OK, let me just ask you a few simple questions: * You complain that the accreditation with the no (visible?) history tab is not correct. Did you consult a lawyer or legal specialist (for example Creative Commons in your country) for their opinion about this? * The same question for the url when re-using the image * You complain that the "power structure" in your wiki is changing because of technical changes. Is there a clear opinion of your community that they do not wish such change?
Of course we can always be conservative as you suggested: dont do anything until we know for sure that everybody agrees. That way nothing ever changes, and all improvements are halted. I will just end up having lots of people being frustrated and complaining everything is so bad. Things have to change, constantly, and sometimes they have to be reverted then too. And every now and then it is you who is sad because he disagrees, but next time you might be happy with it and it is your collegue who complains that the proper self made-up procedures are not followed. If you have serious arguments, like the answers to my questions above, then they should, imho, be taken seriously into consideration - independent of procedures. If you don't and there are only a few people complaining, sorry - but then at some point you just have to accept that things are not going to change your way. Best, Lodewijk ps: I found it highly confusing that you entered so many different complaints into one email thread - it keeps jumping from one topic to another. It would be helpful if you, next time, bring your arguments of course earlier, but also that you focus on the issue at hand. If that is finalized, and you have another topic: start a new thread. 2010/9/9 Teofilo <teofilow...@gmail.com> > 2010/9/7, Teofilo <teofilow...@gmail.com>: > > 2010/9/7, Tim Starling <tstarl...@wikimedia.org>: > > > >> Presumably this conspiracy would have to extend beyond the WMF to > >> PediaPress and Purodha Blissenbach, the developers of Collection and > >> mobile.wikipedia.org respectively. > > > > The absence of a history tab in the mobile format is in my view an > > exact measurement of the temperature of the warmth of the relations > > between the WMF and its contributors. > > > > Let's not call this a conspiracy. Philosopher Pierre Bourdieu would > > call it an unconcious strategy (1). > > The other reason why we can't call this a conspiracy is that a > conspiracy is usually kept secret, while that agenda is known by a lot > of people. They even managed to organise a vote and found a majority > approving it at > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Result > > The result is the adding of "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is > sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license" on every > edit tab footer. > > The result is that it is thought that it is OK to distribute contents > without the history tab, the author's names remaining in a format not > readable on the device the user is using. So all these things are > features of the new vastly known agenda. They are not bugs. > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
