On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
If the answer to one is yes, then These things happen is an
explanation but not an excuse, and should be a prompt to help us all
get better at detecting that. These things do happen, but should not.
These things
I should add a response on this point:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
The post-facto probability of 1.0 that the researcher was in fact
professional, credible, and by all accounts right does not mean that a
priori he should automatically have
occurred.
At minimum, the Haymarket article ought to edited to accommodate a
well-documented minority scholarly analysis -- surely we agree about
that.
Is it possible that you being Mike Godwin is leading to a selection
bias, where a large fraction of the actual experts with actual
problems
Fred Bauder writes:
We're talking past one another. It is obvious to me that the author of
the Chronicle article should have been able to add his research without
difficulty, at least after it was published.
You're right, Fred. We actually were talking past each other, and
primary blame for
Jussi-ville writes:
The policy, misused in the course of POV struggle, is a way of excluding
information with interferes with presentation of a desired point of view.
I think you are being way too generous. ... Let me repeat in more concise
form.
The policy was written to enable serious
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Mike Christie coldchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad
editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can be
changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's judgement
Fred Bauder writes:
I think it probably seems to climate change deniers that excluding
political opinions from science-based articles on global warming is a
violation of neutral point of view, and of basic fairness. That is just
one example, but there are other similar situations.
This
JADP, but there's no keyboard-related reason for people to misspell my
last name as Goodwin, which is something I've encountered my whole
life. My view is that it's normally best to tolerate the misspelling,
unless there's some particular reason I want to ensure that my surname
is spelled
seems to make in that very piece. the point you
believe is so revelatory and breathtakingly iconoclastic. Maybe you
would find the piece interesting if you gave it another read.
--Mike Godwin
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l
hit me with a [citation needed]
here, and I confess that what I'm telling probably is best classified
as original research. But don't take my word for it -- talk to other
NGOs that work in the Washington policy community, and you'll find
plenty of confirmation of what I'm telling you here.
--Mike
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
There's a massive selection bias there! Of course the NGOs that do
lots of lobbying think lobbying is a great idea, otherwise they
wouldn't be doing it.
Not only that, but of course people who eat food and drink
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Mike, I completely understand your point on this and where you are coming
from. But you made a conflicting point yourself
text omitted
But as I saw it, we already
made our voice heard? When we blacked out Wikipedia for
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree - the null hypothesis is that the gain from lobbying isn't
worth the cost, not that the gain is zero. (Cost includes far more
than just monetary cost, of course.)
Ah, then the proper experiment would have
Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Am I wrong to assume, that lobbying involves approaching a registered,
professional consulting/lobbying firm in Washington who in turn, refer the
client to politicians and then facilitate
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Direct lobbying is relatively new compared to the older forms of government
and legislative influence. Strictly from a global south perspective, a
similar form of unregulated advocacy and influence that I saw practiced here
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
This is an area I have no expertise in. My nascent understanding of the
legal implication of those legislations aside, I, like others usually defer
to more respected opinions. The Citizens United ruling for example has been
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you imagine money spent is the measure of influence? The
pro-SOPA forces outspent the tech industry three-to-one and still
lost.
Citation
Cyrano writes:
Mike, I don't know how's the political landscape is in the USA, but you
would say that there is few significative corruption and collusion?
No, I wouldn't say that. Whenever you have enough human beings
assembled to create a political environment, you create the potential
for
Dan Collins writes:
Hey guys,
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/204167-sopa-shelved-until-consensus-is-found
The House decided they're going to stop bothering with this bill for a
while, so while we should continue to think about what we will do when
the time comes to
Ilario writes:
We have two ways: to be passive or to be active. If we choose the
passivity, it means that we can only organize a system of proxies like
done in China or to organize some workarounds to make Wikipedia
available to the person living in totalitarism.
The Italian community has
Domas writes:
Except that WMF as steward of the open information can roll any of that
blackout crap back.
Primary mission is spreading the knowledge, and now it.wikipedia obviously
fails at it.
