Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-04 Thread ???
On 04/08/2012 00:44, Mike Linksvayer wrote: On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: On 03/08/2012 16:24, Mike Linksvayer wrote: On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:14 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: The proposal was floated by Jimmy Wales on the 10th of december, 1

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-03 Thread Andreas Kolbe
I am afraid that is not how it feels at all. It's more like organising a giant volunteer effort to provide a market stall handing out free sweets and cakes for anyone who wants some. The stall is very popular, and many people chip in, bringing in cakes they've baked and candy they've made. And

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-03 Thread wiki-list
bhar...@wikimedia.org wrote: This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist. The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it into existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated. The proposal was floated by Jimmy Wales on the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-03 Thread Yann Forget
Hi, Man, what a talent for story telling! But I don't think you story represents anything close to WP. First comparing copying digital content illegally with stealing cakes is a very bad analogy. That's what the industry wants us to believe, and you falled by the trick. Then I don't think people

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-03 Thread FT2
(warning, tl;dr!) ** *@Andreas - *I understand your sentiment, but in a reasoning way, I find I don't agree with that assessment. For what it's worth, I edit a lot on law - one of my GAs is a Supreme Court case, numerous others worked on, it's an area I like, and I tend to read full rulings like

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-03 Thread Mike Linksvayer
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:14 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: bhar...@wikimedia.org wrote: This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist. The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it into existence, not the Foundation. We merely

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-03 Thread Todd Allen
Long as it's getting top-posted anyway... First, copying is not and cannot be theft. That's not to say it's always legally or ethically acceptable, mind you, but it's not theft. In legal terms, there was a court case over that particular matter, that ruled someone could not be charged on a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-03 Thread Stephen LaPorte
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:07 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: My question, more directly, is: if the SOPA action from January 2012 were held in August 2012 (following the implementation of this new statement from the General Counsel's office), would it be considered a community

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-03 Thread David Gerard
On 3 August 2012 19:12, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: I agree that the community retains the authority to reach its own decisions about future actions of this type. I think the policy should be understood primarily as something the foundation will adhere to in its operations, not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-03 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: We do everything in our power to prevent the problem, but it would be absolutely cost prohibitive to do it 100% with the difference being that fine grained, and this law gives you the right to shut us down if we can't hit

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-03 Thread Sarah Stierch
How come these concerns weren't brought up months ago when the reflection about the blackout was posted to meta? It seems that right now Andreas, you are the main opponent of something that already happened and no one can change. I'd just post your concerns to meta and stop this talking in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-03 Thread Andreas Kolbe
Sarah, Well, for one I was not aware that there was a reflection about the blackout posted on Meta. A link would be appreciated. Thanks. Secondly, four or five months ago I would not have been aware of various events on the timeline that preceded the blackout. Third, this is an ongoing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-03 Thread Sarah Stierch
Hi - Actually, it looks like there are a few places where people can share their thoughts, etc. about SOPA/Blackoutness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout and other things related but not:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-03 Thread Mike Godwin
Michael Snow writes: Perhaps worth adding, I think it's fair to say that these reviews did take place with respect to the use of Wikimedia Foundation resources in the context of the January SOPA protest. They didn't necessarily follow the form of the current policy, since it didn't exist yet,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-03 Thread MZMcBride
Stephen LaPorte wrote: On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:07 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: My question, more directly, is: if the SOPA action from January 2012 were held in August 2012 (following the implementation of this new statement from the General Counsel's office), would it be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-03 Thread ???
On 03/08/2012 16:24, Mike Linksvayer wrote: On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:14 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: bhar...@wikimedia.org wrote: This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist. The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it into existence,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-03 Thread Mike Linksvayer
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: On 03/08/2012 16:24, Mike Linksvayer wrote: On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:14 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: The proposal was floated by Jimmy Wales on the 10th of december, 1 day after a Creative Commons Board meeting,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-03 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:12 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Why are there so many various levels and steps if it's not a determination about principles and about whether a particular cause meets Wikimedia's mission? This is what's confusing me. People on the talk page at Meta-Wiki

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-03 Thread Nathan
Andreas makes a really important point below. Now that I read it from his perspective, it seems like what we're dealing with here is a surreptitious attempt by the General Counsel to hijack the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects to serve their covert corporate masters. Obviously the Bilderberg

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-03 Thread Risker
On 3 August 2012 22:00, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: lots of stuff Andreas, I'm sorry, but you've been involved in Wikimedia projects for quite a while now. What in heaven's name would ever give you the idea that the WMF could possibly get itself organized enough to co-ordinate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-02 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:52 AM, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.orgwrote: This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist. The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it into existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-02 Thread FT2
There's a fallacy going on here - ie a term with two subtly different meanings. The community - who are the ones ultimately making the gift do so altruistically, in the sense of not seeking *compensation*, but that's not the same as not expecting *consideration*. We do expect consideration.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-02 Thread Risker
On 2 August 2012 21:07, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Brandon Harris wrote: On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January? You mean,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-02 Thread Samuel Klein
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: The line between what constitutes a community initiative and what's considered a request from an outside group still isn't clear to me Ah, interesting point. My read of this was that the guideline would consider an