Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

On 3 August 2012 22:00, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > 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 something like this with Google?

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

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 G

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:12 PM, MZMcBride 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 have seemed to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM, ??? wrote: > On 03/08/2012 16:24, Mike Linksvayer wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:14 AM, >> wrote: >>> The proposal was floated by Jimmy Wales on the 10th of december, 1 >>> day after a Creative Commons Board meeting, on which he sits >>> alongside the mother-i

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

On 03/08/2012 16:24, Mike Linksvayer wrote: On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:14 AM, 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] conversations between WMF and non-English projects

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Amir E. Aharoni 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 > better understand and respo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

Stephen LaPorte wrote: > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:07 PM, MZMcBride 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 "communi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 8:07 PM, aude wrote: > On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Tilman Bayer > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at > > > > > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FO

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 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 increase over

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

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 y

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

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: https://met

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

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 situati

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

Could we please get back to the subject here? That would be discussing the proposed guideline[1] instead of dissecting a historical event. I note that there is quite a bit of commentary on the talk page, and perhaps it would be best if further discussion continues in that central location. Risk

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

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 ci

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is there an agreement between GoldenMap and the Wikipedia for the use of Wikipedia content?

2012/8/3 Rui Correia : > 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 in place for th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Todd Allen 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 100%. We think on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is there an agreement between GoldenMap and the Wikipedia for the use of Wikipedia content?

You might want to add it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks so that it's kept track of and I know some users have done some great work at getting mirrors taken down through the process there. I also passed it along to our legal team who's looking into it. On Fri, Aug 3, 20

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

On 3 August 2012 19:12, Michael Snow 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 > something that reg

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Wikimedia UK appoints new Chair

Forwarding for info. Thanks, Mike Begin forwarded message: > From: Richard Symonds > Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimedia UK appoints new Chair > Date: 2 August 2012 14:01:17 PDT > To: Wikimedia UK mailing list > Reply-To: UK Wikimedia mailing list > > All, > > I've been asked by the board to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

On 8/3/2012 10:47 AM, Stephen LaPorte wrote: On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:07 PM, MZMcBride 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 conside

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:07 PM, MZMcBride 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 > initiative" or not? Th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

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 "transp

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:14 AM, 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 facilitated. > > The p

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

I am not sure that needed to be that prolix. :) But yes, let's tease out some things: 1. Wikimedia projects have quite strongly worded policies against copyright violations. Many volunteer editors make good-faith efforts to uphold them. Many other editors, knowingly or unknowingly, break them, and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

(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 s

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is there an agreement between GoldenMap and the Wikipedia for the use of Wikipedia content?

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-SA" is not a licence to copy the entire Wikipedia wholesale, without as much as

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is there an agreement between GoldenMap and the Wikipedia for the use of Wikipedia content?

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 wrote: > 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.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is there an agreement between GoldenMap and the Wikipedia for the use of Wikipedia content?

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

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 t

[Wikimedia-l] Is there an agreement between GoldenMap and the Wikipedia for the use of Wikipedia content?

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 in place for this? Look - for example - at this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

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 some

[Wikimedia-l] Monthly Report Wikimedia Deutschland July 2012

Hi everybody, Wikimedia Deutschland's monthly report for July 2012 in online now! In order to find our about - our experiences at Wikimania 2012 - news about the German Wikipedians in Residence