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
Due to unavoidable reasons, we have had to move this online session to next
week, on 28th March 2018. The time will be same i.e. 1300 UTC. I will send
a reminder ahead of the session. Meanwhile, please see the original
announcement below for other details.
Thanks, and apologies for this
Support the request that AffCom share their understanding of the scope
and authority of the announced User Group.
From the wording of "represent Wikimedia UK in Wales", the UG is
not independent of WMUK and consequently acts as a Chapter subsidiary.
As far as I am aware, there is no other
The idea of local or regional user groups coexisting with a national
chapter isn't a new one; in fact, it was one of the principal scenarios
that was considered when the concept of user groups was first developed.
There are many such user groups already in existence, including local
Descriptions of user group activities on Meta shouldn't be interpreted as
legal documents under UK law (or any other legal code, for that matter).
Any questions regarding potential legal implications for Wikimedia UK
should, of course, be directed to the chapter itself.
Wikimedia Australia also be interested in clarity on scope and over lap
with WMUK activities as well as the legalities and implications to WMUK tax
and charity status.
WMAU has its own semi autonomous groups in locations around Australia the
implications on WMAU charity and tax status should one
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
I agree with Kirill, from the WMF point of view, as long as the chapter is
informed and endorsed the creation of a user group within its covered
territory, the WMF did its due diligence. After that, it is the
responsibility of the chapter to do its homework about the local legal
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Fæ wrote:
> On 20 March 2018 at 15:03, Kirill Lokshin
> > Descriptions of user group activities on Meta shouldn't be interpreted as
> > legal documents under UK law (or any other legal code, for that matter).
On 20 March 2018 at 15:03, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> Descriptions of user group activities on Meta shouldn't be interpreted as
> legal documents under UK law (or any other legal code, for that matter).
In the spirit of an open and transparent process, could
On 20 March 2018 at 15:36, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Fæ wrote:
>> On 20 March 2018 at 15:03, Kirill Lokshin
>> > Descriptions of user group activities on Meta shouldn't be
It would be really helpful to outline these kind of decisions with
arguments/deliberations that AffCom decided to follow, considering that
this sets a precedence in the worldwide community. For example, UG Wales
states that they "cooperate with and represent Wikimedia UK in Wales" -
Mail list logo