To be honest, i am a bit concerned about Matt Flaschen's conduct here:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft#Summary_of_criticisms
This is not the behavior which i expect from a payed staffer.
Apart from that, i see a big COI - the staffer in question is voting at the
votin
Could someone with an appropriate level of managerial authority within
the WMF, such as an HR manager, confirm that staff accounts, which are
supposed to be identified with "(WMF)", are intended to be used for an
employee's job or contract role, rather than for personal editing and
publishing perso
* Crickets *
If you were expecting a reply to the suggested "Agreement from the WMF
to reform the system", perhaps it needs to be raised in a more formal
fashion somewhere where WMF Legal or the CEO might feel they need to
answer?
Fae
On 20 February 2017 at 08:55, Pine W wrote:
> I'm glad that
Oh please. It might be a bit confusing, but there's no huge issue here. You
could have just asked the person to remain on one account, rather than
accuse him of sockpuppetry and ask an admin to block him if it continues.
I'd call that a rule of basic interaction in an online setting - be
curtious.
They have been repeatedly asked to stick to one account and refused to
do so. I suggest you read the other contributions from the account(s)
on the same page.
Having an improved sockpuppeting policy would clear up any future
confusion by WMF employees or those that happen to interact with their
mu
A very, very small improvement to be sure. I think the guy in question gets
at it when he says that he was no longer using paid time to contribute to
the discussion.
Mods, do you intentionally let the list be used as a platform for this
constant flow of "omg the wmf is evil"? I seems t
Please try to avoid turning legitimate questions for the WMF into
parodies. The WMF is not evil, nor have emails in this thread made
anything like that type of ridiculous allegation.
This topic is in-scope for Wikimedia-l as defined by "Organizational
issues of the Wikimedia Foundation, chapter or
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Steinsplitter Wiki <
steinsplitter-w...@live.com> wrote:
> Apart from that, i see a big COI - the staffer in question is voting at
> the voting sections, striking out votes, defending the code of conduct and
> the he is marking a section as "consensus". Imho the CO
As I'm looking at that talk page, I see a situation which looks like no one
will "win", which is the opposite of how I would like discussions about
policy to go in the ideal world.
Trying to salvage that situation is more than I can take on at this time.
My hunch is that if the RfC is approved, ev
As with most things around here, this is more complicated than it may
appear on the surface.
I increasingly think that there are cultural differences between WMF and
some parts of the community that are difficult to bridge, that influence a
variety of the decisions that get made in WMF (such as gl
Well, I don't think the WMF staffer is acting in bad faith but I do think they
need to stick to a single account to avoid confusion. That being said, I don't
think a discussion like this is necessary here.
Best,
Isaac
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
-Original M
I don't see that reasoning at all, actually. If roles are clearly separate,
having separate accounts is justifiable in my opinion.
When doing so in a way that could suggest larger support for a proposal
than is actually the case, it could make sense to make the connection
explicit in a disclosure
From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a
new RSS feed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/From_the_editors
Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-2
Hello,
The discussion is now wrapping up. The process and its outcome were
presented last week at the Metrics and activities meeting; you're
encouraged to watch the segment in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-blWUhkm8g4&t=17m18s
You can read the full transcripts of the discussions on
This came up the other day and someone emailed me off-list suggesting
it wasn't true. Since we've never had a real discussion about it, I
should explain:
> 17 U.S. Code § 203 - Termination of transfers and licenses
> granted by the author
>
> (a) Conditions for Termination.—In the case of any work
I'm really sorry James... I suspect it may be the fog of my mind brought on
by nighttime, but would it at all be possible for you to provide a little
more context for this thread. :)
Seddon
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:11 AM, James Salsman wrote:
> This came up the other day and someone emailed me
>... provide a little more context for this thread
Beginning in 2036, Wikipedia editors will obtain the right to demand
either payment for their contributions, or in the alternative if the
Foundation can't replace their edits with non-infringing
substitutions, between $750 and $150,000 per edit.
On 2/27/2017 9:24 PM, James Salsman wrote:
... provide a little more context for this thread
Beginning in 2036, Wikipedia editors will obtain the right to demand
either payment for their contributions, or in the alternative if the
Foundation can't replace their edits with non-infringing
substitu
There goes my hopes of my pension.
Seddon
On 28 Feb 2017 05:57, "Michael Snow" wrote:
> On 2/27/2017 9:24 PM, James Salsman wrote:
>
>> ... provide a little more context for this thread
>>>
>> Beginning in 2036, Wikipedia editors will obtain the right to demand
>> either payment for their contr
Michael Snow wrote:
>...
> 17 USC 203 ... provides ... that derivative works prepared before
> termination may continue to be utilized.
I'm not sure if subsequent edits which preserve verbatim text are
derivative works. It's certainly worth figuring out. Section 101 of
the Copyright Act defines "[
20 matches
Mail list logo