I believe this interpretation is both unfair and incorrect. The
Italian Wikipedians are trying
Kat Walsh writes:
I am happy to see the Italian community behind the opposition to the
proposed law because I do think it's contrary to what Wikimedia does,
and to see that there is consensus among the Italian community to do
something drastic; there will be a far greater effect on the
Milos writes:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:32, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
(As an aside, kudos to Milos' rapid response and ability to organize his own
local community in support of the concerns of our Italian counterparts.)
Thanks! It should be noted that this the decision has been
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
I still see it as a matter of outlook when you say, WMF is a U.S. nonprofit
and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules, so is a German, French
or a Swiss nonprofit, they must operate under the rules of their own
Theo writes:
Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability
standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible
than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure
you, they are existent, not-minimal and more
Good news for both Tilman and WMF!
--Mike
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
comes in part from Board
members the community supports.
--Mike Godwin
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
as being a condition of the
grant.
--Mike Godwin
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
of review.
The brief is available for download here:
http://yaleisp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Golan-Amicus-Brief-filed.pdf
Many thanks are due to everyone at the ISP who helped in writing,
researching, and thinking about this brief over the past two months!
--Mike Godwin
SlimVirgin writes:
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 19:50, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Identity of Anonymous Wikipedia Editors Not Protected by First Amendment
David Gerard writes:
Over the last several years, the UK libel laws have been a strong
consideration in WMF carefully maintaining *no* local business
presence in the UK. The legal environment here is toxic for anyone who
doesn't have to put up with it.
I've discussed this precise issue
Andrew Garrett writes:
We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would
hesitate to say that we're still small and running on a shoestring
budget. The websites that we compete with run budgets in the hundreds
of millions to billions of dollars.
This point can't be
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 9:13 AM, aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew Garrett writes:
We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would
hesitate to say that we're still small and running on a shoestring
budget. The websites that we compete with run budgets in the
Sam Klein writes:
I do think there are more risks inherent in this sort of growth than
are listed in the 'potential risks' section -- for instance,
inability to acculturate new staff due to aggressive growth -- and
we should be alert to these risks to avoid them.
Just to be clear about this,
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi,
I welcome many members of the Wikimedia staff joining us in Gdansk but
PLEASE do not hide in a VIP environment like happened on previous
Wikimanias.
Dear Gerard,
I've never known a VIP environment that
among the Fox Populi.
Thanks,
Gerard
On 30 June 2010 16:49, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,
I welcome many members of the Wikimedia staff joining us in Gdansk but
PLEASE do not hide
Ray Saintonge writes:
An important point; we musn't force the WMF lawyer into a conflict of
interest
The issue is only partly conflict of interest, and it often isn't that. It's
primarily that WMF is not insured to give legal advice to community members.
We run an encyclopedia, not a free
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely having a known defense strategy would beat having no defense
strategy at all, which basically is the situation now.
I'm afraid I must deny that we have no defense strategy.
But why not support the community
Nathan writes:
When the WMF makes a
decision to intervene in the projects, full and informative
communication isn't just a nice-if-you-can-get-it side benefit of
dealing with a small company - it's essential to maintaining the
fabric of a massively participatory and cooperative endeavor.
I
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
You can argue, and have argued, that participants should know
this already or can easily discover the relevant information with some
digging. But why not spare them the effort? It's fully possible that
the folks most interested
Yann Forget writes:
In addition, I receive a personal letter, as the main editor of
these texts, according to Gallimard. We didn't receive any information
from the Wikimedia Foundation, and I know the details only because I
have been personally involved.
Yann seems to be suggesting here
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote
I didn't know you narrowed Gallimard's takedown demand. AFAIK you
never informed me nor Wikisource about this.
We cannot inform you about all the details communicated in an ongoing
negotiation with parties threatening us
Klaus Graf writes:
For me there is no reason to believe that Mr. Godwin is a good lawyer.
I certainly don't require that you believe I'm a good lawyer. I'd be a very
poor lawyer indeed, however, if I invited publishers to embroil us in
expensive copyright lawsuits that we might not win when
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:08 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
What harm do you foresee in replacing deleted pages with a declaration like
YouTube uses, This Video has been deleted
based on a copyright claim by The Disney Corporation ? And then an
extension of If you believe this is public
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:08 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
It sounds like you are suggesting that there is ongoing dialog between
WMF and Gallimard.. ?
