Re: [Wikimedia-l] TVTropes deletes all pages with Rape in title under advertising pressure.

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 26/06/2012 2:02 PM, Kim Bruning wrote: Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been forced to censor a number of pages due to advertiser pressure. And thus is the wisdom of eschewing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] License issue on GPL and CC-by-sa mix up

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Mathieu Stumpf psychosl...@culture-libre.org wrote: One of my favorite wikimedia project is the wiktionary, I probably use it everyday and I like to contribute on the french chapter here and there. As I'm learning esperanto, I wanted to improve the french

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Question: How do we define lobbying?

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is that in some European countries lobbying is in a gray zone at the limit of corruption and it's not legally recognized. What is important is to define clearly what people means with lobbying and may be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 8:12 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote: Am 26.08.2013 18:14 schrieb Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com: Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article), paragraph 3: Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the capability to delete usernames compatible with the CCBYSA license?

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Someone brought up an interesting issue: is it moral for the vandals to be credited as contributors to articles (especially when exporting the article as pdf)? After experimenting a little, it turns out that deleting

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the capability to delete usernames compatible with the CCBYSA license?

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote: Same argument in different wording: None of the creativity that goes into the vandalizing from version A to version B is present in version C. Thus, version C does not fall under the copyright of the vandal. Which means

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Relationship between Wikimedia and oDesk

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Gryllida gryll...@fastmail.fm wrote: Thought paid editing is prohibited. It could be nice to find ways to enforce that. I don't think it's expressly forbidden, 'frowned upon' would be the words I'd use. Apart from that, I have a feeling this whole thread is a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Which reminds me – I often think it odd that Wikimedia will fund a Wikipedian-in-Residence for some regional tourist attraction (think the Welsh Coastal Path project, or the York Museum), Wikipedians-in-Residence are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Evaluation Report: Wikipedia Education Program

Ccml,bv .. Op 7 apr. 2014 03:35 schreef Jaime Anstee jans...@wikimedia.org het volgende: Greetings, (Please pardon any cross-posting) The final in our series of the Evaluation Reports (beta), the report on the Wikipedia Education Program, is now available on meta:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Lets delete everything from commons (was The tragedy of Commons)

to think why they maybe in some way are not free and thus delete them? Andre Engels On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote: Pardon me if this has already been covered, but as I understand it the problem is not the legal status of the files in Israel

Re: [Wikimedia-l] is it possible to accept bitcoins without receiving stolen property?

their complete financial privacy, I find the first option the least morally repugnant one. Andre Engels On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:49 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: Given this news about BGP hijacking used to mine hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars worth of bitcoins per

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

No, they do not. The Dutch title of copyright law considering freedom of panorama: Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 6°, of op een werk, betrekkelijk tot de bouwkunde als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 8°, dat is gemaakt om

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

jane...@gmail.com wrote: Wait, are you saying all those pics are going to be deleted then? There must be tens of 1000's out there by now On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: No, they do not. The Dutch title of copyright law considering freedom

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

And where do you see what you are writing here? If you really consider it bullying to say outside Commons that you think something is wrong with Commons, then the situation is much worse than I thought it would be. Your analogy is severely flawed in many places, and only functions to enrage those

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to fix Commons

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 5:33 AM, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote: MZMcBride wrote: As much as the term is an awful buzzword, Commons could also do with additional gamification, from what I've seen. If we can set up an easy keyword/tagging system, having users help us sort and tag

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fresh data on the gender gap in content

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote: > 1. The Nepali statistic is simply astonishing! There must be a story > there. I'm keen on learning more about this, if anyone can shed light. I looked, and it seems that a large proportion consists of porn

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Was the Wikimedia Foundation's removal of membership in 2006 legal?

From the discussion on the creation of Wikimedia I remember that there definitely was an intention to have members involved in the election of the board. Apart from the appointed board members, there would be two community selected members - one chosen by the editing community, the other by the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it, as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who had a negative opinion

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Case for Federation: Should Parts of WMF Be Spun Off?

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:48 AM, David Emrany wrote: > Since the "Mediawiki" trademark was lost to WMF the day you and > Anthere placed the logo into public domain [1], how can the WMF now > spin-off this new organization ?. That's incorrect, putting something in the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [PRESS] Turkish authorities block Wikipedia

For the BBC article, see http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39754909 On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Pharos wrote: > The Wikipedia aspect was highlighted on the BBC and other sites in earlier > stories, before the other events happened. > > Thanks, > Pharos > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] GDPR and Wikimedia content?

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 11:32 PM, David Gerard wrote: > I'm a big fan of the GDPR and why it had to be created. (I'm doing a lot of > the bureaucratic work on the tech side at the day job and am getting very > used to thinking of ways something could constitute Personally Identifying >