Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Aug 23, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:49 PM, wrote: >> To reword what I said before the vast majority of X-ray images in existence >> are diagnostic >> images. There is no reason at all to purposefully search out X-rays that >> might land in some >> grey area. > > One problem with that is that the X-ray images that you are most > likely to find are the most likely to have been created with the > intention of being distributed. > I don't understand why "intention to distribute" would be relevant. > On the other hand, if "probably no one will sue" is good enough for > you, then you really don't need to ask the legal question in the first > place. That is not at all what I said, but you are quite good at striking down an argument which I did not make and do not support! Since there is so little left of what I said, I will rephrase: Diagnostic images are not copyrighted and there are lots of interchangeable images that are equally not copyrighted. If one of these interchangeable images credits someone as a creator, and you are worried they "probably will sue", then use another interchangeable image. Unless, of course, one purposefully wishes to be a jerk about their understanding of copyright. And while I am sure someone will, I wound prefer not to put any more effort in considering the situation. (So please don't misquote me on this issue!) > >> Another rule of thumb: Most images, whatever they depict, are also >> *designed* to be pleasing >> to human aesthetics. > > I don't understand that. What are you using the term "human > aesthetics" to mean? I meant when creating a common photo no consideration is given to composition of the infrared wavelengths. However, whether the photographer is very aware of it or not, aesthetic choices are being made as the overall composition is selected. It is really outside this topic, but I think the aesthetics which happen please/disturb us are often evolutionary. I tend to always be connecting things in my thinking, I didn't mean to have it spill over and muddy things here. Don't read too much into and pretend I just wrote aesthetics. I doubt any one but me would be reading that sentence and wondering whether non-humans would find most pictures to be pleasing. Sorry for confusing the issue. > And even if you're truer about most, that still leaves a great number > which were not. Many images were in fact designed to be aesthetically > displeasing. I also wrote a sentence about copyrightable images being designed for "aesthetic effect". While I think the statement you quoted works as *a rule of thumb*, I purposefully did not limit the statement that followed to only *pleasing* aesthetic effects. > > And many others were designed, like the X-ray image, to objectively > depict reality. > > _ Yes there are many such images. These types of images are called utilitarian images. Which is what prompted me to write about how copyright hangs upon aesthetic choices. In hopes that it would help people understand why images lacking aesthetic choices also lack copyright. I was very aware there are many such images. I labeled my statement a rule of thumb not a universal rule. I know this all sounds like I am very annoyed. I am really just slightly annoyed ;) Look copyright is really tough. Really. And most people, probably everyone to some degree, misunderstands copyright. I honestly am happy to see you smack down some of my statements, like you did about all the international agreements working as bi-lateral treaties. I learned that Berne is different today, and frankly I think that is awesome. I ran out of low hanging fruit wrt to copyright a long time ago. I really appreciate the opportunity this thread has offered me to gain a nuance to my understanding. Seriously. But I don't appreciate the rhetorical twists that, instead of clarifying the discussion, muddy things by making our that a sentence or two that wrote support a position that I never took. Not that it bothers me personally. But it confuses the discussion immensely for people who may have been struggling to follow it in the beginning. A long time ago, when I knew *nothing* of copyright, this list is where I managed to gather most of the low hanging fruit. Eventually I had to search for understanding elsewhere, but I know people making copyright decisions in the wikis may be using this list as a tool for making those decisions. At one time, I was such a person. So anyways . . . I know it's the internet and all . . . where men are compelled to put on displays of rhetorical prowess as though they were peacocks . . . but please . . . for the children and all that . . . Can we try to avoid picking out the weakest snippets of writing for rhetorical displays and instead focus on the heart of the positions to explore the issue in way that allows us to both improve our understandings? At least
[Wikimedia-l] Uncopyrightable works and cross-jurisdictional protections was Re: Copyright on Xrays