There is not.
And what is the process _after_ the takedown?
The takedown is normally the end of the process. Unless you
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
Across the world the Nobody is home argument is quickly running out of
steam. Google execs sentenced to 6 months in Italy, LimeWire guilty for
its user's piracy, and blog owner found liable for user submitted libel.
It helps to actually read the stories and
Stillwater Rising writes:
Hosting these images without 18 USC 2257(A) records, in my opinion, is a *
no-win* situation for everyone involved.
This raises the obvious question of how you interpret 18 USC 2257A(g),
which refers back to 18 USC 2257(h) (including in particular 18 USC
Tim Starling writes:
It's a proposal which only really makes sense when analysed from the
libertarian end of this debate. It's not a compromise with the rest of
the spectrum.
That's correct. That was intentional. A libertarian proposal that attempts
to adhere to NPOV and reduces general noise
Yann Forget writes:
2010/5/10 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com:
Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion
that
Fox News was correct?
This statement strikes me as identifying a theoretical hazard rather than
an
actual outcome.
--Mike
Reading
David Goodman writes:
I have been taking an extreme anticensorship position, but I would
consider this acceptable. People certainly do have the right as
individuals to select what they want to see. It is not censorship,
just a display option Such display options could be expanded--I
would
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
And what about choosing Would you like to see uncategorized images?
And the same for cultural censorship: Is your culture brave enough
to gamble would you be horrified by seeing a penis or Muhammad or not?
I'm not sure
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote:
Obviously, this notion is too cute to actually be helpful, but I thought
I'd
share it.
It has an enormously cute strawman answer: If you don't want to see
images which aren't used inline in another wiki, don't
David Levy writes:
Agreed. As some predicted, Fox News has cited Jimbo's actions as
validation that its earlier claims were correct. And because any
graphic images remain, this means that we're aware of an egregious
problem and have made only a token effort to address it.
Essentially,
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Instead, Jimbo has essentially announced to the world that Fox News
was correct. And until we purge our servers of every graphic image,
we knowingly retain our self-acknowledged state of indecency.
Can you point me
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion
that
Fox News was correct?
I'm referring to the conclusion that one, in my assessment, would draw
upon encountering Jimbo's remarks first-hand,
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:36 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you draw that conclusion?
Your equivocation on this point is wearisome.
I don't know what you mean by equivocation here. I'm not equivocating, so
far as I know. Perhaps I'm just not understanding what you mean by
Greg Maxwell writes:
At the same time, and I think we'll hear a similar message from the
EFF and the ALA, I am opposed to these organized content labelling
systems. These systems are primary censorship systems and are
overwhelmingly used to subject third parties, often adults, to
Geoffrey Plourde writes:
Wouldn't regulating content mean abdicating the role of webhost, which would
call Section 230 into question?
Mere removal of content posted by others does not create a Section 230
problem or a problem under equivalent provisions elsewhere in the law. A
guideline or
I want to write personally -- not speaking on behalf of the Foundation but
instead as a longtime participant in online communities who has worked
extensively on free-speech issues -- to offer my perspective on a couple of
themes that I've seen made in threads here. The first is the claim that
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Mike.lifeguard mike.lifegu...@gmail.comwrote:
On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
I disagree with the suggestion that it would have been better for Fox to
have gone with the original story they were trying to create rather than
with the story Jimmy
, and the decisions -- not individually
but taken as a whole -- that he made are justified.
Huh. I never thought I'd see the day that Mike Godwin would be supporting
an
attack on free speech and free ideas through censorship.
You're misunderstanding what I wrote here. The words not individually
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 8 May 2010 16:48, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:Most of the
debate has been
about Jimmy, not about Commons policy on non-educational images.
So fix it.
--Mike
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
So instead we just give in to them? We get attacked and decide to just
sit up like a good dog?
