On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:32 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, 'cos that worked so well applied to de:wp.
You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board,
with people who voted twice for the resolution now backpedalling?
Wait ... so you're saying that the
I'd just like to echo NYB here. I'm dissappointed that so many of our
community are taking such a view.
Richard Symonds
Office Development Manager
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0992
--
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Charitable Company
Registered in England and Wales,
Hello all,
It came to my attention that people are using wikimedia mailing lists as
there primary contact adres for Linkdin. I guess that this is not the way
it should be done.
Today I found:
Felix Reolon using wikimani...@lists.wikimedia.org as there primary
e-mail.
i don't know him, but I'm
Wasn't he at Gdansk? Conducting the orchestra?
Richard Symonds
Office Development Manager
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0992
--
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Charitable Company
Registered in England and Wales, No: 6741827. Charity No:1144513 Office: 4th
Floor,
Hi, all!
I searched Wikimedia Foundation by chance and a lot of Wikibooks,
possibly collections of Wikipedia articles. The author of the books is
Wikimedia Foundation. I don't think Wikimedia Foundation is selling the
e-books for 2~3 dollars, and I think it is a fraud. Many buyer commented
that
Silly question for you all:
Is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_cake.jpg actually
copyrighted to the WMF as a WMF logo? The cake was made for Wikimedia
UK, so it's technically a derivative work, perhaps...
Any ideas what the copyright status of this should be? Does the author
The cake designer can only release his/her part of the creative process
under a free license (baking the cake/making the photo). I would suggest to
just specifiy that the logo-part is copyright WMF, the photographic and
cake-baking component to be released under CC-BY (not -SA to avoid the SA
cross-posting; apologies if you have already read this from another list.
hisham
Begin forwarded message:
From: Hisham his...@wikimedia.org
Subject: Announcing Noopur Raval as Consultant, Wikimedia Foundation (India
Program, Communications)
Date: March 5, 2012 7:19:05 PM GMT+05:30
To:
I think wikimedia-l would work fine and make sense. We probably don't need
an additional list, a lot of the lists we have now are lightly used.
I appreciate that Erik unsubscribed from internal-l. I think more people
should do the same thing, on the principle that discussions about the
Wikimedia
Just because the list moderators don't publicly come down like a ton of
bricks on every conversation that gets lively does not mean that we are
absentee. Speaking for myself only, I'll conceed that I have intervened
little in recent times, but that has because I have felt little need to do
so. In
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:32 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 March 2012 05:03, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
I am sorry to say that unless you are prepared to put your foot down, and
represent the tens of thousands of people who expressed their views in the
Please find on Wikimedia France position regarding chapter fundraising
in France in the coming years.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_France/Fundraising_letter_March_2012
Please keep feedback and comments for meta rather than lists.
Thanks
Florence
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Niabot has just come up with what I think is a great idea for addressing
the search problem you mention in your postscript. He's proposed a
clustered search function. (Anybody remember Vivísimo?)
This could not just
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:07 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Just for the record, not sure where you got voted twice... There's
been one vote on each resolution.
And it was not raised as an electoral issue. I think that's a little
unfair to people (including myself) who are
Hi folks,
I've started this page to help list the various themed multi-event
campaigns that have been popping up around the Wikimedia universe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiWorldDays
Not sure if it's the best name, I was also thinking WikiSpring, or
WikiSeason, or WikiWhatnot.
On 5 March 2012 17:07, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:32 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board,
with people who voted twice for the resolution now backpedalling?
Just for the record,
You shoud move the site to Meta. :)
Best
Juliana
2012/3/5 Pharos pharosofalexand...@gmail.com
Hi folks,
I've started this page to help list the various themed multi-event
campaigns that have been popping up around the Wikimedia universe:
On 5 March 2012 14:54, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Silly question for you all:
Is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_cake.jpg actually
copyrighted to the WMF as a WMF logo? The cake was made for Wikimedia UK, so
it's technically a derivative work,
Does the author
(Jezhotwells) have the ability to release it under a free licence, if
s/he
wishes?
No but if they put it on permanent display in a public place the photo
would probably be totally fine under UK freedom of panorama law.
I suspect a court would hold that the set of
On 5 March 2012 20:22, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 March 2012 14:54, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk
wrote:
Silly question for you all:
Is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_cake.jpg actually
copyrighted to the WMF as a WMF logo? The cake was made for
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.comwrote:
I suspect a court would hold that the set of cakes is disjoint from the
set of objects on permanent display, and thus that a photograph of cake
can never benefit from freedom of panorama.
