
*phoebe ayers* phoebe.wiki at gmail.com writes:
++
I'm not sure there's any way to get a non-self-selected survey about
anything on the projects due to anonymity concerns.
++
I'm a 17-year veteran of implementing professional quantitative
survey research.
Gregory Kohs wrote:
*Phil Nash* pn007a2145 at blueyonder.co.uk said:
++
Except of course, that such a survey would arguably not have
preconceived desires. So much for empiricism!
++
I offered to give some pro bono guidance on overcoming (to a degree)
self-selection bias, even
The official results of the survey haven't even been announced yet,
and already it is being accused of bias. Have any of you actually
looked at the survey? It does include demographic questions and it's a
ranked preference poll. If someone were trying to skew the results in
a particular way, this
For what it's worth, what Nathan says basically sums up my concerns as
well. I think for a (relatively informal, community-opinion) survey
it's less important to have an absolutely rigorous methodology (not
what I was asking for) than it is to ask the question: is this good
enough for our
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
CC lawyers? They wrote the license, so their
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
I think it is very on point to mention that even if some
things were on that list, that would not make them
*more* acceptable to the community, just by virtue of
them being considered allowable by CC lawyers, if
they were infact contrary to
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
I think it is very on point to mention that even if some
things were on that list, that would not make them
*more* acceptable to the community, just by virtue of
them being considered allowable by CC lawyers, if
2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
CC lawyers?
We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
attribution models. CC counsel
2009/3/4 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
CC lawyers?
We've been in repeated conversations with CC about
They wrote the damned thing, so they are most likely to understand it.
From: geni geni...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 7:41:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey
-l] Attribution survey, first results
Sent: Mar 4, 2009 10:41 AM
2009/3/4 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
CC
: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
Sent: Mar 4, 2009 10:15 AM
2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
CC lawyers?
We've been
52 matches
Mail list logo
