On 10 April 2013 08:10, Charles Andrès charles.andres.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Thomas,
Thanks for asking!
In fact, it was as easy as said :-) Ilario has just never been involved in
the recruitment process. In WMCH we believe that the conflict of interest is
not solved with the
, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 10 April 2013 08:10, Charles Andrès charles.andres.w...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello Thomas,
Thanks for asking!
In fact, it was as easy as said :-) Ilario has just never been involved
in the recruitment process. In WMCH we believe
On 10 April 2013 16:13, Charles Andrès charles.andres.w...@gmail.com wrote:
We haven't use donors money to have professional advice from either a
charity lawyer or a charity governance expert, because it wasn't necessary.
When dealing with a situation that can give rise to a serious conflict
Hi Nicole,
How does this project relate to the project Seb was running a couple
of years ago that sounded very similar?
How does this project relate to the work of the WCA?
I also notice that the wiki page says the contractors are supposed to
attend the Milan meeting - it's presumably too late
On 9 April 2013 12:45, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Doesn't the community consultation *follow* this?
The WMF works out a budget internally, and the Board vote to approve
it by the end of June. It is released on 1 July, but isn't yet final;
it promptly goes into...
Charles,
Thank you for sharing this information. Can you elaborate on how the
conflict of interest of hiring a current board member was managed?
You say Ilario wasn't involved in the hiring process, but appropriately
managing such a conflict is more difficult than that. Did Ilario recuse
from
On 8 April 2013 06:58, Peter Gervai g...@grin.hu wrote:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Martin Rulsch
martin.rul...@wikimedia.de wrote:
Free give-aways are okay. But a shop where Wiki* stuff can be sold, might
be a problem.
Possibly out of the tread but let me comment that anyone anytime
On 8 April 2013 13:36, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
The Economist had an estimate recently:
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21573091-how-quantify-gains-internet-has-brought-consumers-net-benefits
On 4 April 2013 13:16, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
Incidently... given that most people would not be willing to publicly post
their phone number and possibly other personal information... and that a
wiki is actually not necessarily the best place to do such a thing, has it
ever
On Apr 3, 2013 11:34 AM, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk
wrote:
# Agreements, particularly those with global impact, and/or where they
affect more than one Wikimedia organisation. Part of the recent
Monmouthpedia/Gibraltarpedia situation was caused by a lack of transparency
about who
On Apr 3, 2013 12:07 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Second technical note: a merge from a private wiki to another is very
simple, because you don't have to check for confidentiality
That's not true. Just because it is private doesn't mean it is restricted
to the same people.
Why are these emails going to Wikimedia-l? They aren't really of interest
to anyone outside Australia...
On Apr 3, 2013 1:09 PM, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote:
Hi All,
I am delighted to advise that we've now locked in the meeting room at the
Customs House Library in the
On Apr 3, 2013 3:43 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
But you knew the basis on which internal access is determined and that
hasn't changed.
Not true. It changed.
Membership is still determined according to the WMF board's resolution from
2006. How long ago were you on
On Mar 30, 2013 9:46 AM, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
As a fundraising tactic, I think this is a good idea,
It is worth remembering that we don't actually have a problem with
fundraising. We can raise enormous amounts of money incredibly easily by
putting banners on the fifth most
On Mar 30, 2013 10:28 PM, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
There's a little of that which goes on currently (I mean above-board, not
counting anything that may happen unofficially). The most common case is
that a cultural organization, such as a museum, provides funds for a
Wikipedian in
Where would their name go? If it's anywhere more prominent than the names
of the volunteers that wrote the article (which anything on the article
page itself would be) then it doesn't really seem fair...
On Mar 29, 2013 10:37 PM, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I've just seen an OTRS
On Mar 30, 2013 12:55 AM, Mono monom...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but it might be nice if we could let people pay trusted editors to
improve articles (without a COI and with a NPOV) that normally wouldn't
get
attention.
Would that be nice? I think that would be very harmful...
On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, Mono monom...@gmail.com wrote:
How so?
It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer
written encyclopedia.
You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid editors.
There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those
.