You mean we can't have
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Mike Christie coldchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com
wrote:
I suspect a court would hold that the set of cakes is disjoint from the
set of objects on permanent display, and thus that a photograph
You can find that at this link.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/wikibooks-wikimedia-foundation/1102082833?ean=2940012379689itm=1usri=wikimedia+foundation
I think anybody can sell well organized ebook on commercially.
But the author is not the Wimedia Foundation exactly. I think the seller eM
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Richard Symonds
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I'd just like to echo NYB here. I'm dissappointed that so many of our
community are taking such a view.
Richard Symonds
Office Development Manager
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0992
One more echo from
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
Please find on Wikimedia France position regarding chapter fundraising in
France in the coming years.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_France/Fundraising_letter_March_2012
Chers amis de Wikimedia France,
On 5 March 2012 20:40, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect a court would hold that the set of cakes is disjoint from the
set of objects on permanent display, and thus that a photograph of cake
can never benefit from freedom of panorama.
Well you say that but slices of
On 5 March 2012 22:07, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 March 2012 20:40, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect a court would hold that the set of cakes is disjoint from the
set of objects on permanent display, and thus that a photograph of cake
can never benefit from
I also wish the Wikimedia Foundation would do something about these books.
Here is one by me, or by Wikipedia, but NOT by Frederic P. Miller,
Agnes F. Vandome (Editor), and John McBrewster (Editor).
eating the cake would damage the moral rights of the logo author. Since he
cannot give general permission to violate moral rights, eating the cake
would be illegal.
No dia 5 de Março de 2012 23:08, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com escreveu:
On 5 March 2012 22:07, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 March 2012 23:14, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
eating the cake would damage the moral rights of the logo author. Since he
cannot give general permission to violate moral rights, eating the cake
would be illegal.
If you take a slice out of the cake, that could be an issue
Best all around to simply destroy the evidence (by eating it?).
... can this topic end now? Or be moved on-wiki so that it can be filed under
WP:SILLY?
Thanks,
Mike
On 5 Mar 2012, at 23:23, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 5 March 2012 23:14, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
eating the
You're right, the topic is done. Filing it under WP:SILLY would be the
icing on the cake.
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Michael Peel
michael.p...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
Best all around to simply destroy the evidence (by eating it?).
... can this topic end now? Or be moved on-wiki so that it
Am 05.03.2012 19:21, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
I agree you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, and you have my
sympathy.
However, I would like you to consider what our users get when they do a
Multimedia search for male human in Wikipedia:
On 5 March 2012 18:21, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
There are people in this movement who are happy with this status quo, and
who say they will fork if anything changes.
Let them.
You have that backwards. You are demanding the board enact something
precisely because the
Hi David,
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:50 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 March 2012 17:07, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:32 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board,
with
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:41 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 March 2012 18:21, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
There are people in this movement who are happy with this status quo, and
who say they will fork if anything changes.
Let them.
You have that backwards. You
David Gerard wrote:
However, you are convinced that filtering is the key to far greater
usefulness to, and acceptance by, the public.
This suggests that what you should do is start a fork, filtered
according to your vision.
If you are correct that this is what the public really wants,
On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I
personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored
speculation about my own personal views or motivations whether it was
right or wrong. I *have*
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:06 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I
personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored
speculation about my own
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 4:07 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:32 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
...
You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board,
with people who voted twice for the resolution now backpedalling?
...
And it
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I
personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored
speculation about my own
Congratulations Noopur!
Your work with GLAM in India over the last year has been fantastic, so I
can only expect you'll be doing great things in this new role too :-) I'm
looking forward to seeing the results of what you'll be doing.
-Liam
wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love metadata
On 5 March
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:32 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, there are surely more interesting things to talk about -- like
search! Let's talk about search. I am 100% in favor of better commons
search :)
Can you get a developer to provide us with some feedback on
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
You also stated in another discussion that the sexuality related
categories and images are also very popular among our readers and that the
current practices would make it a porn site. Not that we are such
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 2:41 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 March 2012 18:21, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
There are people in this movement who are happy with this status quo, and
who say they will fork if anything changes.
Let them.
There has never been a genuine
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:32 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I
personally think on
46 matches
Mail list logo
