On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 June 2014 20:48, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite sure what you're shouting about, Gerard. The amendment
clearly
gives
On 17 June 2014 12:56, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm so very disappointed in the Board and the WMF for this TOU amendment,
which was obviously written to quell concerns about English Wikipedia,
with
phoebe ayers, 17/06/2014 18:56:
Anyway, I'm not sure why you are assuming that the amendment will
automatically be abhorrent to every community that's not English Wikipedia.
And why do you think it will be useful? If it was needed, how comes only
some 50 non-en.wiki editors came to support it
Hoi,
I have read Stephen's mail. It refers to many other things that I did not
read.
When the policy was discussed I raised the notion that for Wikidata the
need for such disclosure is different. Given that I did not get any
response, I took it as if that was not interesting relevant and
Hi Nemo ( others)
I know of at least one non english project that has implemented a much stronger
stance against paid contributions
Their are two possibilities when specific projects discuss if they need to have
their own policy on this topic
a) If all participants of the project agree on
Hi all,
We would like to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
has approved an amendment to Section 4 of the Terms of Use to require
disclosure of paid editing. This follows the extensive discussion of the
amendment
Stephen LaPorte writes:
We would like to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
has approved an amendment to Section 4 of the Terms of Use to require
disclosure of paid editing.
There is a proposal on Wikimedia Commons that aims to opt-out that project
from the amendment,
Hoi,
WOW,
CAN SOMEONE WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO CLARIFY IF THIS WILL GET A
HEARING?
Either it is something that should apply to all projects and consequently
it is a board issue or it is en.wp only. When it is en.wp only, the policy
is either not carefully thought through or it should not be
Hi GerardM,
have you read Stephen's email?
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,
WOW,
CAN SOMEONE WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO CLARIFY IF THIS WILL GET A
HEARING?
Either it is something that should apply to all projects and consequently
Not quite sure what you're shouting about, Gerard. The amendment clearly
gives individual projects the right to have an alternative to this
particular section of the terms of use, and that alternative can be either
more strict or less strict. Seems Commons is considering an alternative
that is
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite sure what you're shouting about, Gerard. The amendment clearly
gives individual projects the right to have an alternative to this
particular section of the terms of use, and that alternative can be either
more
On 16 June 2014 20:48, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite sure what you're shouting about, Gerard. The amendment clearly
gives individual projects the right to have an alternative to this
particular
Risker wrote:
I'm so very disappointed in the Board and the WMF for this TOU amendment,
which was obviously written to quell concerns about English Wikipedia,
with extremely little consideration of any other project. Now projects
*must* formally exempt practices that are perfectly acceptable to
13 matches
Mail list logo