On Aug 23, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, wrote: >> Snip > And even if it is only the US, other countries would not recognize copyright on diagnostic images created in the US, which gives us at least the NASA situation. >>> >>> Do you have a citation for this? Also, is it where the image is >>> created, or where it is first published, or something else? >>> >> Copyright, internationally, is bilateral agreements. If it is not protected >> in the US, it cannot >> demand bilateral protection elsewhere. It would be based on the >> jurisdiction of creation. >> Publication has had nothing to do with the creation of copyright since the >> 1970's as far as I >> am aware. Before 1976, in the US, place of publication was significant for >> determining >> copyright protection because of the notice requirement. Now copyright is >> automatic at fixation. > > Are you sure, or are you guessing? > > What about all that "country of origin" stuff in the Berne Convention? > That certainly suggests to me that the location of first publication > matters. > Publication shortens the copyright term that was enjoyed by the unpublished work. That is the only significance I am aware that the first publication has since the 1970's. However, the Berne Convention is insane. It is not set up as a bilateral treaty like I had thought. (Some of the other relevant agreement are.) It reads: > [the enjoyment and exercise of copyright] ... shall be independent of the > existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. Consequently, > apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of protection, as > well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, > shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is > claimed. — Berne Convention, article 5(2). Here is an example of how insane that is. In the US edicts of government are uncopyrightable. A few years ago Oregon "forgot" about this; they notices on their website and actually attempted to enforce copyright on the statues of Oregon. I am not sure how far this went in litigation before they were educated about copyright law. Now in the UK, edicts of government are copyrightable. The UK recently switched its license on the local statute from Crown Copyright to some new "Free Government" license. One way that Berne can be read is that if you had printed a copy of the Statues of Oregon from their website in Oregon; you were not infringing on copyright. However if you had printed a copy of the Statues of Oregon from their website *in the UK*; you were infringing on the copyrights owned by the State of Oregon. And if Oregon had sought to enforce these rights in the UK, they would have been able to. Now this is the really insane part. The US policy relies on common law, so there isn't a quotable statue. The summary is "such material as laws and governmental rules and decisions must be freely available to the public and made known as widely as possible; hence there must be no restriction on reproduction and dissemination of such documents." Now imagine the US federal government passed a law stating that "in order allow for the widest distribution possible, all edicts of government are to be protected by copyright for a term of 1 minute." If that were to happen then Oregon would no longer be able to enforce copyright on the Statutes of Oregon in the UK or any other Berne signatory that does not explicitly revoke the rule of the shorter term (one the "provisions of the Convention" that can invalidate the the quoted idea above). Obviously, I just pulled all this together. And I am "just guessing", as you might say, about how it would actually play out. And while it is a crazy corner of international copyright, it is not an issue I am concerned with about the diagnostic images. I do not believe such images are copyrighted anywhere. Until someone cites some copyright law that is profoundly differently from generic US basis for what copyright is about, I am will remain confident that mere diagnostic images are universally without copyright protection. Birgitte SB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide RFC closing in 3,2,...
Alice Wiegand, 23/08/2012 23:55: And here's a very short note about the next steps: The board is reviewing the RfC and its talk page over the next week. We are going to share our thoughts with you soon on the RfC's talk page. Please feel free to leave comments there, that's still possible and will be read ;-) Don't forget https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Travel_Guide which seems to have the most useful and focused comments (which don't include my own). Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide RFC closing in 3,2,...
And here's a very short note about the next steps: The board is reviewing the RfC and its talk page over the next week. We are going to share our thoughts with you soon on the RfC's talk page. Please feel free to leave comments there, that's still possible and will be read ;-) Regards, Alice On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Kim Bruning wrote: > For those interested, a quick reminder: > > The travel guide RFC will (soft) close in 1 hour, 17 minutes as of the > moment this mail is sent. (At 0:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)) > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide > > sincerely, > Kim Bruning > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 101, Issue 51
This is a question best referred to the RC church. Stranger phenomena have been advanced for canonization :-) On 8/23/2012 6:39 AM, wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: Hmm...you may be right on that. If I accidentally spill some paint on a canvas and it creates an image that looks like the Virgin Mary, do I have a copyright on the image? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide RFC closing in 3,2,...
On 23 August 2012 14:56, James Heilman wrote: > Most of the issues where addressed. And they only way to determine if many > of the concerns hold water is to simply try it. A travel guide will likely > be heavily read and edited. > > As a comparison their are an approximately an equal number of medical > articles on Wikipedia to travel articles. Yet the travel articles had a > much higher number of dedicated editors. I hope that you Thomas do not see > this as justification to delete the medical project? Also if you look at > readership on Wikipedia. We have many thousands of article that receive > little to no viewership I do not consider this viewership justification for > deleting them. > > You're building straw men there. I am just griping; we'll see if I end up being right or not I suppose. Tom ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide RFC closing in 3,2,...
