On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I suppose we could add a disclaimer saying that the Terms of Use do not
affect the editor's moral rights, although this would be a bit redundant
since the CC-BY-SA license already states this.
It may be redundant in
On 12 December 2011 20:54, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I suppose we could add a disclaimer saying that the Terms of Use do not
affect the editor's moral rights, although this would be a bit redundant
since the CC-BY-SA license already states this.
Ryan Kaldari
The problem is
On 12 December 2011 20:22, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 December 2011 20:05, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
We switched to
the current license terms because we realised requiring re-users to
credit every single person that made a non-trivial edit to the page
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:52 PM, David Richfield
davidrichfi...@gmail.com wrote:
What effect would a less aggressive tone have had? Would you have
been more likely to convince your audience? less likely to alienate
people?
It's a fair point. I think part of the problem is that people are
Opinion essay: Wikipedia in Academe â and ''vice versa''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-12-12/Opinion_essay
News and notes: Research project banner ads run afoul of community
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-12-12/News_and_notes
In
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 05:57:02AM +, Randall Britten wrote:
One more vote from me for a collaborative Wikipedia hosting: In order to
future proof Wikimedia, an even more distributed architecture is needed.
This would allow another way to contribute to the Wikimedia effort: the
On 12/13/11 9:02 AM, geni wrote:
Actually it is extremely unclear why we switched. There are in fact a
number of re-users that managed to deal with the attribution issue in
paper form.
It can often be done on paper (and easily on the web), but it's not very
convenient for audio, i.e. spoken
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
[...] Using a URL allows attribution without
creating a hardship for the reuser. This has the added benefit of
allowing us to enforce our terms firmly and consistantly, rather than
carving out exceptions for various
Not really, in the UK at least. However this is a poor example; it's
important to note that UK moral rights legislation isn't
*actually*representative. we fail to comply with the Berne Convention
on attribution,
insofar as we don't mandate it except when the author makes clear he wants
it. It's
On 13/12/11 02:55, David Gerard wrote:
On 12 December 2011 15:26, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
It's been a requested feature for a while, Someone finally got around
to writing it (I believe it needed the Improved metadata handling
backend first) and implementing it, It wasn't a
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12/13/11 12:14 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Using an URL does allow the semblance of attribution, but does not
fulfil the legal requirements of moral rights. I find it mildly
distasteful, that
other
For those who've not seen the announcement, the WMF tech team have launched
the first prototype of the visual editor, perhaps the most challenging
technical project ever undertaken in the history of MediaWiki
development.:
The first link to the blog is not working. Here's one that works:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/13/help-test-the-first-visual-editor-developer-prototype/
//Abbas.
From: liamwy...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 04:34:56 +
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Foundation-l]
Sorry about the confusion. I was talking most recently about the GFDL,
which does not mention moral rights. CC-BY-SA does mention moral rights
(to state that it does not affect them). Interestingly, the U.S. port of
the CC-BY-SA license does not include a disclaimer about moral rights,
but
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
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Jay Walsh jwa...@wikimedia.org wrote:
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.
16 matches
Mail list logo