Regards,
Garfield
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 18 March 2013 20:00, Garfield Byrd gb...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thomas:
The Wikimedia Foundation is looking at its capacity to hire and is
reviewing how many positions we can hire next
On Mar 19, 2013 10:13 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi,
Getting some experience first makes sense.. Going global is something that
can be done the next year ??
Surely this is a one off project. How many icons do we need?
___
On 18 March 2013 20:00, Garfield Byrd gb...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thomas:
The Wikimedia Foundation is looking at its capacity to hire and is
reviewing how many positions we can hire next fiscal year. We are working
overall to have a good annual plan that matches our outcomes, but with a
On 13 March 2013 07:58, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
For 13-14, I've asked for finance and HR to work with us in applying
performance metrics based on our hiring velocity and attrition rate in
12-13 against the hiring plan for the purpose of estimating the actual
dollar spend. I've
On Mar 15, 2013 9:26 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
A good way would be to start small and move the reserve WMF carries
already
and invest them
Absolutely not. The reserves are there to protect the foundation against
sudden increases in costs or decreases in revenues. They are needed
On 14 March 2013 13:00, Manuel Schneider manuel.schnei...@wikimedia.ch wrote:
Thanks Andrew and Philippe for your explanation and links.
So that is a plan to build a reserve of funds that is so big that the
operation can be funded by the capital's gain - interest, dividends...
Yes, although
Garfield,
Thanks for sharing the report. Once again, there is a significant
underspend. Does that concern you? It seems the WMF is consistently
not fully utilising its capital (so, either, you're fundraising too
much or doing too little). It often seems to be the case that the
underspend is due
On 7 March 2013 08:11, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
My NDA, signed 7 November 2011, is for three years. I found the copy.
James Salsman:
There are no terms about disparaging information or anything like that.
Save it for another thread, please.
The NDA I signed while
On Feb 25, 2013 9:41 AM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote:
Err ok, I'm sorry but this actually moves to the realms of scary. You
require the new Council member to send in a statement ... pledging loyalty
essentially? I don't see anything in the charter that would require
On 25 February 2013 11:30, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote:
The UK Chapter appreciated this recommendation from Compass which
re-enforced the board's past discussions in this area
What discussions did it reinforce? The last discussion about term
limits I'm aware of (February 2012, if memory serves)
If chapters won't to be involved, why don't they join? I don't think there
is even a plan to charge membership fees yet, so what have they got to lose?
On Feb 25, 2013 12:35 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi All,
Not to be incredibly mean about this, but how about giving
On 22 February 2013 17:42, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 18/02/2013 20:35, Nathan a écrit :
Cyrano - I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature
of the Board. It is self-perpetuating in every respect; the elections
are advisory only, and the actual appointment of
I quite like questions 2, 6, 9 and 10 - the answers to those should
help to show how well applicants understand our culture and what new
insights they can bring to the table. The others are either too
obscure for most applicants to be able to give an informed answer or
aren't really things the
On Feb 18, 2013 10:27 PM, Kevin Behrens kevin_behr...@hotmail.de wrote:
Language is identity! Would you like to tell those People that it is not
bad when they lose their language. As I mentioned, I am a member of a
linguistic minority, too, and I would feel like my human rights where taken
if
On Feb 17, 2013 8:29 PM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote:
I don't understand. The board hired and pays to a company to find a board
member? Have we tried before via our networks, chapters, and via our
advisory board to find such a person (as been done until now?).
The chapters are used to
On 6 February 2013 13:52, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
I think the failure of the WCA process thus far has shown an enormous
lack of connection between chapter bureaucracy and what editors
actually care about.
Pretty much everything the WMF and chapters do is stuff editors don't
care
On 6 February 2013 14:44, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com wrote:
I said this in Berlin, and I will repeat here: Why the chapters do not
apply the Wiki model in the offline world?
Because different problems require different solutions.
On 6 February 2013 14:55, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com wrote:
So ... you not believes in the model Wiki, and also not believes that he can
be
used in other locations, unless in building a encyclopedia?
It may be useful in other situations, but there is no reason to
On 6 February 2013 15:31, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com wrote:
HEHHEHEHE, okay, okay
So... do you not believe?
I find it odd organizations that promote free collaborative construction,
do not to believe in their own model, do not use the model itself and talk
that
On 6 February 2013 21:33, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com wrote:
*They represent the chapters.
