Best question...
Maybe the [[ w:Invisible hand ]] (ouch)
-- Porantim
2008/11/25 Marc Riddell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> on 11/25/08 5:35 PM, Jimmy Wales at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> lots of independent
> > action loosely coordinated... the wiki way).
> >
> Jimmy,
>
> In this type of "loosely
Geoffrey,
We came here, on this list, looking for other opinions. Looking for any kind
of light.
We don't really need that you *make* somethink, but we need your expertise,
we need your view, your look [I don't know how I can say that].
We came here to open your eyes about the danger of a chapte
Hoi,
Do not forget the als.wikipedia.org. It stands for Alsatian, but the als
code is the Tosk language. The "gsw" code is the code that should have been
used.
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=gsw
The nrm.wikipedia is also using a wrong code. nrm is Narom, a language from
Malaysia.
Casey Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Nathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Rand Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>
>>> The Quotes site notice will have 6 different quotes (all translated, we
>>> hope) rotated in.
>>>
>> I don't kn
George Herbert wrote:
> I don't want Wikipedia being used to sell Coffee, or shares in Citibank.
>
On a lighter note, have no fear about the latter - obviously the only
thing capable of selling shares in Citi right now is a massive
government bailout. Our little brand would hardly make a dent.
Don't forget zh-yue → yue and zh-min-nan → nan; these languages have got
valid ISO 639-3 codes since creation. Also, als should be moved to gsw (als
is the code for Tosk Albanian, while als in Wikimedia is Alemannisch - not
even close to Tosk Albanian).
2008/11/26 Brion Vibber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No what is wrong with wikipedia brand dog food (provided that we receive a
> cut?)?
See standard discussion of whether we want to accept advertising
onsite. Same general logic.
--
-george william herbert
[EMAIL PRO
No what is wrong with wikipedia brand dog food (provided that we receive a
cut?)?
From: George Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 3:44:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Trademarks
On Tue, Nov 25,
Democracy is still the enemy of autocracy. Also if a chapter gets really bad,
people will vote with their dues and chapter will soon find itself in the red.
From: Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, November
I believe its a compromise.
From: Pharos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 5:12:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Language codes to rename
If the 'mo' language code is deprecated, then why not ro-cyrl.wik
Beria,
I meant no offense by my remarks. I apologize if any was taken, that was not
the point. By disruptive, I was not referring to Luiz, but the request to kill
a chapter, for the reasons listed below.
I don't believe that killing the manifestation of thousands of hours of work is
going to
Can this discussion be continued in private?
From: Mike Godwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 4:22:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Trademarks
Anthony writes:
> Then you haven't answered how the req
That would be worth trying. SJ
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Robert Rohde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I realize that many of the people working on this are new, but have
> you given any thought to replicating / updating the "Personal Appeal"
> approach from 2005. Adjusted for changes in traf
Anthony writes:
> Instead of attacking my idea, you attacked me.
I'm sorry you interpreted me as attacking you, which must seem
incredibly unfair since you're scrupulous about refraining from
getting personal. Did you figure I was attacking you because I
learned in law school to attack yo
I realize that many of the people working on this are new, but have
you given any thought to replicating / updating the "Personal Appeal"
approach from 2005. Adjusted for changes in traffic, there is a good
argument that the "Personal Appeal from Jimbo Wales" (last portion of
Q4 2005 fund drive) h
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Nathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Rand Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>> The Quotes site notice will have 6 different quotes (all translated, we
>> hope) rotated in.
>
> I don't know - I think it would be interesting, at least
I think it's good that this started after the election.
We would lose if we competed with Obama donations...
As it is, I think some of the donors may be looking for new places to give.
Thanks,
Pharos
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:54
If the 'mo' language code is deprecated, then why not ro-cyrl.wikipedia.org ?
Thanks,
Pharos
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Brion Vibber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For quick background, it's pretty painful to rename a database in our
> system, and we currently have a lot of bits in our config
There have been no edits at mo.wikipedia or mo.wiktionary because both
databases are locked.
