Then it is safe to assume that there is no special agreement between
Wikimedia Foundation and Nokia that gives the later any kind of special
rights?
John
Angela skrev:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:41 AM, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no wrote:
What is the present status on licensing of «Wikipedia»
2009/2/2 phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com:
Which is fine if you're reprinting the whole article, but what if
you're just reprinting the lede, or some other section of an article?
Should a reuser still be required to reprint 2 pages of credits for a
paragraph of article? That seems onerous.
2009/2/1 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
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.
I
have only
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.
2009/2/2 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net:
False. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and the [edits of
the] minority who choose to disrupt the community will be quickly and
efficiently purged from it (albeit wasting resources in the process that
could have been better utilised
Everything takes time. The techs will handle it when they get around to it.
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia developers wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org; Wikimedia Foundation
Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
That's a true answer, but at the same time as useless as it can be.
If it's indeed only a matter of getting around to it (is it?), then
the fact that they didn't came around to it since April 2008 would
proove my
2009/2/1 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org:
Anthony writes:
Actually, the difference is quite relevant in a courtroom,
especially when
dealing with constitutional issues. That's why I find it nearly
impossible
to believe that Mike doesn't understand this. How in the world can
you
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/1 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org:
Anthony writes:
Actually, the difference is quite relevant in a courtroom,
especially when
dealing with constitutional issues. That's why I find it nearly
impossible
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,
Can someone please explain why this is ?
Thanks,
GerardM
Also, some of the (to use the same language as the poster) first
class wikis (top 10 on article count, on numbr of visits,
wikipedia.org main
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The only reason that moral rights is an issue is its inclusion in the
statutes of various countries. It mostly stems from an inflated
Napoleonic view of the Rights of Man that was meant to replace the
divine rights of kings. Common
So, whatever way we decide to go with licenses or attribution
requirements when this debate has settled, at some point our
prospective reader will find themselves confronted with a long list of
names, whether printed on the page or at the end of a URL or
steganographically encoded into the site
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The only reason that moral rights is an issue is its inclusion in the
statutes of various countries. It mostly stems from an inflated
Napoleonic view of the Rights of Man that was meant to replace the
Ray Saintonge writes
Trying to cite the Declaration of Independence as the basis for your
legal defense in a criminal case -- Hey, I was just exercising my
right to resist a bad king! -- is a good way to guarantee going to
jail.
So much for the right to bear arms! :-)
Oh, the
Following this line of reasoning in both directions, many users who
contribute to an encyclopedia that anyone can edit may not want their name
reprinted on every conceivable medium that their contributions could be
replicated on. In other words, many users probably don't care even a little
bit
Any reason why? I can't seem to find anything on it.
- Chris
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 4:20 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/2 Andrew Gray shimg...@gmail.com:
It would be helpful to figure out some way of
* more than a handful of authors
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Also, has it been discussed that the minimum number of authors rule
effectually only applies to stubs and some starts? Even these have often
been edited by many more than a handful of bots.
Hoi,
I had a word with Duesentrieb, he works for the German chapter, and he told
me that the server issue is indeed a case of bad luck. He had some good news
as well, Duesentrieb and some other Tool Server developers are looking into
localisation for the tool server software. When the tool server
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 2:47 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote: As for how sharing
your name is better for everyone, I think it's fairly clear that a work
of
non-fiction is better if you know who wrote it, and further I think it's
also clear that when someone
Hi all,
1) There's a new list summary here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS/foundation-l-archives/2009_January_16-31
2) Can someone *please* do a huge community service, and work on a
page on Meta that summarizes some of the community concerns re: the
licensing proposal, before voting starts?
On Monday 02 February 2009 22:41:37 Brian wrote:
Following this line of reasoning in both directions, many users who
contribute to an encyclopedia that anyone can edit may not want their
name reprinted on every conceivable medium that their contributions could
be replicated on. In other words,
Robert Rohde wrote:
So where do things stand?
By my rough count, the relicensing discussion has generated over 300
emails in the last month alone. At least within the limited confines
of people who read this list, I suspect that everyone who has wanted
to offer an opinion has done so.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:23 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Very few articles require a page's worth of credit. Remember even the
German has an average of 23.65 edits per page and the midpoint is
likely much lower.
