I agree 100% with this.
Some people on Wikimedia want to enforce copyright much beyond what is
reasonable.
This is hurt us, and is outside of our mission.
Yann
2011/7/13 Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com:
Links by themselves are not copyrightable, and are not unfree.
So your argument, which you keep
There are practices which are beyond the pale, for example, linking to a
pirated copy of the latest Harry Potter movie. Linking to the typical
YouTube video of unknown provenance is quite another matter; although it
is quite true that in both cases there may be a technical copyright
violation. In
Hi all,
I haven't fully read the context of this thread, but something that
did cross my
mind recently, why do we treat YouTube-links different from other
links here?
Aren't most of our sources and external linked websites atleast as
copyrighted
as YouTube ?
Consider links to IMDb for
Yes, there are big differences between IMDB and YouTube rightswise.
IMDB requires that every submission be reviewed for accuracy and content
before acceptance. They are trying to compete with Baseline and want to
be seen as an equal - so they (perhaps overzealously even) require that
new indie
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Krinkle krinklem...@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't fully read the context of this thread, but something that
did cross my
mind recently, why do we treat YouTube-links different from other
links here?
Aren't most of our sources and external linked websites
Where is that policy and discussion?
In terms of en.wiki...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNEVERhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNEVER#Restrictions_on_linking
That is the main restriction against external linking which makes an
extremely strong (even for WP policy)
Why can't we setup a meta server sandbox that allows these experimental
things to be rapidly activated in the sense of giving each a virtual
server slice. That way there is room to play and if something takes off
it can then be allocated some serious resources. The ones that die on
the vine
Something better than Wikipedia ?
I can think of something right off the bat.
Kill the copyright police who do nothing useful and harm the project immensely.
Go back to the more transparent rationale that copyright infringement rests
solely upon the person who uploaded the copyrighted item,
Go back to the more transparent rationale that copyright infringement rests
solely upon the person who uploaded the copyrighted item, not on people who
merely link to it. That would allow us to link to YouTube videos for
example (not host them, just link to them).
Why read an article on
-
From: Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, Jul 12, 2011 12:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations
Go back to the more transparent rationale that copyright infringement rests
Again you are referring to the hosting or presentation of non-free content
and I am not.
I am not referring to the DISPLAY of videos within Wikipedia.
Only the LINKING of videos from Wikipedia.
No, I realise that is what you are referring to - and I don't honestly see
any huge value to
If you don't see the significant value in including video content, then I would
suggest that you don't see the significant value in including photographic
content either. I would suggest that's an outdated value system.
A picture is worth a thousand words, an audio is worth ten thousand, a
I'll go further-- provided we can do so cheaply, I want new projects
that are like the ridiculous early failures of flight.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7OJvv4LG9M]. I want to hear about a
new WMF project and it's policy, think That's crazy-- that's never
gonna get off the ground, and
If you don't see the significant value in including video content, then I
would suggest that you don't see the significant value in including
photographic content either. I would suggest that's an outdated value
system.
You're simply extending my argument too far there, which is just bad
Links by themselves are not copyrightable, and are not unfree.
So your argument, which you keep repeating is not germane to this point.
The point is, the copyright police have taken a fear (of something which has
never occurred in actual law), and made it a point of battle.
We are arbiters of
The point is, the copyright police have taken a fear (of something which
has never occurred in actual law), and made it a point of battle.
This is, I think, the wrong forum for our disagreement. I mostly rose to
your nasty casting of copyright police, which was a mistake. Sorry to
everyone
...@googlemail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, Jul 12, 2011 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations
The point is, the copyright police have taken a fear (of something which
has never occurred in actual law), and made it a point
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'll go further-- provided we can do so cheaply, I want new projects
that are like the ridiculous early failures of flight.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7OJvv4LG9M]. I want to hear about a
new WMF project
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Something better than Wikipedia ?
I can think of something right off the bat.
allow us to link to YouTube videos for example (not host them, just
link to them).
That makes sense. Can you point to a problematic debate against
Regarding external links to videos:
Perhaps an on-wiki discussion is the way to progress this.
Tom
Where is that policy and discussion?
Fred
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
I would love to see the new project process on Meta come back online.
(much of this email is posted to [[m:talk:new project proposals]])
I could use some help in making this happen - we need to start an
incubator process for ideas with support, and a separate process for
proposing existing
On 11 July 2011 04:26, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Most of us have agendas, and this is the only major outlet most of us
have access to.
As a sort of aside-- everyone comes with agendas, and sometimes
people act neutrally, sometimes people act like advocates for their
agenda.
Most of us have agendas, and this is the only major outlet most of us
have access to.
As a sort of aside-- everyone comes with agendas, and sometimes
people act neutrally, sometimes people act like advocates for their
agenda.
I've always wondered if we couldn't peel off' the people who
Most of us have agendas, and this is the only major outlet most of us
have access to.
As a sort of aside-- everyone comes with agendas, and sometimes
people act neutrally, sometimes people act like advocates for their
agenda.
I've always wondered if we couldn't peel off' the people who
You can always make Wikinfo a sister project.
Fred
That would be a rather elegant solution, wouldn't it.
At a minimum, recognizing Wikinfo as Part of the Wikimedia Movement
and incorporating links to it into our controversial articles.And
then a next nice step would be if Wikinfo could
Speaking of the British tabloids, of course.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/world/europe/10britain.html?nl=todaysheadlinesemc=globasasa2
The lesson for us is to not take a leading position, be topical, but to
report events which have occurred and on which there is some sort of
considered
If only I could be so sanguine; I cannot disagree with Fred's first
paragraph, but as regards his second I must take issue. For a start, current
events should be covered by Wikinews, and subsequent *encyclopedic
treatment of those events be dealt with in analytic terms and in retrospect,
by
If only I could be so sanguine; I cannot disagree with Fred's first
paragraph, but as regards his second I must take issue. For a start,
current
events should be covered by Wikinews, and subsequent *encyclopedic
treatment of those events be dealt with in analytic terms and in
retrospect,
by
Fred Bauder wrote:
If only I could be so sanguine; I cannot disagree with Fred's first
paragraph, but as regards his second I must take issue. For a start,
current
events should be covered by Wikinews, and subsequent *encyclopedic
treatment of those events be dealt with in analytic terms and
29 matches
Mail list logo