Mark
2008/11/25 Brion Vibber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> For quick background, it's pretty painful to rename a database in our
> system, and we currently have a lot of bits in our configuration that
> make aut
For quick background, it's pretty painful to rename a database in our
system, and we currently have a lot of bits in our configuration that
make automatic relationships between the database name and the domain
name, so this has delayed renaming of some language subdomains for a while.
It's not imp
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Mike Godwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony writes:
> >> Are you just making this up off the top of your head?
> >
> > Is that an appropriate response? Surely one of your "assume good
> > faith"
> > memes would be appropriate here, wouldn't it?
>
> I feel cer
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Rand Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
> As such, Phase 2 drafts can be found here:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2008/design_drafts. We are
> attempting to re-define the space in a different manner to encourage those
> who have not yet donated.
Anthony writes:
> Then you haven't answered how the requirements of trademark
> maintenance and
> the interests of freedom of speech are in conflict.
I have certainly tried to explain it. Do you need me to try to
explain it again and again until you understand what I'm saying?
>> Are you j
Hey All--
There has been a lot of good feedback on the first set of site notices and
we've taken those ideas and, I think, done a pretty good job of implementing
fixes across projects and languages. The tech team has done fabulous work.
You can see a brief statistical summary of the Phase I n
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Mike Godwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Anthony writes:
>
> > I guess what I didn't understand was that you were using the term
> > "freedom
> > of speech" to mean an absolute bar on the restriction of speech.
>
> This is not what I was using the term to mean.
>
> or the Red Cross keeping people from soliciting
> money for another charity using their symbols.
Not a great example - the Red Cross symbol is protected by more than
just trademark law, there are international treaties explicitly
governing its use.
__
I am sorry if I am misunderstanding something, but reading the
Google-translated versions of the quoted e-mails, they seem to all come
from Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, so in solving any misunderstanding his
opinions should be heard, and to make this discussion more constructive,
maybe we could leave
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Casey Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Ral315 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm completely speculating here, but maybe the reason we're doing so well
> so
> > far is that, I'd imagine, a significant portion of our readers are in t
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Mike Godwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Anthony writes:
>
>> The fundamental intention of [[trademark dilution]] law is to create a
>> property right.
>
> This isn't an accurate statement about trademark law. It's true that
> trademark law creates certain rights
2008/11/25 Jimmy Wales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Marc Riddell wrote:
>> on 11/25/08 5:35 PM, Jimmy Wales at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> lots of independent
>>> action loosely coordinated... the wiki way).
>>>
>> Jimmy,
>>
>> In this type of "loosely coordinated" situation, how do you prevent the m
Anthony writes:
> I guess what I didn't understand was that you were using the term
> "freedom
> of speech" to mean an absolute bar on the restriction of speech.
This is not what I was using the term to mean.
> Would you say there is clearly a tension between fraud law (or
> perjury law)
>
2008/11/25 Béria Lima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Geoffrey...
>
> The guy whit you are talking is one of the best sysops on pt.wikipedia.
> Don't be maniqueist please.
>
> The case is: Thomas is a good guy... but in the mailing list he stopped all
> the process of consensus. The problem is not just a di
> I don't know what you mean by "similar," but both the creation of
> trademarks and the creation of a remedy for trademark dilution are
> both part of the Trademark Act of 1946 (aka Title 15, Chapter 22, of
> the United States Code). Registration of trademarks is Sec. 1051, and
> the prohibition
Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 11/25/08 5:35 PM, Jimmy Wales at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> lots of independent
>> action loosely coordinated... the wiki way).
>>
> Jimmy,
>
> In this type of "loosely coordinated" situation, how do you prevent the more
> aggressive persons from dominating a project?
Geoffrey...
The guy whit you are talking is one of the best sysops on pt.wikipedia.
Don't be maniqueist please.