No one is acting like a good dog. Bad metaphor. When your village is
attacked and subject to future attacks, you build
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
Defending means lessening the chance of the opponent to succeed. If
you throw all the riches that are demanded and then some over the city
wall, that's not defending, that's capitulating.
Wow. Even worse metaphor!
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Ah... I'm actually sort of good at this kind of thing, having mentioned
aspects of it in oft-quoted essays (such as [[:en:WP:BRD]].
If people want, I could do a talk or workshop on that topic at
Wikimania? This might
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
Wow. Even worse metaphor! All the riches that are demanded!
Perhaps, but yours is no better. When you attack a village it is
because you want something they have (riches, land, women) or you just
want revenge for
Marc Riddell writes:
Mike, please stop and listen. The Community, which is the heart and soul of
this very Project, is ventilating, and making some extremely important
points. Please stop trying to control, and re-direct, this dialogue in a
more Foundation-comfortable direction. Listen and
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:15 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
However, as someone who doesn't have a financial stake, as a non-Wikimedia
Foundation employee, as an Internet libertarian, I don't see where you get
off doing anything _but_ admonishing Jimmy's actions. His actions appear
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
Mayor of Chicago, Richard J. Daley:
The policeman isn't there to create disorder;
the policeman is there to preserve disorder.
Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-D
I've always loved that quote. Me, I want neither
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.comwrote:
While there is much to be said about Jimbo's role from everyone, that's not
Mike's point. His is, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mike, Sit down and work
out the issue of the images, which is the most important, and
Tomek writes:
So... are we now going to start writting USfamilyfriendlypedia(tm) ?
There is plenty of stuff to be delete then... not only penis and
vagina pictures... For example delete all biographies of porn-stars,
articles about addictive violent computer games, and there is tons of
things
Florence writes:
Besides the fact Mike is using a language far too convoluted for many
speakers on this list,
Ouch! If I do say something too convolutedly here, please send me a note,
and I'll rephrase accordingly.
I would argue that one of the implications of the
abusive deletions is that
Dear folks,
I was attending a meeting of the Northern California Copyright Society
today, and I mentioned to a colleague the discussions we have had on this
list and elsewhere regarding whether the Wikimedia logos, which are
trademarked, should be freely licensed as copyrighted works. My
David Castor writes:
The use of these logos are thus the only thing standing in the way of
stating that all material from Swedish Wikipedia can be freely reused,
without any further permission.
Is there any obvious legal problem with stating that (for example) All
material from Swedish
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.comwrote:
This is exactly right. If we had no copyright or trademark restrictions
on
the Wikimedia logos and marks, it would be trivial for proprietary
vendors
to use the unrestricted logos in association with unfree
John Vandenberg writes:
By the way, check out http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo. ?I hope no one
thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo
logo
without a license.
That image is in the PD as it does not meet the threshold of
originality. Why do they do not
(Resent with correct subject header)
John Vandenberg writes:
By the way, check out http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo. ?I hope no one
thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to reuse the Volvo
logo
without a license.
That image is in the PD as it does not meet the threshold
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:03 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you saying that the PD tag on this page is incorrect?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volvo_logo.svg
Oh, I'm saying something much more lawyerly than that -- I'm saying I don't
know whether Volvo would
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:31 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
In your earlier comment, which you have now snipped, you asserted that
Sv.Wp was doing the wrong thing:
I hope no one thinks Swedish Wikipedians (or anyone else) is free to
reuse the Volvo logo
without a license.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:55 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
The Swedish Wikipedia has drawn a line in the sand that all content in
article space should meet the definition of free
content.[http://freedomdefined.org/]
I agree that they've been drawing a line in the sand, all
Klaus Graf writes:
Nobody can be in doubt that the Volvo Logo isn't copyrighted at least
in the US.
Of course they can. Plenty of letterform-based designs are copyrighted in
the United States.
If attorneys are confusing trademark and copyright
protection Wikimedia counsel should not
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:58 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
The purpose of defining free is to ensure that there will be no
problem *for unknown reuse scenarios in the future*, _and_ to prevent
a proliferation of individually crafted licenses for each case.
Thank you for
WJhonson writes:
I'm going to disagree with this claim. Are you suggesting that in order to
write an article about a living person, a reporter would need their license
to do so?