True. Although as a caveat remember that people aren't going to be
2009/2/1 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things
either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki
before the new license was announced. Since this was published in a
book first
2009/2/2 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
Just that I am skeptical that people realize their pseudonyms will be
printed on potentially any medium and that they are further aware that this
pseudonym can be linked to their real identity.
I can't say I agree with your general thrust here - I
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Chris Down
neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.comwrote:
Any reason why? I can't seem to find anything on it.
- Chris
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
It's disabled on WMF wikis afaik.
-Chad
Not sure. There's no comment in
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 find
the original author of that text. It's not so trivial with images, but a
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Also, has it been discussed that the minimum number of authors rule
effectually only applies to stubs and some starts? Even these have often
been edited by many more than a handful of bots.
It would be useful to have an
I usually agree with the Mingus, but:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
On Monday 02 February 2009 22:41:37 Brian wrote:
Following this line of reasoning in both directions, many
2009/2/2 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net:
Nothing's impossible - where there's a will (and clearly there is[1])
there's a way. Mozilla managed to relicense to GPL years ago[2] (they
had an FAQ too[3])
We have sought and obtained permission to relicense from almost
everyone who contributed code to
The point is that listing the authors is a silly clause.
I couldn't disagree more.
Just to clarify Sam, I am not suggesting the abolishment of the history
page. Its just that if you are willing to agree that a url is sufficient
attribution, I think you may as well follow the reductio on
Hoi,
A conspiracy is wilful. I doubt that this is the case. If anything there is
neglect. Other languages are just not given the same priority. What you hope
for is that over time a language community will include developers that will
take care for its language issues. In the mean time the
On Monday 02 February 2009 23:45:29 Brian wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
On Monday 02 February 2009 22:41:37 Brian wrote:
Following this line of reasoning in both directions, many users who
contribute to an encyclopedia that anyone can
2009/2/2 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
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 find
the original author of that
It's silly because it's arbitrary and only applies to the lowest quality
articles - start and stub. I have a query running on the Toolserver which I
hope to process into a percentage of articles that have 5 or less authors.
But we already know that the large majority of articles are stubs, and
Hoi,
Can someone please explain why this is ?
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/2/1 Marcus Buck w...@marcusbuck.org
According to SiteMatrix we have 739 projects at the moment. There are
three master partitions for the servers: s1 for enwiki only, s2 for 19
other projects and s3 for all the rest
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:13 PM, 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 find
I actually suggested such a thing in another thread on this topic ^_^ It
would require a monster search index (all revisions of all article text),
but it wouldn't get a ton of use so wouldn't use too many resources.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon,
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
If you are willing to accept that a URL is sufficient, then there is no
reason to ever show the authors - it's only to accomodate the fact that the
CC-BY-SA contains a clause which isn't really relevant to the projects.
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
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
A conspiracy is wilful. I doubt that this is the case. If anything there is
neglect. Other languages are just not given the same priority.
There's no language-dependence in our priorities here, except for Robert's
initial decision, back in October, to pilot the new
Since Robert raised the question where we stand and what our timeline
looks like, I want to briefly recap:
* Because the attribution issue is quite divisive, I want us to
dedicate some more time to reconsidering and revising our approach.
* I'm developing a simple LimeSurvey-based survey to get a
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge writes
Trying to cite the Declaration of Independence as the basis for your
legal defense in a criminal case -- Hey, I was just exercising my
right to resist a bad king! -- is a good way to guarantee
Erik Moeller wrote:
A compromise could acknowledge the principle that attribution should
never be unreasonably onerous explicitly (a principle which, as Geni
has pointed out, is arguably already encoded in the CC-BY-SA license's
reasonable to the medium or means provision), commit us to work
Erik Moeller wrote:
A compromise could acknowledge the principle that attribution should
never be unreasonably onerous explicitly (a principle which, as Geni
has pointed out, is arguably already encoded in the CC-BY-SA license's
reasonable to the medium or means provision), commit us to work
But since most of the contributors to Wikipedia are anonymous, this is
one thing we do not and will never know, regardless of licensing. so
to the extent Wikipedia has any authority it's precisely from the fact
of community editing on a non-personal basis.
Yes, within Wikipedia it's valuable to
46 matches
Mail list logo