The case is: Thomas is a good guy... but in the mailing list he stopped all
the process of consensus. The problem is not just a discussion of Porantim
and Thomas... are more of 10 wikip
Porantim wrote:
> Jimmy, again, the problem isn't personal. Please, dont't try to take this
> way.
No, I don't think the problem is personal. I think it's a
misunderstanding, and you requested that I talk to Thomas about it. I will.
--Jimbo
___
foun
I would think that selective enforcement is used because it costs so much to
sue in this country. Just my two cents.
From: Tomasz Ganicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 6:11:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Founda
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Ral315 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm completely speculating here, but maybe the reason we're doing so well so
> far is that, I'd imagine, a significant portion of our readers are in the
> tech sector (at least compared to most non-profits), where job cuts haven't
Can we borrow the Obama fundraising model?( Sell branded merchandise, $5
donations, Believe signs everywhere)?
From: Przykuta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 12:54:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 200
Anthony writes:
> Please note that I wasn't talking here about "trademark law", I was
> talking
> specifically about "trademark dilution law". These types of laws
> both share
> the term "trademark", but they are actually not all that similar
> otherwise.
I don't know what you mean by "si
IANAL, but I would guess that would be something similar to the Berne
Convention. But then again IANAL.
From: Michael Bimmler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 12:54:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] T
on 11/25/08 5:35 PM, Jimmy Wales at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
lots of independent
> action loosely coordinated... the wiki way).
>
Jimmy,
In this type of "loosely coordinated" situation, how do you prevent the more
aggressive persons from dominating a project?
Marc Riddell
__
I agree, why the hell should we blow off a couple thousand hours of work and
toast a chapter? While there may be some issues in the bylaws and they still
need to legally organize, there is more support for this chapter than some of
the European ones.
My friend, this is starting to appear disru
Jimbo will be talking with Thomas, so let's table this discussion until he and
ChapCom are finished looking around, ok?
From: Porantim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 2:12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundati
If you are convinced that this is not personal, and that there is an issue,
then please provide evidence. Otherwise, this looks like bunch of people who
are unhappy because their proposal wasn't passed.
Geoffrey Plourde
From: Porantim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Jimmy, again, the problem isn't personal. Please, dont't try to take this
way.
-- Porantim
2008/11/25 Jimmy Wales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Porantim wrote:
> > The point here is: Thomas is one of the people who deny the debate. This
> is
> > the fact.
> >
> > Of course I want Thomas close to us, fi
Porantim wrote:
> The point here is: Thomas is one of the people who deny the debate. This is
> the fact.
>
> Of course I want Thomas close to us, fighting with us, but I cant't believe
> in dictatorship.
>
> If you really want to help us, you can speak with your friend Thomas about
> those probl
> I'm completely speculating here, but maybe the reason we're doing so well so
> far is that, I'd imagine, a significant portion of our readers are in the
> tech sector (at least compared to most non-profits)
That may be so for writers, but probably not readers (at least, not to
a significant degr
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Mike Godwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony writes:
>
> >> I'm trying to say that striking a humane balance between the
> >> requirements of trademark maintenance and the interests of freedom of
> >> speech is something I try to do, pretty much on a daily basi
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Great theory for 2008, except for the whole economy is screwed,
> high employment, mortgage foreclosure and general "nobody has
> any money to spare" thing.
>
> -Chad
I'm completely speculating here, but maybe the reason we're
Jimbo, look, nobody here are in doubt about the honesty of this or those
person.
The discussion here is not about the people, is about the positions. Is
about the actions.
Sorry, Jimbo, but I believe, nobody here really can believe in a maniqueist
discussion like that.
I don't care if Thomas is
Nathan wrote:
> The question is, if the characterization of the Wikimedia Brasil is accurate
> (i.e. comprised mainly of non-editors, hostile to editors, authoritarian to
> the extent of banning discussion of chapter composition and goals, etc.)