Not at all. I'm pointing out, though, that there are all sorts of potential
and actual rights embedded in
masti writes:
It's crazy. sv.wiki still has unfree logo on every page :)
It is unfree to protect wiki identity.
This is exactly right. If we had no copyright or trademark restrictions on
the Wikimedia logos and marks, it would be trivial for proprietary vendors
to use the unrestricted logos
Thanks, MZ!
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:28 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Mike Godwin wrote:
Darn it! A waste, I say! And I worked so hard to give you
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy.
Huh, neat. I'm not sure there was an announcement about that, but it's nice
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Mike Godwin hett schreven:
My guess, admittedly based on nothing but anecdotal evidence, is that the
Swedish Wikipedians who created this largely artificial and unnecessary
dispute have not consulted independent
The Cunctator writes:
No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A
free
license is a copyright license.
The point bears repeating (over and over again, if necessary). The free
licenses we use are in fact quite demanding with regard to downstream uses.
And our
anders
effeietsand...@gmail.comwrote:
I assume you are referring to the term trademarked rather than copyrighted.
I suggest you contact Mike Godwin directly with this kind of questions, he
is handling those.
With kind regards,
Lodewijk
2010/3/29 Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com
(perhaps Mike
Godwin), whether routine reporting of these kind of notices to
Chilling Effects Clearinghouse has been explored in any depth.
Two of the three notices you refer to here were forwarded to
ChillingEffects.org by me. The one dated 2004 obviously isn't from me (I
began work at WMF
(perhaps Mike
Godwin), whether routine reporting of these kind of notices to
Chilling Effects Clearinghouse has been explored in any depth.
Two of the three notices you refer to here were forwarded to
ChillingEffects.org by me. The one dated 2004 obviously isn't from me (I
began work at WMF
Some folks at Wikipedia criticize the heck out of schools and don't trust
schools because schools let anyone in, including people who don't want to
learn. If schools tolerate people who don't learn, why do they exist? There
could be a billion disruptive students. And when the old ones graduate,
Nathan writes:
With respect, legal issues are debated on many projects practically
every day. This particular issue is no different. In some
jurisdictions, just accessing such files can expose one to legal risk.
While Mike is a good lawyer, he doesn't represent individual editors -
and the
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:41 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote:
Finally, your last bit, Mike, seemed to indicate that you feel the DOJ
(department of justice, I think) would be wanting to talk to you if anything
bad was going on does that really prohibit us from chatting
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:31 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote:
I just had a good chat with someone pointing out that my posts probably
conflate a few different areas, so perhaps while I may have your ear, Mike,
I could ask you if you'd see any problem with expanding the role of
My own personal view is that, in an ideal world, we'd post two or more
metrics for every project (article numbers, number of editors, and perhaps
other metrics like, perhaps, external links). That would create a design
problem given our current home page, but probably not an unsolvable one.
The
Frieda writes:
As far as I remember we asked WMF help just once, few months ago.
There were nothing in the news at that moment.
I'm sorry the original request didn't get through to me, for whatever
reason. (I suspect a spam filter blocked the earlier message because it
contained two long
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Frieda Brioschi ubifri...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/9/16 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com:
We've had a lot of experience of spurious reports of lawsuits originating
in
Italy.
How many originating from Wikimedia Italia?
Not many, and perhaps not any
Nathan writes:
Interesting. Although the Italian media also reported that I (and
Jimbo and various others) was being sued for 50 million euros, and I
haven't seen that lawsuit yet.
We've had a lot of experience of spurious reports of lawsuits originating in
Italy. In the majority of those
, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
sfmammamia writes:
A bit of a mystery -- in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle, page E-8,
there's
an ad for the Wikimedia Foundation Head of Communications position. This
ad
does not appear online, at least I could not find
.
This shouldn't be interpreted as a sign of any shakeup. Jay, for example,
is not leaving the Wikimedia Foundation -- he's doing a great job, and we
expect and hope he will stay with us, doing the same great work, for a long
time.
--Mike Godwin
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
1 - 100 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
