On 28 June 2012 01:37, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Jay, what did Jimmy expect the press to report? None of you have been doing
this since yesterday. Jimmy's very petition is signed Jimmy Wales,
Wikipedia founder.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Further to Jimbo's championing O'Dwyer, here is the court document from
O'Dwyer's January extradition trial:
[snip]
It looks like these – rather than NPOV – are the values that Wikipedia has
been co-opted to
On Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 17:56, Nathan wrote:
Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about that is hard to understand?
The whole point about deliberate obfuscation is that it's supposed to blur that
line. ;-)
--
Tom Morris
http://tommorris.org/
___
Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about that is hard to understand?
I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there would
be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article
that mentions his campaign for O'Dwyer has the obligatory Wikipedia
founder label.
- Original Message -
From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:48 PM
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer
Further to Jimbo's championing O'Dwyer, here is the court document from
O'Dwyer's January
On Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 18:05, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there would
be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article
that mentions his campaign for O'Dwyer has the obligatory Wikipedia
founder label.
Jimmy's platform is Wikipedia.
The media struggle to seperate the two (note the connect back to SOPA
in this case)
Not that I agree entirely with Andreas. But certainly I think the
community could have a view on this.
Tom Morton
On 27 Jun 2012, at 18:01, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 18:05, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there
would
be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article
that
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 June 2012 18:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: And
hell, there really are two points of view about copyright,
I understand you've not really studied the subject but there are far
more than that.
Let's just
On 27 June 2012 21:25, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 June 2012 18:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: And
hell, there really are two points of view about copyright,
I understand you've not really
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On the topic of Jimmy; Wikipedia is his calling card, it opens doors. I
think he hasn't done enough in many situations to distance his own views
from us; which is unfortunate. But not necessarily deliberate :)
On 27 June 2012 21:25, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's just start with the notion that there might be more than just *one*
view. ;)
Why start there? Again I understand you haven't really studied
copyright but quite a few wikipedians have. So everything from
copyright maximalist
On 27 June 2012 22:05, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
attributed to the Wikipedia founder, then there really is no discernible
difference between his view and Wikipedia's, or Google's.
wikipedia doesn't really have views in the conventional sense. The
amorphous blob that is the
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Jay Walsh jwa...@wikimedia.org wrote:
It would be interesting to see the community develop its own high
profile
media contacts so this view can be communicated to the world!
If Jimmy can write this in The Guardian (a paper which really seems
14 matches
Mail list logo