Most of the issues where addressed. And they only way to determine if many of the concerns hold water is to simply try it. A travel guide will likely be heavily read and edited. As a comparison their are an approximately an equal number of medical articles on Wikipedia to travel articles. Yet the travel articles had a much higher number of dedicated editors. I hope that you Thomas do not see this as justification to delete the medical project? Also if you look at readership on Wikipedia. We have many thousands of article that receive little to no viewership I do not consider this viewership justification for deleting them. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Anthony wrote: > And many others were designed, like the X-ray image, to objectively > depict reality. In fact, in theory, almost all the images in an encyclopedia should be of this type (I say "almost" because there will also be images which are there for the purposes of talking about the image itself). Unfortunately this is only the theory, and not the practice, and we get pictures winning picture of the year which are altered from reality in order to be more aesthetically pleasing. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:49 PM, wrote: > To reword what I said before the vast majority of X-ray images in existence > are diagnostic > images. There is no reason at all to purposefully search out X-rays that > might land in some > grey area. One problem with that is that the X-ray images that you are most likely to find are the most likely to have been created with the intention of being distributed. On the other hand, if "probably no one will sue" is good enough for you, then you really don't need to ask the legal question in the first place. > Another rule of thumb: Most images, whatever they depict, are also *designed* > to be pleasing > to human aesthetics. I don't understand that. What are you using the term "human aesthetics" to mean? And even if you're true about most, that still leaves a great number which were not. Many images were in fact designed to be aesthetically displeasing. And many others were designed, like the X-ray image, to objectively depict reality. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:34 AM, wrote: > On Aug 22, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Anthony wrote: >> I could be wrong, but I'm not sure there's a requirement for aesthetic >> or artistic purpose. Non-fiction, software, legal contracts, etc., >> all have been held to be copyrightable. > > I think you are overestimating the very minimal amount of creativity that is > required to here. Not at all. I'm just saying that creativity isn't necessarily art. A legal contract may be quite creative. But it isn't art. >> Either way, it's a question of fact what instructions were given to >> the X-ray tech, as well as whether or not the tech followed them. >> > > I disagree here, the intention of the creator has no more to do with > copyright than effort > expended. Hmm...you may be right on that. If I accidentally spill some paint on a canvas and it creates an image that looks like the Virgin Mary, do I have a copyright on the image? I'm not sure what the case law is on that one. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, wrote: > I believe artistic/non-artistic is accurate for images. Technically it is > artistic, literary, dramatic, > or musical works. Well, I think that's an abuse of the term "artistic". The job of a photojournalist, for instance, is to capture what is true, not what is aesthetically pleasing. I understand that it's an abuse of the term "artistic" which is, to some extent codified into law. But I still don't think it's the right term. >> Even using the term "utilitarian" rather than "artistic" I can still >> come up with a large number of examples of things which seem pretty >> "clear-cut" as "utilitarian" to me, but yet which receive copyright >> protection. gzip, for instance. > > I actually expanded on this at the end of my last email. If that doesn't > clarify, ask again and > explain what gzip is. gzip is command line compression software. As you've limited your comment to images, it doesn't apply. >>> And even if it is only the US, other countries would not recognize >>> copyright on diagnostic >>> images created in the US, which gives us at least the NASA situation. >> >> Do you have a citation for this? Also, is it where the image is >> created, or where it is first published, or something else? >> > Copyright, internationally, is bilateral agreements. If it is not protected > in the US, it cannot > demand bilateral protection elsewhere. It would be based on the jurisdiction > of creation. > Publication has had nothing to do with the creation of copyright since the > 1970's as far as I > am aware. Before 1976, in the US, place of publication was significant for > determining > copyright protection because of the notice requirement. Now copyright is > automatic at fixation. Are you sure, or are you guessing? What about all that "country of origin" stuff in the Berne Convention? That certainly suggests to me that the location of first publication matters. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Aug 22, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Todd Allen wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Anthony wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton >>> wrote: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Upperarm.jpg >>> >>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arm.agr.jpg would probably be a >>> better example. >>> >>> There's a good chance that wouldn't be considered copyrightable under US >>> law. >> >> Even if it is, I think an X-ray would be quite different. In taking a >> photo of a subject's arm, the photographer must consider lighting, >> angle to which the arm is turned, the proper camera settings, how to >> find the exact arm that suits the purposes of the intended photo, etc. > > Heh, I'd argue that the photo in question shows that the photographer > obviously does *not* have to make these considerations. Looks like a > random arm in a random position against a plain white wall (hardly > creative), with auto everything. > >> I think there would be just enough creativity in that arm shot, but >> it'd be close. > > Yeah, I agree it'd be close. I think it'd come down to the testimony > of the photographer. If he claimed "oh, I chose a hairy arm because > X, and I opened my thumb because Y", maybe I'd buy it. So if you're > feeling particularly copyright-paranoid, it's best to get explicit > permission. > >> An X-ray, on the other hand, is made by a technician according to >> documented procedures. The arm is turned to the proper angle to see >> what the doctor wants to see, not to an angle that's aesthetically or >> artistically pleasing. > > I could be wrong, but I'm not sure there's a requirement for aesthetic > or artistic purpose. Non-fiction, software, legal contracts, etc., > all have been held to be copyrightable. I think you are overestimating the very minimal amount of creativity that is required to here. The aesthetic choice between noting a pause as a period vs. a dash vs. a semi-colon has been upheld as copyrightable. There is aesthetics within non-fiction and legal documents, whether or not they are primary consideration. > >> The image is taken according to standard and inflexible procedures. >> The technician is not exercising a bit of >> creativity in taking the image. In fact, the tech would likely get in >> trouble if (s)he DID decide to "get creative" with it. > > That, on the other hand, is a very important point. > > On the other other hand, it's not true of all X-ray images. It's > certainly possible, for instance, to create an X-ray image with the > explicit purpose of putting it in an encyclopedia, or a journal, or > even a book of artwork. > > Where it gets into grey area would be if the person created the X-ray > image knowing that it would be used in a book, but that it would also > be used for diagnostic purposes. > > Either way, it's a question of fact what instructions were given to > the X-ray tech, as well as whether or not the tech followed them. > I disagree here, the intention of the creator has no more to do with copyright than effort expended. It all hangs on whether the work as executed contains some newly created creative expression of the information. Whether it resulted from purposeful or subconscious choices do not matter. > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >> On 22 August 2012 20:50, Anthony wrote: >>> It possibly has a very thin copyright. >> >> Copyright doesn't have thickness. Either it is copyrightable or it isn't. > > Incorrect. In some works, some aspects are copyrighted, and some > aspects are not. > +1 Birgitte SB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Aug 22, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM, wrote: >> I really doubt non-artistic works are copyrighted as a general rule anywhere > > I'm not sure what you mean by "non-artistic", but if you mean "purely > utilitarian", as that term is interpreted by the court, then this is a > good point. > > I was going to suggest UK, but a quick search suggests that you > *can't* copyright purely "utilitarian" works in the UK. > > (I wouldn't use the term "non-artistic" though. There are plenty of > works that are copyrighted in the US and all over that I wouldn't > consider "art", and while an argument could be made that such works > shouldn't be copyrightable, court precedent is clearly adverse to that > argument.), I believe artistic/non-artistic is accurate for images. Technically it is artistic, literary, dramatic, or musical works. The rules can change a bit as you change mediums, so when we are talking about an image I am talking about copyright wrt to images. > >> Now clearly being able to judge that X is a utilitarian work is the more >> normal problem with >> this argument and why it is seldom used. Diagnostic images are one of the >> few clear-cut >> situations. > > How do you distinguish whether or not it is a "diagnostic image", and > what makes it clear-cut? > > Even using the term "utilitarian" rather than "artistic" I can still > come up with a large number of examples of things which seem pretty > "clear-cut" as "utilitarian" to me, but yet which receive copyright > protection. gzip, for instance. I actually expanded on this at the end of my last email. If that doesn't clarify, ask again and explain what gzip is. > >> And even if it is only the US, other countries would not recognize copyright >> on diagnostic >> images created in the US, which gives us at least the NASA situation. > > Do you have a citation for this? Also, is it where the image is > created, or where it is first published, or something else? > Copyright, internationally, is bilateral agreements. If it is not protected in the US, it cannot demand bilateral protection elsewhere. It would be based on the jurisdiction of creation. Publication has had nothing to do with the creation of copyright since the 1970's as far as I am aware. Before 1976, in the US, place of publication was significant for determining copyright protection because of the notice requirement. Now copyright is automatic at fixation. Birgitte SB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
