On 17/06/2014 00:28, Kevin Gorman wrote:
Hi Ed - I'm not sure what your area of specialty is offhand,
This http://cuapress.cua.edu/res/docs/Fall-2014-Catalog.pdf#page=17 will
be published in September this year, about the early philosophy of the
medieval theologian Duns Scotus. My focus is on
On Jun 17, 2014 3:55 AM, Kevin Godfrey kevin.darkli...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 Jun 2014, at 4:17 am, edward edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote:
On 16/06/2014 21:07, Newyorkbrad wrote:
In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230
and
holds that Section 230 protection is
What does this decision mean in simple English?
Rupert
Am 17.06.2014 09:08 schrieb Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com:
On Jun 17, 2014 3:55 AM, Kevin Godfrey kevin.darkli...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 17 Jun 2014, at 4:17 am, edward edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote:
On 16/06/2014
At WMUK we are often approached by people wanting to improve content in an
area. We can offer edit training and support for events where people can
come together and improve or create pages. Last week our editathon run by
volunteer Doug Taylor with Barclays was one such success: *'There were
Erik Moeller wrote:
... My own focus will be on fleshing out the overall narrative,
aligning around organization-wide objectives, and helping to
manage scope
Steven Walling wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation does not write nor edit content
on Wikipedia
Newyorkbrad wrote:
... The
Hi Yann,
While we can have a different discussion about methods used and tone
applied, if I understand correctly the core argument/discussion point here
is the question whether US law applies to Commons or not; more
specifically: whether a picture that is (likely?) not in the Public Domain
in the
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:14 AM, edward edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote:
On 17/06/2014 00:23, Steven Walling wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation does not write nor edit content on Wikipedia, nor
does it dictate editorial policy.
I am aware of that, but (a) does that have to be the case anyway? If the
On 6/16/14, 4:27 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
As Sage notes, the functionality of the new apps is about the same on both
Android and iOS, with some differences in the UI.
Is there something written on the intended relationship between the apps
and the mobile website? I've long been mildly confused
Hi,
2014-06-17 15:07 GMT+05:30 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org:
Hi Yann,
While we can have a different discussion about methods used and tone
applied, if I understand correctly the core argument/discussion point here
is the question whether US law applies to Commons or not; more
The discussion about it was already performed:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA
with final consensus that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for
deletion. However this consensus (a rough one) was questioned by a
small, but very
On 17/06/2014, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
with final consensus that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for
deletion...
This is a selective quote, missing the explicit caveat that:
Deleted files can be restored after a discussion in COM:UDR.
If the process is being followed
We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned
and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established. And don't
delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned.
Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy was
always
On 17 June 2014 16:26, George William Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned
and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established. And don't
delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned.
Grant
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:26 PM, George William Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy was
always risky and is proving impossible. Without devaluing open content, we
need to separately support fair use for educational
On Jun 17, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Emmanuel Engelhart kel...@kiwix.org wrote:
On 17.06.2014 17:26, George William Herbert wrote:
We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned
and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established. And
don't delete
On 17.06.2014 17:26, George William Herbert wrote:
We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned
and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established. And don't
delete unless that fair use is credibly questioned.
Conflating and comingling our
On 17.06.2014 16:47, Osmar Valdebenito wrote:
If you take a look at the undeletion requests after the URAA
discussion,
most of the images restored were deleted afterwards anyway.[1][2] The
only
exception that I've seen are some German stamps that haven't been
deleted
(yet).
The problem is
Accidentally, I have one of these FFD nomination pages on my watchlist.
Yesterday it was renominated for the THIRD time by the same user (the
second one was keep as well). And I can not act on it anymore. Apparently,
at some point the user will get an admin with a stricter interpretation of
the
On 17/06/2014, George William Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are
abandoned and we accept images as long as their fair use can be
established. And don't delete unless that fair use is credibly
questioned.
There is no such
Hi, everyone.
I just wanted to let you know, so you could mark your calendars if
interested, that the June and July IRC office hour to discuss VisualEditor
will be held on Thursday June 19th at 1500 UTC and on Saturday July 19th at
2100 UTC. (See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
On 6/17/14, 5:52 PM, George William Herbert wrote:
On Jun 17, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Emmanuel Engelhart kel...@kiwix.org wrote:
On 17.06.2014 17:26, George William Herbert wrote:
We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned
and we accept images as long as their
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 June 2014 20:48, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite sure what you're shouting about, Gerard. The amendment
clearly
gives
On 17.06.2014 18:13, Jeevan Jose wrote:
Accidentally, I have one of these FFD nomination pages on my
watchlist.
Yesterday it was renominated for the THIRD time by the same user (the
second one was keep as well). And I can not act on it anymore.
Apparently,
at some point the user will get an
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:26 AM, George William Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy
was always risky and is proving impossible.
Insightful point. (We have a similar situation with our competing values of
privacy
On 17 June 2014 12:56, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm so very disappointed in the Board and the WMF for this TOU amendment,
which was obviously written to quell concerns about English Wikipedia,
with
phoebe ayers, 17/06/2014 18:56:
Anyway, I'm not sure why you are assuming that the amendment will
automatically be abhorrent to every community that's not English Wikipedia.
