hi Theo,
Actually, no. The board and WMF both have a legal existence and basis. FDC
as a committee, albeit a board mandated one sits on the same or equal
footing as Langcom or Comcom, slightly above OMGcom, as far as I'm
concerned. It has little to no real world existence. Second, the WMF
Hi,
Someone brought up an interesting issue: is it moral for the vandals
to be credited as contributors to articles (especially when exporting
the article as pdf)? After experimenting a little, it turns out that
deleting the usernames from the history removes them from the
contributor list.
Answer to the first question is very simple - C is derived from A, not
vandalized B revision.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Someone brought up an interesting issue: is it moral for the vandals
to be credited as contributors to articles (especially
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
While morality is a subjective matter, a more interesting question is:
is this behavior compatible with the CCBYSA license? Say we have
version A of a text, vandalised in version B and reverted in revision
C. Then version C
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Someone brought up an interesting issue: is it moral for the vandals
to be credited as contributors to articles (especially when exporting
the article as pdf)? After experimenting a little, it turns out that
deleting
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
Same argument in
different wording: None of the creativity that goes into the vandalizing
from version A to version B is present in version C. Thus, version C does
not fall under the copyright of the vandal. Which means
Andre Engels, 23/10/2013 11:10:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
If we go this way, then none of the authors who added legitimate
content in the past but had it deleted later should be credited. We
would need a tool like git blame [1] to generate the author
No, it's correct. James personally wanted me to represent WM2012.
Best,
*~Orsolya*
2013/10/23 MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com
Ellie Young wrote:
• Orsolya Virág Gyenes (representing WM 2012)
• James Hare
I think your label may be switched here?
MZMcBride
Congratulations to those involved in kicking off this committee.
Though we should probably avoid setting up too many committees I know
this part of the Wikimedia movement's decision making and learning
process has been talked about for quite some time and I'm sure that
the WM 2014 UK team will
On 10/23/13 2:08 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Theo10011, 23/10/2013 00:21:
I'm quite surprised to constantly read FDC is somehow representative
of the
larger community and accountable to them. Almost all the current members
were part of chapter leadership and have been quite active within
Dear Dariusz, thank you for your interesting answer, I learned a lot from
it.
I can imagine that some things will look different when the movement is a
little older, with more former board members who would like to serve in the
FDC.
Kind regards
Ziko
Am Mittwoch, 23. Oktober 2013 schrieb
Delirium, 23/10/2013 13:33:
From my perspective as someone not really involved in either the WMF or
chapters (or other committees), but just an editor and a community
member, I tend to see the WMF as special
Note that I wasn't saying it isn't special in some way, I was just
saying that
On 10/21/2013 08:13 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
On a typical site, paid staff would deal with problematic users.
The obvious, and perhaps a bit trite, answer would be that we are most
certainly not a typical site by any meaning of the term. :-)
Seriously, however, I can understand why some current
Although I personally didn't consider identifying to be onerous, I've never
thought the entire identification requirement and process were necessary,
since nothing is ever done with the identification data. Can anyone think
of a situation that would have been handled differently if the
proposed
On 24 October 2013 00:07, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 10/23/2013 07:01 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
(I myself can
think of one and only one, but am curious if there are others.)
I can also think of exactly one off the cuff (and it is almost certainly
the same); but I can think of
As far as The physical handling is relatively easy to ensure is proper,
well... Considering that some of our less sane problematic users have, if
I'm remembering correctly, shown up at the WMF office itself and would have
loved to get their hands on the real-life documents of our
Fluff-
When crazies go crazy
about Wikipedia, they go *very *crazy, and breaking a padlock in an office
isn't that outlandish for some of them.
It will not happen without staff being fully aware, and an intruder knowing
which cabinet to break into without significant effort is extremely
Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
Seriously, however, I can understand why some current holders of rights
might have reservations about a policy that tightens greatly how private
information is handled and how much vetting is done on who does the
handling; but that tightening does very much need to take
18 matches
Mail list logo
