In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that many of our
media contributors are not well aware of the terms of licenses they grant.
Main confusions are in three areas:
1. Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the work
used in off wiki cases. But according
I know most on this list use their real names. not everyone, most
of us believe MZMcBride is not even a dude!! :O ...
oh and welcome banned user \\//
meh, you are not a wikipedian unless you have been banned or blocked
atleast once..
On 6/5/14, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Trillium
Jeevan Jose, 05/06/2014 07:59:
So do we have a responsibility to
educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases?
The three points you raise are legally untested in most countries and
even CC's FAQ is not legal advice. For us, point 1 is covered by ToU,
but for 2 and 3
For us, point 1 is covered by ToU - Nemo
But my understanding is Tou (7 g) is only applicable for Wikimedian who
contribute their own works. We have so many third party uploads and they
all must meet exact license terms.
Regards,
Jee
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
A big congratulations to Patricio and Frieda, I know it's been a long time
between drinks for Frieda in particular but I'm very comfortable and
confident that both of you will do an excellent job. A massive thanks is
also due to Alice Wiegand; around about the time that you joined the BoT it
See. I upload a freely licensed photo from Flickr to Commons and another
user added it to a Wikipedia article. A court concluded that mere linking
to file description page in commons.wikimeda.org is not enough for
attribution. Who is responsible for this infringement? Me, the user who
added it, or
Jeevan Jose, 05/06/2014 14:04:
So uploading third party images to Commons is a risky business?
IANAL, but: not under DMCA unless a zealous attorney uses the new ToU to
file criminal charges against you under CFAA. If someone can prove their
copyright is not respected they'll get the content
If someone can prove their copyright is not respected they'll get the
content deleted, end of story.
Good; but shouldn't be this an eye opening for WMF to approach copyright
matters seriously. Or we can amend the Commons:PCP: #6. If someone can
prove their copyright is not respected they'll get
I think your concerns are way overblown, and you mishcaracterize or
misunderstand the nature of the data collection that occurs. You also fail
to even mention that there are safeguards that apply to how the data is
used and how long it is retained.
Far from escaping accountability, the WMF
Nathan, 05/06/2014 18:46:
As a result, the finished policy has rightly garnered a lot of support and
approval,
{{citation needed}}
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
wrote:
Nathan, 05/06/2014 18:46:
As a result, the finished policy has rightly garnered a lot of support and
approval,
{{citation needed}}
I am writing to ask that the new privacy policy be stopped, pending briefings
of and thorough consideration by the incoming executive director Lila Tretikov.
The timing of this major policy change with all its implications, including
great legal implications, is at minimum discourteous to Ms.
REMINDER: This meeting starts in 30 minutes.
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Praveena Maharaj pmaha...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Dear all,
The next WMF metrics and activities meeting will take place on Thursday,
June 5, 2014 at 6 PM UTC (11 AM PDT). The IRC channel is
#wikimedia-office on
Hi, Trillium and others-
The privacy policy has been the subject of one of the most extensive public
discussions we've ever done. It was announced here repeatedly, was bannered
extensively to give all readers and editors an opportunity to participate,
and was open for discussion for nearly six
Dear Mr. Brigham,
Excuse me, I should have copied you in the email I sent to the Wikimedia-l list
I sent a few minutes ago, because I mentioned you in it. Here:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-June/072499.html.
Trillium Corsage
Hi, folks,
Recently Lila had talk about #1 challenge in this mail-list which is
related to participation. I want to recall Ward Cunningham's idea
of observability in the very early days of wiki invention to address the
possibility to enhance participation of Wikipedia today.
If you visit the
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Mingli Yuan mingli.y...@gmail.com wrote:
* Towards better content and community, what is the most important things
we want our user to observe?
Mingli,
Thank you for raising this excellent and important question.
I have long maintained -- and I think many
On 6/5/2014 10:43 AM, Mingli Yuan wrote:
If you visit the early page of c2.com, you will find the idea
of observability is one pillar principle of wiki software, and just follow
the idea, Ward invent the RecentChanges for all wikis.
At that time c2 is very small; now Wikipedia is so big. The
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com
wrote:
Pete's were again primarily social and community-based, but at this level
of discussion we should be looking at both social features and technical
ones.
YES YES YES!
However, the current priorities of the Wikimedia
On 5 June 2014 18:33, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote:
...
If you still have concerns, please put them on the talk page. Just like we
did this time around, we'll review all those comments and incorporate them
when we next revise the policy, or, if appropriate, incorporate it into the
I am really so glad to see your post, Mingli. I hope you are well :--)
Yes, this idea of observability is great.
RecentChanges was a real strength of early wikis.
Now we have so much metadata about pages and edits, we could cluster
results in a more meaningful way...
Also: what other ideas
Mingli Yuan, 05/06/2014 19:43:
If you visit the early page of c2.com, you will find the idea
of observability is one pillar principle of wiki software, and just follow
the idea, Ward invent the RecentChanges for all wikis.
Can you please find that specific page/formulation of the principle?
On 6/5/2014 11:11 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com
wrote:
Pete's were again primarily social and community-based, but at this level
of discussion we should be looking at both social features and technical
ones.
YES YES YES!
However,
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com
wrote:
I also don't believe that social and technical aspects can always be
neatly separated. I'm guessing you don't either,
Correct, I don't.
I'm not looking to pull the discussion immediately toward the WMF's
strategic
This is an interesting topic about RecentChanges and its many uses and
variants. I'm copying Analytics, EE and Research lists because I hope that some
of our colleagues from these lists will hop over to Wikimedia-l to participate
in this discussion. [a]
In particular I would call my
To Luis and others,
First thank you for responding. Now, you referred to WMF lawyer Michelle
Paulson's excellent blog post, yes I suppose it is that. It's a terrific
marketing document and piece of salesmanship, with feel-good phrases like the
Wikimedia way is unique, open and collaborative
I’m generally pretty quiet on this list, but I figured I should respond to this.
Wiadomość napisana przez Comet styles cometsty...@gmail.com w dniu 5 cze
2014, o godz. 14:03:
meh, you are not a wikipedian unless you have been banned or blocked
atleast once..
As a long-time Wikipedian who
27 matches
Mail list logo