*
That terrifies me...
You are terrified by people appointed by the chapters as their
representatives representing the chapters? I'm afraid you really
aren't making any sense...
On 6 February 2013 22:17, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the concern regarding the WCA primarily arises from the
proposed paying of people who will be leading it. If these people are
equivalent to the editors of content on Wikipedia (ie volunteers) and
work from a virtual office
On 6 February 2013 23:31, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
The WCA is lead by the council, who are all volunteers. They will be
supported by staff, but the council are in charge.
I would love to have my Wikipedia work supported by staff too.
It is... who do you think keeps the servers
On 30 January 2013 12:12, Richard Symonds
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Very interesting things happening in Antigua and the US:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21247683
Essentially, the World Trade Organization (WTO) have ruled that the islands
have the right to suspend US
On Jan 26, 2013 1:55 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:
That makes more sense - but to turn that into a noun (we are having
office
hours on Tuesday, is stretching the borders of everything language.
It makes perfect sense to me. It's a particular period of time that is
spent in an
On 23 January 2013 10:10, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Hello all,
An issue this raises for me is this: If we're to include copyright
information on blog posts regarding the use of CC licensed images, is this
going to have to be applied to all Wikipedia articles
On 22 January 2013 16:51, Richard Symonds
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
It appears that opinion is divided on whether a hyperlink is acceptable as
attribution, therefore I'm asking the experts:
- Does anyone have any input on this?
- Has this discussion been had before, if so,
On Jan 17, 2013 7:11 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
So I trust this bodes well for the (originally 2008) proposal to fund
Wikinews reporters which has surfaced from the community in various
forms through the years -- e.g.
On Jan 12, 2013 3:38 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Colleagues
Let me start off by pointing out the fact that I am never sure about
exactly what issues are handled on this list and secondly when are the
issues of a specific language Wikipedia handled among that community
On Jan 6, 2013 11:06 PM, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote:
I don't see a reason for this tone, and I think that everyone who is
interested in the reports will easily find them.
The problem is, it's hard to know if you are interested in the report
without having any idea what it
On Jan 7, 2013 2:08 AM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
We do know that this year the decay of fundraising from day to day was
steeper than in past years, confirming that we were eating into out
existing donor pool faster than before.
On the contrary, December 3rd was a stronger
On 4 January 2013 18:17, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:
And then again we would be comparing the salary I had in such company
after 5 years of (hopefully good) work, not the one I had at the beginning.
It would be very unusual for an employer to disregard previous
experience when setting a
On 3 January 2013 08:08, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
Does that sound like the
kind of people who would want to risk losing talent because their
donations were limited to a fundraising goal set based on the
blatantly false assertion that we aren't able to raise enough money to
pay
On Jan 3, 2013 6:47 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I found it interesting that donations increased by 52 % and
operating expenses for fundraising by 41 %.
What did you find interesting about that?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Very nice! I'll expect a performance in Hong Kong!
On a serious note, have you seen Geoff's comments on naming of affiliate
organisations?
On Dec 28, 2012 4:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote:
Hello,
A week ago, as I found out now, a new association has been found in
New York:
On Dec 28, 2012 7:12 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi,
it should probably be emphasized that this organization was founded
against
the advice of the Wikimedia Foundations' Affiliate Committee. It is not
recognized at this point.
Does it have a license to use the Wikimedia
I'm not quite sure what you mean by multivariate analysis... You only seem
to be talking about one variable - the message.
