On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 00:50, Pine W wrote:
>
> There are ways that Wikimedia rebranding consultations could be done
> collaboratively, politely, and with careful stewardship of donor's money.
> This is not one of them.
Eh questionable. The community is difficult to engage at the best of
times
This meta RfC might be of interest:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia
Gracias,
Mike
> On 19 Jan 2020, at 08:54:12, geni wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 00:50, Pine W wrote:
>>
>> There are ways that Wikimedia rebranding
I don't believe it implies that. As with many things legal, the answer re:
derivatives is likely "it depends".
R.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 10:30 PM Benjamin Ikuta
wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for that.
>
> Pardon me if I've missed something, but that seems to imply, but not
> directly state, that AI
From my background in neural networks, and my understanding of how
they work, I would say that your trained network is a derived work if
the weights are learned from a specific training sample. If it does
not learn from a specific sample it is not a derived work from that
sample. It is not
This whole subject raises interesting and important legal and ethical
issues, but are there any direct implications at this time for
Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects?
Newyorkbrad/IBM
On Sunday, January 19, 2020, Ryan Merkley wrote:
> I don't believe it implies that. As with many things legal,
Training sets already contain images from Commons, so yes, I believe
the implications should be considered.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 4:46 PM Newyorkbrad wrote:
>
> This whole subject raises interesting and important legal and ethical
> issues, but are there any direct implications at this time
