Hi everybody,
Wikimedia Deutschland's monthly report for July 2012 in online now! In
order to find our about
- our experiences at Wikimania
2012https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimania_2012
- news about the German Wikipedians in
I am afraid that is not how it feels at all. It's more like organising a
giant volunteer effort to provide a market stall handing out free sweets
and cakes for anyone who wants some. The stall is very popular, and many
people chip in, bringing in cakes they've baked and candy they've made. And
bhar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist.
The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it
into existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated.
The proposal was floated by Jimmy Wales on the
It looks like a direct scrape, even to the extent of having some
internal links being broken because they didn't update them (e.g. the
link to Wikimedia Commons at the end of the article). I believe it's
just one of the (many) unauthorized mirrors that don't properly credit
the source of their
Hi,
Man, what a talent for story telling! But I don't think you story
represents anything close to WP. First comparing copying digital
content illegally with stealing cakes is a very bad analogy. That's
what the industry wants us to believe, and you falled by the trick.
Then I don't think people
on the copyright page they say that the content is mostly cc-by-sa
http://en.goldenmap.com/stylesheets/terms.php
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote:
It looks like a direct scrape, even to the extent of having some internal
links being broken because they didn't
Thanks Mark and Mike
Mike, well done on finding the About! I looked for it and could not find
it.
But surely saying that Most of the contents are licensed under
CC-BY-SAhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
is not a licence to copy the entire Wikipedia wholesale, without as much as
a
(warning, tl;dr!)
**
*@Andreas - *I understand your sentiment, but in a reasoning way, I find I
don't agree with that assessment. For what it's worth, I edit a lot on law
- one of my GAs is a Supreme Court case, numerous others worked on, it's an
area I like, and I tend to read full rulings like
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:14 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
bhar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist.
The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it
into existence, not the Foundation. We merely
Long as it's getting top-posted anyway...
First, copying is not and cannot be theft. That's not to say it's
always legally or ethically acceptable, mind you, but it's not theft.
In legal terms, there was a court case over that particular matter,
that ruled someone could not be charged on a
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:07 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
My question, more directly, is: if the SOPA action from January 2012
were held in August 2012 (following the implementation of this new statement
from the General Counsel's office), would it be considered a community
Forwarding for info.
Thanks,
Mike
Begin forwarded message:
From: Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk
Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimedia UK appoints new Chair
Date: 2 August 2012 14:01:17 PDT
To: Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@lists.wikimedia.org
Reply-To: UK Wikimedia
On 3 August 2012 19:12, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
I agree that the community retains the authority to reach its own decisions
about future actions of this type. I think the policy should be understood
primarily as something the foundation will adhere to in its operations, not
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
We do everything in our power to prevent
the problem, but it would be absolutely cost prohibitive to do it 100%
with the difference being that fine grained, and this law gives you
the right to shut us down if we can't hit
2012/8/3 Rui Correia correia@gmail.com:
Dear All
I came across a site called Golden Map, which has an encyclopaedic
collection of articles that are the same as in the Wikipedia, but I don't
see anywhere any information expalining what the association/ permission
is. Is there an agreement
How come these concerns weren't brought up months ago when the reflection
about the blackout was posted to meta?
It seems that right now Andreas, you are the main opponent of something that
already happened and no one can change.
I'd just post your concerns to meta and stop this talking in
Sarah,
Well, for one I was not aware that there was a reflection about the
blackout posted on Meta. A link would be appreciated. Thanks.
Secondly, four or five months ago I would not have been aware of various
events on the timeline that preceded the blackout.
Third, this is an ongoing
Hi -
Actually, it looks like there are a few places where people can share
their thoughts, etc. about SOPA/Blackoutness:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout
and other things related but not:
Michael Snow writes:
Perhaps worth adding, I think it's fair to say that these reviews did
take place with respect to the use of Wikimedia Foundation resources in
the context of the January SOPA protest. They didn't necessarily follow
the form of the current policy, since it didn't exist yet,
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Tilman Bayer, 29/07/2012 18:28:
Regarding the normal levels, I suppose you haven't yet had a chance
to look at http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors ?
Yes and it shows that there's still an
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 8:07 PM, aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi all,
the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at
Stephen LaPorte wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:07 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
My question, more directly, is: if the SOPA action from January 2012
were held in August 2012 (following the implementation of this new statement
from the General Counsel's office), would it be
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
Hi,
In the 2012-13 WMF plan document I saw an interesting thing:
We’ve hosted key community stakeholders such as English Wikipedia’s
ArbCom and Portuguese Wikipedia’s top contributors, in an effort to
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 03/08/2012 16:24, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:14 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk
wrote:
The proposal was floated by Jimmy Wales on the 10th of december, 1
day after a Creative Commons Board meeting,
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:12 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Why are there so many various levels and steps if it's not a determination
about principles and about whether a particular cause meets Wikimedia's
mission? This is what's confusing me.
People on the talk page at Meta-Wiki
Andreas makes a really important point below. Now that I read it from his
perspective, it seems like what we're dealing with here is a surreptitious
attempt by the General Counsel to hijack the Wikimedia Foundation and its
projects to serve their covert corporate masters. Obviously the Bilderberg
On 3 August 2012 22:00, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
lots of stuff
Andreas, I'm sorry, but you've been involved in Wikimedia projects for
quite a while now. What in heaven's name would ever give you the idea that
the WMF could possibly get itself organized enough to co-ordinate
27 matches
Mail list logo
