On Sunday 01 February 2009 07:14:44 David Goodman wrote:
I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism.
You say that as if it is a bad thing. Why turn off narcissistic people if work
they do is useful?
___
foundation-l
Hoi,
Because their narcissism gets in the way of what we want to achieve perhaps
?
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/2/1 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu
On Sunday 01 February 2009 07:14:44 David Goodman wrote:
I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's
narcissism.
You say
Anthony wrote:
Maybe you could explain the etymology of that term for us, Mike. Your last
paragraph seems to imply that you understand it.
Per Eric Partridge's Origins, both words are Latin in origin. Moral
is from mores the plural of mos indicating a way of carrying
oneself, hence
2009/2/1 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wisely remarked:
You say that as if it is a bad thing. Why turn off narcissistic people if
work
they do is useful?
Gerard Meijssen top-posted:
Hoi,
Because their narcissism gets in the way of what we want to achieve perhaps
?
Hoi,
No, we want to create a free encyclopaedia. The restrictions imposed for
narcissistic reasons do get in the way of making the encyclopaedia Free.
Thanks.
GerardM
2009/2/1 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
2009/2/1 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wisely remarked:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I have no complaints about commercial use, but I am concerned when a
commercial user massively takes freely licensed or public domain
material and parks them under the umbrella of his copyrights so that the
users of his material unwittingly respect a copyright that
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
No, we want to create a free encyclopaedia. The restrictions imposed for
narcissistic reasons do get in the way of making the encyclopaedia Free.
Thanks.
People may be contributing for narcissistic reasons, but
nobody has suggested any restrictions be imposed
On Sunday 01 February 2009 10:22:23 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
No, we want to create a free encyclopaedia. The restrictions imposed for
narcissistic reasons do get in the way of making the encyclopaedia Free.
No, they don't. Please, show how they do.
___
What is the present status on licensing of «Wikipedia» and exactly what
does the current agreement with Nokia cover? It seems like ZDNet
Australia and Angela Beesley isn't talking about quite the same, and I
would like an clarification.
If one supplier gets some kind of exclusive rights, for
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:14 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism.
You should probably clarify what it is you're calling narcissism. For
that matter, you should probably clarify what you mean by narcissism in
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:14 AM, David Goodman wrote
I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism.
In any case, I find it hard to see how, in this particular context, you
could be proud of your work but not at least prefer your name to be on it.
Again, right at the top, I apologize for replying to a week old
posting, and one I replied to at the time, besides... but
perhaps my motives will be clear.
Anthony wrote:
Now, personally, the way I read reasonable to the medium or means You are
utilitzing, I think it means what is reasonably
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I have no complaints about commercial use, but I am concerned when a
commercial user massively takes freely licensed or public domain
material and parks them under the umbrella of his copyrights so that the
users of his material
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I guess that some of us are nothing more than unrepentant altruists. We
believe that free works belong to everybody. If something is of great
value to you don't need for anyone to tell you that; you already know
it. How does knowing that you produced something make
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» and exactly what
does the current agreement with Nokia cover? It seems like ZDNet
Australia and Angela Beesley isn't talking about quite the same, and I
would like an
2009/2/2 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net:
Exactly. There is nothing 'customary' about massively collaborative
development of works.
Just about every film of any significance. TV series. Computer games.
Heh just about every bit of major software. Maps of large areas can
rack up very large numbers
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:14 AM, David Goodman wrote
I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's
narcissism.
In any case, I find it hard to see how, in this particular context, you
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
On Sunday 01 February 2009 10:22:23 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
No, we want to create a free encyclopaedia. The restrictions imposed for
narcissistic reasons do get in the way of making the encyclopaedia Free.
No, they
On Sunday 01 February 2009 10:22:23 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
No, we want to create a free encyclopaedia. The restrictions imposed for
narcissistic reasons do get in the way of making the encyclopaedia Free.
No, they don't. Please, show how they do.
___
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I guess that some of us are nothing more than unrepentant altruists. We
believe that free works belong to everybody. If something is of great
value to you don't need for anyone to tell you that; you already know
it. How does knowing
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
This is an important point. It is precisely why it is not a good idea to
remove attribution.
I wasn't aware that anyone was suggesting that we remove attribution
altogether, just that we attribute Wikipedia as a
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
Because I don't think it's good to discuss attribution as an abstract
principle, just as an example, the author attribution for the article
[[France]] is below, excluding IP
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
defend people's constitutional rights if you
Anthony writes:
Why defend free speech if it's just a couple words some guys made
up and wrote down on paper? The very nature of the legal system in
the
United States of America is based upon natural rights. We hold
these
truths to be self-evident. Self-evident. Not created by
Hoi,
Two answers and a PS,
- first you do not have to actively discourage the narcissists from
contributing. But playing to their egocentric notions of copyright, notions
where the two licenses are largely the same is damaging to our objective.
The information needs to spread out, by
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 and added to Wikipedia since the new license was
26 matches
Mail list logo