On Dec 28, 2012 9:46 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value
goal, we agree to use multivariate
On Dec 28, 2012 10:12 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by multivariate analysis
I mean as in the tests done May 16, September 20, and October 9
reported at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2012/We_Need_A_Breakthrough
without adjusting
On Dec 28, 2012 9:53 PM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Dec 28, 2012 7:12 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi,
it should probably be emphasized that this organization
This mailing list is not a suitable venue for a detailed discussion about
investment strategy. There are a lot of different things you have to take
into account when choosing investments. If the foundation wants to
investigate other investment options they need to get a professional
investment
On Dec 27, 2012 10:50 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
this is the most current iteration of a type of thread
that I find contributes a great deal of stress to my work here. There
are a
number of assumptions that strike me as bad faith and many of them are
targeted at people I
On Dec 28, 2012 12:52 AM, Matthew Roth mr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I suspect the assumption of bad faith is because he doesn't believe
anyone
could genuinely propose such a ridiculously bad idea. When limits
On Dec 28, 2012 1:02 AM, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 27/12/2012 21:34, Thomas Dalton a écrit :
On Dec 27, 2012 10:50 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
this is the most current iteration of a type of thread
that I find contributes a great deal of stress to my work here
On Dec 17, 2012 2:21 PM, Michael Jahn michael.j...@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear all,
just a brief update from Wikimedia Deutschland on our current fundraising
campaign. It's been running since November 13, involving variations of
facts
banners in combination with personal appeals. We're on track
Have you considered doing some longer tests? Lasting a week, say. It would
enable you to do proper multivariate testing, including dependencies
between variables (which I don't think you have done any real tests of
yet). It would also let you test time dependence. Eg., does a particular
message
On 17 December 2012 17:28, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas writes:
You could also model banner fatigue properly, which could be very useful.
Yes, a detailed model of banner fatigue would be fascinating.
It's certainly something studied by many groups in different contexts;
On 7 December 2012 00:04, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
First, we’re going to revamp Global Development. Starting now, that
department will be called Grantmaking and Programs. It will be co-led
by Anasuya (grantmaking) and Frank (programs). Anasuya and Frank will
have separate
Zack, you may want to look up sample bias... Of course you don't get many
complaints from the people that responded positively to the banners...
On Dec 4, 2012 5:56 PM, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Unacceptable!
On Dec 4, 2012 7:56 PM, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Next year, we'll discuss options and do some surveys of logged in and
not-logged-in users and try to make a good decision about what the least
painful way for all will be to raise the money.
Collating some good quality data would
On 28 November 2012 14:41, Charles Andrès charles.and...@wikimedia.ch wrote:
In fact we haven't seen the link before but we had the same in Switzerland,
it seems that in a way people complain about the traditional banners that are
to intrusive, but in the other hand they are more suspicious
On 27 November 2012 15:06, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Thanks for the announcement. I'm curious how it will work out.
Would it be possible to give a ballpark figure on what percentage of what
amount you're expecting/aiming to collect in these five countries in this
month, and
This is an interesting idea, and makes a lot of sense. Non-English
fundraising hasn't really had the attention it needs in previous years (for
obvious reasons - it's more efficient to focus your attention where you can
achieve the most) and this should make a big difference.
I'm curious, as you
On Nov 26, 2012 5:15 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
This year we did something different and went up all over the world for
24
hours on Nov 15 as sort of a dress rehearsal. That really helped us to
identify a
On Nov 17, 2012 7:28 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton, 16/11/2012 13:25:
I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a
discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she
hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up
I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a
discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she
hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was
thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I
thought a lot more
On 16 November 2012 13:06, Osmar Valdebenito os...@wikimediachile.cl wrote:
Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any
problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't
expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'.
Yes, you can. When you
On Nov 15, 2012 7:26 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote:
and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted
for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC
funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the
organization
If nobody gave funding to things that aren't operational yet, not a lot
would happen...
On Nov 15, 2012 8:03 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems like it would've made more sense to exclude WCA costs
entirely, since it doesn't actually exist nor does it have any
meaningful operations
I agree that the explanations could be more details. In particular, I would
be interested to know where some of the numbers came from. For example,
take WMUK. I agree that WMUK's plan was over ambitious, but how did the FDC
come to that particular recommendation? Presumably they had some kind of
I would be very surprised if the trustee Secretary actually took minutes...
That would usually be delegated...
On Nov 6, 2012 12:02 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
It would strike me that one of the urgencies that might be involved is
the fact that this resolution was passed so that the
resolutions?
Further, it's to improve compliance with legislation. Thus, it's
housekeeping.
Risker
On 5 November 2012 19:04, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I would be very surprised if the trustee Secretary actually took
minutes...
That would usually be delegated...
On Nov 6
You're taking about a whistleblower policy[1], essentially. Normally, they
are restricted to reporting violations off the law, rather than internal
policies (see the Foundation's policy[2] for example) but there is no
reason we couldn't have a broader one.
