Fantastic news and long overdue - I hope the women editors will receive all
the support they need.
On 19 July 2015 at 14:43, wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via
hi,
may i propose to fix the attribution problem for the one common use
case do it like wikipedia does. somebody who refers to images from
commons like wikipedia does it should be on legal safe grounds.
there is a recent incident of non-wiki-love where user harald bischoff
states comes into
Congratulations!
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Carlos M. Colina ma...@wikimedia.org.ve
wrote:
Dear all,
I am pleased and honoured to announce on behalf of the Affiliations
Committe the recognition [1] of a new member of the family of Wikimedia
affiliates: The WikiWomen's User Group.
I would agree - it has annoyed me for years that on Dutch Wikipedia, if you
use a painting image from Commons in an article, you may attribute the
painter (though it's not required) but you may NOT attribute the painting's
owner (often a museum and this seems ridiculous to me). I agree we should
What do you mean by legalize? The license is what the license is, while we
might influence future versions of the license, we don't really control how
current licenses are interpreted. That is an issue for the courts.
There is a modest ambiguity in CC BY-SA 3.0 about the attribution clauses
Indeed, as Kirill says, the grants process is owned by the WMF (albeit one
hosted on Meta), not by the community, so I'm not sure why the Meta
community needs to get involved. It actually seems to me that the
foundation wiki would be a better home for processes like this so that
community
Is the omission of sister projects (Commons, Species, Wiktionary)
intentional?
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Tito Dutta trulyt...@gmail.com wrote:
That's great. :)
if you add something for queries please contact joh@example.org or
something like that on the Book Grant page too (
I agree that if the grants discussions were on Foundation wiki that WMF
staff would have more leeway to make decisions without going through the
Board or community. It seems to me that Meta is a community project wiki
that is governed by community leadership and community content moderation,
and
I would have a serious problem with someone litigating, or threatening to
litigate, over an instance of technical non-compliance with the license
terms; much less so if the (alleged) infringer persisted in republishing
without requested attribution information after warnings.
Has anyone directly
On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
it is also hard for me to get behind the
notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things that
Commons actually recommends that they do.
It's not a question of punishment, but of protecting Commons'
Very good news! Congratulations, Patricio!
I'm happy for you and for Wikimedia movement!
Oona
2015-07-17 15:48 GMT-03:00 Nasir Khan nasir8...@gmail.com:
Great news! Congratulations Patricio and Alice!
thanks
Nasir Khan
Wikimedia Bangladesh
--
*Nasir Khan Saikat*
www.nasirkhn.com
I think the next step is for someone to notify him that he's being talked
about. :-)
On 20 Jul 2015 13:39, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
it is also hard for me to get behind the
notion of punishing someone for
Poking around I found the following related discussions listed below (all
in German) dealing with the current issue and a similar 2013 complaint. In
the second link Harald responds a couple times to the 2013 complaint. The
Google translate versions of the linked discussions are somewhat hard to
Pine,
As you insist on such formality, can you imagine that it is a huge
turn-off for others? The thing that troubles ME most, is that a friendly
space policy is something that is so obvious in so many ways, that I
cannot fathom what the objection could be and therefore what the added
value is of
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
snip
Since when has that ever been a thing? With respect to licenses such as CC,
we follow the same rules as anyone else.
Not really. Commons actually recommends that an explicit credit line
accompany CC BY
***note this reply is entirely in my personal capacity and in no way
represents anything official***
On Jul 20, 2015 3:09 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:
the distinction because wikipedia is owned by wmf we refer
differently to commons than anybody else needs to go away imo.
***note this reply is still entirely in my personal capacity and in no way
represents anything official***
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
Since when has that ever been a thing? With respect to licenses such as
CC,
we follow the same rules as anyone
On 20/07/2015 19:38, Andy Mabbett wrote:
On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
it is also hard for me to get behind the
notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things that
Commons actually recommends that they do.
It's not a question of
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 20 July 2015 at 18:09, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
it is also hard for me to get behind the
notion of punishing someone for demanding that reusers due the things
that
Commons actually recommends
Hi Gerard,
The process for starting an RfC is relatively easy, and I'm generally
willing to be the initiator of one. Likewise, board resolutions happen
freqently, can be straightforward, and could take place to support a
friendly space policy.
If there isn't an RfC or board resolution or some
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
2. CA says that there are ...a (legal-approved) list of... event banned
users, a protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned
users and that it will Supply to Conference Coordinators for events
beginning in Q1
Re: contact information - there is now contact information!
Re: sister projects - we're focusing on article writing for the pilot since
it's so small - to make measuring impact a little less onerous - but if the
pilot goes well I think we will definitely open it up more!
-Emily
On Mon, Jul 20,
Thank you everyone for the warm welcome for this new WikiWomen's User
Group.
Help us spread the work all around the world to chapters and other
affiliated organizations that are working on the gender gap already and
would find this group an useful place to connect with other people with
similar
23 matches
Mail list logo