On Aug 22, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Anthony wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM, wrote: >>> Now clearly being able to judge that X is a utilitarian work is the more >>> normal problem with >>> this argument and why it is seldom used. Diagnostic images are one of the >>> few clear-cut >>> situations. >> >> How do you distinguish whether or not it is a "diagnostic image", and >> what makes it clear-cut? > > If you define "diagnostic image" as "an image created solely for the > purpose of making a diagnosis", then I suppose you've got a clear-cut > utilitarian work. On the other hand, this wouldn't include an X-ray > which was made by someone who knew the X-ray was going to be used in a > medical book. > > If any such images exist where the technician knew to aim for something more than a mere depiction, I would agree that things become more questionable. if the technician is actually credited by the textbook I personally would find a different image to use, because why bother about it? But just the fact that the technician knew something might it be used in a larger work (x-rays don't have preview), wouldn't flip the copyright switch all by itself. Presumably the textbook in question is for instructing someone on how to interpret a diagnostic image. Presumably an actual diagnostic image would be selected for inclusion in such a textbook. Now if a technician, while working to create diagnostic images, aimed to create an image that might *also* be displayed in an art gallery, then I wouldn't include that image in my general conclusion. But the image has to stand on its own; either was never copyrightable wherever it might be used, or it has always been copyrighted since the moment it was created until the copyright is waived or expires. To reword what I said before the vast majority of X-ray images in existence are diagnostic images. There is no reason at all to purposefully search out X-rays that might land in some grey area. If something makes a particular X-ray really stand out from the vast majority, something about that makes an editor want to use *that* one instead picking another from the mountain on diagnostic images. I would suspect that in such a case the uncopyrightable conclusion would be less certain than it is for the vast majority. We are never going to be able to actually determine the copyright on every single image uploaded. Never. Not even with infinite resources. The unknowable category wrt copyright is significant. It is just tiny subset of all works existing, but not so tiny that you will fail to come across it now and again. If an image is borderline and easily substituted; please refrain from wasting the communities' time and energy on it. Substitute it with an equivalent image with superior provenance. Rule of thumb (that I haven't thought about very long and may later disagree with): If a specific image truly is uncopyrightable as a utilitarian image, then it should be very easy to replace with another equivalent image. If a specific image doesn't seem to have any *possible* equivalents, it probably isn't a utilitarian image. Another rule of thumb: Most images, whatever they depict, are also *designed* to be pleasing to human aesthetics. That is usually the part that creates the copyright, the choices that are made to produce a certain aesthetic. When an image is designed without any consideration for aesthetics at all (i.e. an arm is placed on a plane and arranged at a certain angle in order to best diagnose any possible damage to the elbow joint), then it is a very good candidate to be considered a utilitarian image. Consider any stock story with a comic and a tragic version, consider all the reinterpretations that have been done of Shakespeare's plays. The new derivative is copyrighted on the weight of the aesthetic choices. Not idea of boy meets girl. Copyright is about how something is expressed. The harder it is to express the same information with different aesthetics, whether it is the phone numbers for businesses in a list or the soundness of a joint on an image, the harder it is to attach copyright to any particular expression of this information. Birgitte SB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide RFC closing in 3,2,...
I see none of the issues raised were really addressed. Another spam filled, little populated, project then. *sigh* Tom On 23 August 2012 11:53, Andrew Gray wrote: > On 22 August 2012 22:39, Kim Bruning wrote: > > For those interested, a quick reminder: > > > > The travel guide RFC will (soft) close in 1 hour, 17 minutes as of the > > moment this mail is sent. (At 0:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)) > > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide > > Thanks for the pointer. For those wondering what the end result was, > it was just under 4:1 in favour of taking on a new WT type project. > > There seems to have been a flurry of activity in the past few days, > per the talk page - Internet Brands running a survey of their readers > opposing the split, attempts to canvass WT editors to contribute to > the RFC resulting in blocking and desysopping... all very messy. > > WikiVoyage seems to have started preparing for a migration (though > this may only be an intermediate step) - > http://www.wikivoyage.org/general/Migration_FAQ > > -- > - Andrew Gray > andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Travel Guide RFC closing in 3,2,...
On 22 August 2012 22:39, Kim Bruning wrote: > For those interested, a quick reminder: > > The travel guide RFC will (soft) close in 1 hour, 17 minutes as of the > moment this mail is sent. (At 0:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)) > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide Thanks for the pointer. For those wondering what the end result was, it was just under 4:1 in favour of taking on a new WT type project. There seems to have been a flurry of activity in the past few days, per the talk page - Internet Brands running a survey of their readers opposing the split, attempts to canvass WT editors to contribute to the RFC resulting in blocking and desysopping... all very messy. WikiVoyage seems to have started preparing for a migration (though this may only be an intermediate step) - http://www.wikivoyage.org/general/Migration_FAQ -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