It would need to be quite limited in
Transparency is necessary for democracy, but it is only one part of it. I
think Lodewijk wants to discuss ways of involving the community in the
Foundation's governance, not just ways to keep it informed.
On Nov 3, 2012 12:48 PM, Patricio Lorente patricio.lore...@gmail.com
wrote:
2012/11/3
Bishaka,
Seeing as there was no public discussion of these amendments, to my
knowledge, can you at least explain them now?
The responsibilities of the Secretary and Treasurer are board
responsibilities. While the day-to-day work of the role may be delegated to
staff, it is still the job of the
On Nov 2, 2012 3:07 PM, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
The responsibilities of the Secretary and Treasurer are board
responsibilities. While the day-to-day work of the role may be
delegated
On 21 October 2012 22:29, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
The connection is that it is an example of the significantly more
negative/hostile environment and failure of en.wp's governance structure
that harms editor retention; this is something that could have been studied
and
On Oct 15, 2012 6:06 PM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
This announcement is worrying, to say the least.
In other words, the Wikimedia Foundation is doing a partnership with
one of the most retrograde government, which is also a regular censor
on Internet content.
How could you
On 14 October 2012 20:19, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed; I remember some (internal) announcements around this, which
caused me and no doubt others to while away an evening just after
deployment clicking helpful/unhelpful :)
I didn't spend an entire evening on it, but I can
The consultant has apparently been chosen already based on a recommendation
from Pavel. What other consultants were considered? What was the process?
Did you get competing quotes?
On Oct 10, 2012 10:39 PM, Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Hi,
I have created
On 10 October 2012 00:31, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. If we split movement-wide costs into essential, high
priority, and non-core, I think the FDC should grow to review most
of the non-essential funds. Which would include more than 10% of the
WMF budget.
If you view it
16:12, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the current status of the WCA? The last update I can find is an
email from Ziko to this list on 24 August (a month and a half ago) saying
there would be a full report soon. Have I missed that report or are we
still waiting
How about you shake your addiction to secrecy and tell us what the problem
is?
On Sep 28, 2012 11:20 PM, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk
wrote:
On 28 Sep 2012, at 23:17, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 28 September 2012 23:00, Michael Peel
On 19 September 2012 12:51, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 September 2012 12:08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 September 2012 10:46, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 September 2012 10:24, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
He gets to decide
On 12 September 2012 08:45, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Also from Para 1, how can a person violate a contract without being a party
to it?
That's what tortuous interference is all about. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
On 8 September 2012 14:12, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
One quick question - will the Audit Committee work with/oversee the
finances of the FDC as well? The FDC has its own Ombudspeople (person?
not sure if it's one or two) but it's not clear whether the scope of
the AC has
On 7 September 2012 20:40, Daniel Zahn dz...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com wrote:
and I'm wondering how they will sue for importing content that is on free
license...
Well, it's Creative Commons
On 7 September 2012 20:59, Daniel Zahn dz...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
Why attribute Wikitravel? The license only requires the author to be
attributed, not the first publisher. Ideally, content will be copied
across
On 7 September 2012 21:25, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
We encourage attribution of Wikipedia articles as:
This article uses material from the Wikipedia article [[Metasyntactic
variable]], which is released under the
[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
On Sep 6, 2012 7:27 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Other than in the process of enforcing telecommunications law, is
there any way to challenge the presumed immunity of a particular
entity under Section 230? It seems to me, as a layperson, that
Internet Brand's role in Wikitravel has
On 21 August 2012 19:44, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
In most cases ( Covering the significant majority of all x-rays existing, but
not ruling out the possibility of rare uses of X-ray photography as an
artistic medium) . . .
7 None of the above
Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable
On 22 August 2012 20:50, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
It possibly has a very thin copyright.
Copyright doesn't have thickness. Either it is copyrightable or it isn't.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 20 August 2012 12:08, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
A question about copyright, who owns the copyright on Xrays and are they
even copyrightable? I have uploaded a few of them and no one seems to know
the answer. I guess the options would be:
Why is it any different to any other work
On 20 August 2012 18:27, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson cindam...@gmail.com wrote:
In the US, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(HIPAA) governs release of medical information, which includes any medium,
including spoken, written, or electronically stored. This includes
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
