Congrats Shani & Doug Taylor and all my best wishes for your upcoming future
Sent from my iPhone
> On 13-Aug-2019, at 4:43 AM, Shani Evenstein wrote:
> Dear all,
> If you've seen my post yesterday then you might have expected this
The Affiliations Committee – the committee responsible for guiding
volunteers in establishing Wikimedia chapters, thematic organizations, and
user groups – is looking for advisors!
The main role of the Affiliations Committee is to guide groups of
volunteers that are interested in
Thanks for the update, Nicole.
As I have been reading portions of the recommendations, I am finding it
helpful to remind myself that these proposals are drafts, and to assume
good faith when reading them. I have a variety of thoughts regarding
proposals, including "I completely agree", "This is
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 4:18 PM Nathan wrote:
> One counter-argument that doesn't seem to come up that often is that the
> movement as a whole may be better placed to decide the needs of the
> movement as a whole than smaller, more local communities.
I think that idea does come up pretty
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:12 PM Pete Forsyth wrote:
> section of the Recommendations. It says: "Present licensing for both
> text and photographs should change to allow restrictions for non-commercial
> use and no
If you've seen my post yesterday then you might have expected this this
announcement as well; if you haven't -- as some of you may know, I will
soon be joining the Board of Trustees (August 15), and am therefore
required to resign my formal role as Chair of Wikimedia Medicine (a.k.a.
section of the Recommendations. It says: "Present licensing for both
text and photographs should change to allow restrictions for non-commercial
use and no derivative works, if those will improve the ability of the
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 22:45, Ziko wrote:
The concern is that allowing NC and ND would lead to more content being
> uploaded under these "unfree" conditions that otherwise would be uploaded
> as "free".
I share those concerns, and believe it's not in the general interest of
uploaders to use
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:43, Philip Kopetzky wrote:
> these are still rather talking points than specific
> visions of the future and it would be great to discuss them in that way.
Beyond what I have already said, I do not see any merit in discussing
glib statements like "All change has
Am Mo., 12. Aug. 2019 um 22:34 Uhr schrieb Aron Manning <
> Part of this would be the addition of NC and ND licenses. This doesn't mean
> that there will be less free content, but instead more material will be
> possible to be uploaded, from
the way the recommendations were drafted was not straightforward and they
are still drafts, some less defined than might be ideal at this point in
time. Personally I would not accept such a statement in a final
recommendation, but these are still rather talking points than specific
We've been waiting for the moment the WMF starts a conversation of proposed
changes. It finally came, and I appreciate this good faith effort.
I hope we can give constructive feedback and get involved in a civil
manner, without focusing on perceived hostilities.
Congrats, Filip, João & LiAnna! We look forward to working closely with
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 4:41 AM Rajeeb Dutta wrote:
> Congrats João & LiAnna, thanks Shani for the updates and wishing Shani and
> Ananth all my best wishes for your upcoming future endeavour.
I want to express my appreciation for the work being done and the result.
I am not able to get to grips with all parts of the recommendation but
as I understand there are two key messages:
*To distribute many of the function now at WMF in SF to different
locations in the world (whereof 50%
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 16:51, Nicole Ebber wrote:
> This is a
> process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep
> engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.
Perhaps it would also be in keeping with that spirit for this:
Q4a. Could this Recommendation
Ziko and others - please, please provide your feedback to all of the
working groups on all of the ideas. Please tell us when you see a draft
recommendation that seems to be right. Please tell us when you see a draft
recommendation that you think is unreasonable - and tell us what causes
There is in fact a rationale within the text of the recommendation. In
essence, it's that some communities will never share their heritage if it
can then be re-used in a manner they consider disrespectful.
Of course one can disagree with that statement on a factual level, or ask
Am Mo., 12. Aug. 2019 um 17:51 Uhr schrieb Nicole Ebber <
> Dear all,.
> As such, constructive
> feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed.
For example, if I say that I am against NC and ND content on Commons, would
such a feedback be
> No, it does not work like this. Large communities are only going to accept
> decisions which were discussed with them properly, on their project and in
> the two-way interaction mode. The discussions on Meta in the mode "we will
> listen to you and then let you know of our
No, it does not work like this. Large communities are only going to accept
decisions which were discussed with them properly, on their project and in
the two-way interaction mode. The discussions on Meta in the mode "we will
listen to you and then let you know of our decision" are not going to be
We would like to offer further clarification that the recommendations for
Wikimedia 2030  that were shared earlier with you are indeed drafts.
They represent discussions around a wide array of topics that the nine
thematic working groups, affiliates and communities had identified
NC would also create a nightmare for downstream reusers.
If I want to use some portions of a Wikipedia article in a blog post, and I
have a couple ads on my blog to help defray the hosting costs, does that
violate NC? And certainly the stuff James brings up, regarding providing
"And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can incorporate
indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current
We can't and no one can.
Knowledge, ideas, and concepts cannot be copyrighted to begin with. Now,
specific expressions of those
Yah I have mixed feelings about NC. There is a lot of great content under
this license which would benefit our readers if we could use it. We for
example have folks like Khan Academy and the World Health Organization who
refuse to adopt open licenses. They tell us that we can use their content
> I think that re-imagining the governance of this movement is going to be the
> first step towards making any sort of progress towards the goals of either
I think this is what the Roles and Responsibilities working group was trying to
12 серпня 2019 р. 15:41:13 EEST, Adrian
There was once a report in which I read: Wikimedia Commons should allow NC
and ND content because that is somehow good for "communities that are
historically prohibited from telling their stories".
Then I asked on the talk page for the reasoning behind this
The answer I
I'm tempted to sit this one out. The Foundation has organized a bunch of
working groups, staffed primarily through volunteers of various types, to
present some strategic recommendations for moving forward into the future.
We are a movement with flaws and opportunities for improvement, as with any
Maybe it is better to discuss specific recommendations on their talk
We might find ourselves discussing here only one specific recommendation
while the other working groups'
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 12:47, Philip Kopetzky wrote:
> Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list. You're
> the only one telling people to shut up here.
I have told nobody to shut up. This is a continuation of the use of
character assignation to shut up points of view
Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list. You're
the only one telling people to shut up here.
And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can incorporate
indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 11:53, Philip Kopetzky wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that that licensing recommendation is still
> work-in-progress and the legal implications haven't been analysed yet.
Huh. Nobody has mentioned legal implications. Not sure there are any
that would be especially different to
I'm pretty sure that that licensing recommendation is still
work-in-progress and the legal implications haven't been analysed yet.
I guess that assuming good faith is not your strong suit, Fae? Be part of
the solution, for once.
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 11:25, Fæ wrote:
> I agree that the
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 10:24, Fæ wrote:
> I agree that the official announcement on Commons is worse than unfortunate.
> The announcement by the Diversity Working Group on a sub-page of the
> VP of their recommendation to permit NC and ND license restrictions on
> Commons, comes after no
I agree that the official announcement on Commons is worse than unfortunate.
The announcement by the Diversity Working Group on a sub-page of the
VP of their recommendation to permit NC and ND license restrictions on
Commons, comes after no attempt in advance to discuss the
recommendation or its
Todd Allen writes:
> There does not seem to be anywhere to comment on these, which there should
> be. I saw at least one which is highly objectionable and which I would like
> to object to.
The Recommendations page contains a "How to Share Your Feedback"
Mail list logo