Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

James, that's very helpful and I see at least one book on that list that violates the licence, and hence breaches my copyright, in content that I wrote. What's the best way forward? Should the WMF represent the community by engaging directly with the company responsible? Or should it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia community in Iraq partners with Asiacell to bring Wikipedia to nearly 12 million subscribers free of mobile data charges

This is wonderful news. Expecially the fact that they can edit for free. Congrats to all involved :-) James On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Pine W wrote: > Forwarding. > > Pine > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Samantha Lien >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

Rupert here is a list of 213,000 books that are based on Wikipedia without proper attribution. https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks=en=%22CTI+Reviews%22 James On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:47 AM, David Gerard wrote: > This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

You're welcome, Rogol. Smiley face, /a On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote: > Anna > > Thanks. > > "Rogol" > > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Anna Stillwell > wrote: > > > Hey Rogol, > > I think Zach's email (above / March

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

I get the impression that the majority of the people in this subcommunity feel that this decision is well on its place with the technical community, that would be most heavily impacted by it. So I'd say, lets leave it at that. Lodewijk 2017-03-04 21:27 GMT+01:00 Rogol Domedonfors

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

Hi Rogol, Yes, to a point. But if we tried to have every discussion on this list that was categorized as "Organizational issues of the Wikimedia Foundation, chapter organizations", "Planning elections, polls and votes", and "Other Wikimedia-related issues", this list would be so flooded with

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

Well, one of us is in the wrong place. I'm posting to the list described as "Discussion list for *the Wikimedia community* and the larger network of organizations [...] supporting its work." – my emphasis. It seems that "This mailing list can, for example, be used for: [...] The initial

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Anna Thanks. "Rogol" On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote: > Hey Rogol, > I think Zach's email (above / March 2nd) describes the changes. > /a > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Rogol Domedonfors > wrote: > > > Anna > > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Hey Rogol, I think Zach's email (above / March 2nd) describes the changes. /a On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote: > Anna > > I'm glad to hear that everything is all right and that you don't need our > help after all. When you return from your break,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of what we're actually talking about here? - d.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

+1 On 4 March 2017 at 10:17, Ido ivri wrote: > A little late into the discussion I just want to note that aside from the > factual reservations, which seem to make sense, the overall tone, context > and setting of the WMF Annual report is something I wholeheartedly agree >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Pine We were asked for help. I posted a message asking how we could help in this process. We got a reply saying the process "already took place". I interpret that as meaning that our help is not needed after all. Perhaps you read it differently. I don't think that makes my response, or yours

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

A little late into the discussion I just want to note that aside from the factual reservations, which seem to make sense, the overall tone, context and setting of the WMF Annual report is something I wholeheartedly agree with, and I feel that it conveys a sense of urgency on a few fronts that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

Licensing and the choices have been discussed on Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed is well worth a read to understand the issue On 4 March 2017 at 17:44, rupert THURNER wrote: > that i find not acceptable to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

that i find not acceptable to be honest, james. is there a list of such books which can be passed on? i contacted amazon asking them why they sell such books. their support is very welcoming - but its easier for them with links. On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 3:47 PM, James Heilman

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

-Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George William Herbert Sent: Saturday, 04 March 2017 10:47 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report" I think that the idea of taking the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

I think that the idea of taking the weekend off from the topic is excellent. We may not have reached universal consensus yet but everything we needed to have said was, and it's been acknowledged as received and under consideration. Have a good weekend everyone. -george Sent from my iPhone

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

On 4 March 2017 at 18:38, Pine W wrote: > It seems to me that Anna is interested in improving the situation rather > than having a battle with the community. I'd like to let the improvement > process happen. Please have some patience, and let's be grateful that WMF > is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

Rogol, I don't get the impression that Anna's position is that "everything is all right and that (WMF doesn't) need our help after all". That comment comes across to me as inflammatory and unhelpful. It seems to me that Anna is interested in improving the situation rather than having a battle