It's pretty embarrassing that regional Wikimedias have better governance
standards than the (extraordinarily wealthy) international Foundation.
I don't understand how the Tides/Wikimedia general counsel believes that
the conflict of interest of Maria has moved directly from being Board chair
Pedants and old codgers :) congrats everyone.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021, 3:57 AM WereSpielChequers
> The English Language Wikipedia passed an interesting milestone a few hours
> The thousand millionth edit was at 1:03 AM this morning
That's a good find. Hopefully every working group will be tasked with
making their work explicitly consistent with the actual mission of
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 11:48 AM Craig Newmark
> Maria, thanks, much appreciated!
> Which group focuses on information quality and accuracy?
Large corporations should not be allowed to violate copyleft. If they are
creating derivative products from Wikipedia -- which they are -- those
derivative products should be released under CC-BY-SA.
Google Knowledge Graph seems to be somewhat close, in that there is an API
Would love for an update. Wikipedia license doesn't just call for
attribution, but for copyleft to be preserved.
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:50 AM, Anthony Cole wrote:
> Thank you Adele and Yongmin. I'll ask Barbara to clarify next time we chat.
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 at
e such claims & requests.
> On Jan 29, 2018 10:19 AM, "The Cunctator" <cuncta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Related, has there ever been any copyright enforcement for Wikipedia, or
> > its copyleft a joke and it's functionally purely public domain?
Foundation doesn't make attribution or at least article date a
> > requirement, then they are actively opposing editor recruitment.
> > On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 7:34 PM, The Cunctator <cuncta...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > The copyright requirement isn't at
ion in a lot of their results.
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:03 PM, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5 June 2017 at 18:32, The Cunctator <cuncta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Both Google and Graphiq are using pretty much the entire Wikipedia
cated that the content is under an open
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:32 AM, The Cunctator <cuncta...@gmail.com>
> > I've been a bit out of the loop on this for a while, so please be kind to
> > the oldbie - what's current Wikimedia
I've been a bit out of the loop on this for a while, so please be kind to
the oldbie - what's current Wikimedia policy on adaptive reuse of Wikipedia
content into non-free publications?
One very serious element of this decision-making really should be the fact
that Google is blatantly violating the CCA-SA by reusing Wikipedia content
without making their derivative work open.
- *Share Alike*—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you
may distribute the
I can't think of a better justification for IAR than this thread.
On Apr 17, 2014 8:04 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2014 12:49, Erlend Bjørtvedt erl...@wikimedia.no wrote:
Same practice here, through spontneous reflection independent of wmfr.
Seemes that this is at least
Given that allowing mp4 would be an act of commercial expedience at the
expense of core Wikipedia principles, let me make the modest suggestion of
introducing mp4 in concert with a name change to Encarta.
On Jan 16, 2014 5:15 AM, Andrew Lih firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Great post Manuel, and I
He wasn't assuming bad faith; he was accurately describing the situation
without ascribing intent.
On Jan 16, 2014 7:36 AM, Andrew Lih email@example.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
There aren't two principles in conflict here.
Also, vandalism had always been a red herring, kind of like the terrorism
that justifies the TSA security theater and NBA surveillance or the Red
Scare. It's a wrong-headed obsession that weakens community.
On Nov 22, 2013 2:06 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21,
Yes, let's keep on pushing for policies that drive away editors!
On Nov 20, 2013 2:10 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 November 2013 20:44, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Aside @Fae: the tineye crew are curious quite pro-freeculture, I bet
would be glad to help design a bot
There's also been discussion of automatically deleting content from
contributors contributor from their own writing.
On Nov 20, 2013 8:31 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 11/20/2013 07:13 AM, The Cunctator wrote:
Yes, let's keep on pushing for policies that drive away editors
Yes, it should be made clear that opt out will always be an acceptable user
On Aug 6, 2013 7:26 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:35 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
[comments about VisualEditor]
This perspective is not a productive one for building and maintaining a
community. You need to have a better way of granting legitimacy to people's
concerns while being able to discern histrionics.
Generally the optimal easy is to have there be a pathway by which the
complainants have to fix the
I love it when individuals decide that they know what is important and
worthy of inclusion, as opposed to the mindless masses. Because that's such
a healthy way to ensure an open, neutral, and comprehensive encyclopedia.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Tarc Meridian t...@hotmail.com wrote:
Just think, in a few years we can set up the site to construct drafts for
the site that constructs drafts for Wikipedia.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org
There's nothing that
Mail list logo