And why do you think it will be useful? If it was needed, how comes only
some 50 non-en.wiki editors came to support it
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you clarify -- who do you intend by we? If your answer is English
Wikipedia, I think we already have a somewhat workable solution to this
complex problem: fair use is permitted in certain cases.[2] Of course, you
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
If we don't maintain the focus on free media, we may as well direct people
to a web image search, all of which is use at your own risk anyway, just
like our proposed new repository. Being free content is the Commons value
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:26 PM, George William Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content
advocacy was always risky and is proving impossible. Without
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:12 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com
wrote:
Can you clarify -- who do you intend by we? If your answer is English
Wikipedia, I think we already have a somewhat workable
Pete -
An apologia for Commons, and the obvious implication that use on projects
will have to (if people actually care to enforce local standards) require
checking license status for every Project use, do not in any way lessen the
need for Uncommons.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Pete
Hoi,
I have read Stephen's mail. It refers to many other things that I did not
read.
When the policy was discussed I raised the notion that for Wikidata the
need for such disclosure is different. Given that I did not get any
response, I took it as if that was not interesting relevant and
Hi Nemo ( others)
I know of at least one non english project that has implemented a much stronger
stance against paid contributions
Their are two possibilities when specific projects discuss if they need to have
their own policy on this topic
a) If all participants of the project agree on
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:19 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
the project and world benefit from [Commons] existing as is. But we need an
alternative to support the educational mission, reasonable inter-project
reuse,
and end the endless deletion wars.
Yes, this. With
Dear movement fellows,
in the context of our annual general assembly on June 14, 2014 WMAT
conducted elections for the board, the internal and external auditors
and the community representative of our good governance committee.
After a successful and constructive term of office we are happy to
I don't think the concept of the project is the problem. I'm skeptical that
an Uncommons project built around fair use could be workable, considering
that the validity of a fair use claim is context-specific and no cross-wiki
project (like Commons) is going to have an easy time managing that
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins;
George, SJ, and Nathan:
In addition to Erik Moeller's initial proposal that Commons be used as a
repository for *free* media files (linked previously), there
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think the concept of the project is the problem. I'm skeptical that
an Uncommons project built around fair use could be workable, considering
that the validity of a fair use claim is context-specific and no cross-wiki
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins;
George, SJ, and Nathan:
In addition to Erik Moeller's initial proposal that
And yet we have a global, and in many cases (and specifically, en.wp) local
Fair Use policy, which is quite actively and productively used, and has
been since around day one of the first Wikipedia.
Uncommons is not a change in policy. It is ultimately a technical matter;
a software and project
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:29 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think the concept of the project is the problem. I'm skeptical
that
an Uncommons project built around fair use could be workable,
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:37 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
wrote:
Unless you
intend to try to roll that back on en.wikipedia and the Foundation policy,
Absolutely not. I don't have any real problem with the way fair use is
handled on English Wikipedia, and have uploaded some
Hoi,
- Many people no longer trust Commons to store their media files. People
are more certain that their files will remain available when they upload
media files to their own project.
- Many media files exist on many projects waiting for transfer to
Commons. It does not happen and
Hi,
2014-06-18 0:37 GMT+05:30 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
I don't think the concept of the project is the problem. I'm skeptical that
an Uncommons project built around fair use could be workable, considering
that the validity of a fair use claim is context-specific and no cross-wiki
project
On 17 June 2014 17:53, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote:
educational and other uses, by Wikimedians and third parties. If it's not an
open-content encyclopedia, for example if Wikipedia articles make use of
provincial American copyright loopholes that render them illegal to
redistribute
On 17 June 2014 20:53, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
The opportunity exist to have all this data in one multimedia Wikidata.
It would mean that when a Commons admin decides for his reasons that a file
is no longer available, that a local admin can address his reasons and
2014-06-18 0:55 GMT+05:30 Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins;
Yes.
George, SJ, and Nathan:
In addition to Erik Moeller's initial proposal that Commons be
Per GerardM: Many people no longer trust Commons to store their media
files. People
are more certain that their files will remain available when they upload
media files to their own project.
I for one won't use Commons for image uploads. I feel that my uploads have
been treated
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-06-18 0:55 GMT+05:30 Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com:
The people you, Nathan, are accusing of behaving badly, are the ones who
are doing the hard, day-do-day work of enforcing the expressed consensus
of
the
Yann,
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote:
The rules of the project, free license, or in the public domain in
USA and in the source country, are fine as long as they are not used
to game the system.
Yann I totally agree with this.
The problem is, that the
On 17 June 2014 21:06, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I predict this will be unacceptable to Commons admins. The reasons
advanced will be legal fears. (The actual reasons will be loss of
power for Commons admins banned on a pile of other projects.)
Not all of us are banned on other
I believe they are generally supposed to be listed at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content which looks relatively up
to date, though it does not look like the resolution actually requires it.
James Alexander
Legal and Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716
The subject line is cute, but perhaps a bit trite. I think with a bit of
effort we can do better. :-)
George Herbert wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
If we don't maintain the focus on free media, we may as well direct
people to a web image search,
53 matches
Mail list logo
