Some people on the one hand like to complain on the interferences and
interventions of the Foundation, and on the other hand want its involvement
when it suits them.
Pointing to the wealth of the Foundation and by that legitimizing any
spending, is not really convincing.

Am Montag, 27. Juli 2015 schrieb Pine W :

> I had a roundtable discussion last night with some Wikimedians and other
> sympathizers, and was persuaded that the best way to handle this matter
> might indeed be for the community to delete the files in question and/or to
> block the uploader for alleged bad-faith behavior. This still leaves me
> wondering if WMF Legal could be involved in the legal defense of the
> reusers if they acted in good faith in attempting to comply with the
> license terms as they understood them on Commons.
> Regarding Jan-Bart's point, I was thinking in the context of WMF's $68
> million budget and specifically of the reactive capacity that is built in;
> it seems to me that attention to this situation is a good use of that
> reactive capacity with a de minimis effect on the big picture in terms of
> cost. But I should have chosen my words more carefully, and I agree with
> Jan-Bart that some community (and WMF) requests and demands for other
> people's time can be excessively resource-intensive, particularly regarding
> use of volunteer time.
> Thanks,
> Pine
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> Unsubscribe:,
> < <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to