> what can be done? The answer may be nothing at all,
Michael Bimmler wrote:
> I would like to offer my apologies if it seemed like I was considering
> the situation in Brazil here, I by no means believe that we must
> consider what to do in Brazil!
:-)
I am confident things can be worked out in Brazil without much difficulty.
Luiz Augusto wrote:
> This is what we need: to stop the current attempt and start it again
Why?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Mike Godwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Anthony writes:
>
> > The fundamental intention of [[trademark dilution]] law is to create a
> > property right.
>
> This isn't an accurate statement about trademark law. It's true that
> trademark law creates certain righ
2008/11/25 Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The fundamental intention of [[trademark dilution]] law is to create a
> property right.
Questionable. In any case proper enforcement of trademark law really
only comes in at the nuisance level.
Things get more problematical due to people using trademark
Anthony writes:
> The fundamental intention of [[trademark dilution]] law is to create a
> property right.
This isn't an accurate statement about trademark law. It's true that
trademark law creates certain rights, but to understand trademark law
as an attempt to create a *property* right is
Anthony writes:
>> I'm trying to say that striking a humane balance between the
>> requirements of trademark maintenance and the interests of freedom of
>> speech is something I try to do, pretty much on a daily basis.
>
> How are the two in conflict?
I had thought this was self-evident, but it
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Przykuta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > For those who haven't seen it yet:
> > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics
> >
> > Very neat!
> >
> > Looking at tab 2 (Number of contributions):
> > In 2007 from day 14 and onwards the number
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Erik Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/11/25 Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I can't imagine you have that feeling about [[trademark dilution]] law,
> > though. I don't think people are going to cry "fraud" when they find out
> > their coffee mug isn't re
2008/11/25 Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I can't imagine you have that feeling about [[trademark dilution]] law,
> though. I don't think people are going to cry "fraud" when they find out
> their coffee mug isn't really the coffee mug that anyone can edit.
What I said is that its fundamental _in
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Erik Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally, I'm not a huge friend of IP law,
Specifically, you state on your meta user page that you are "strongly
opposed to all types of 'intellectual property'."
but I've always felt that
> the fundamental intentions
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> In fact, I haven't yet formed an opinion
> on how free speech issues apply to trademark law.
[snip]
I think it's helpful to consider a pair of somewhat tangential questions:
"Is it a violation of your right to free spee
2008/11/25 Mike Godwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Your reasoning suggests (by analogy) that prosecutors who don't
> prosecute every single offense, or policemen who don't arrest everyone
> who might have committed offense, are somehow "contradictory" to
> upholding the law. But that's not how the lega
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Mike Godwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm trying to say that striking a humane balance between the
> requirements of trademark maintenance and the interests of freedom of
> speech is something I try to do, pretty much on a daily basis.
How are the two in confl
Anthony writes:
> What are you saying here? Do you think free speech is promoted by
> telling
> people "no" when they ask if they can use your trademark, but then
> not doing
> anything when someone uses it without asking?
I'm trying to say that striking a humane balance between the
requi
2008/11/25 Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> > Well, like I said, my purpose wasn't to make a point, but to ask
>> questions.
>> > I've learned better than to try to make points in this particular e-mail
>> > forum.
>>
>> Y
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > Well, like I said, my purpose wasn't to make a point, but to ask
> questions.
> > I've learned better than to try to make points in this particular e-mail
> > forum.
>
> Your second question was something of a leading qu
> Well, like I said, my purpose wasn't to make a point, but to ask questions.
> I've learned better than to try to make points in this particular e-mail
> forum.
Your second question was something of a leading question. It came
across as if you were trying to make a point.
> I really don't unders
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Florence Devouard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> What are you saying here? Do you think free speech is promoted by
> telling
> >> people "no" when they ask if they can use
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Nathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > What are you saying here? Do you think free speech is promoted by
> telling
> > people "no" when they ask if they can use your trademark, but then no
Nathan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What are you saying here? Do you think free speech is promoted by telling
>> people "no" when they ask if they can use your trademark, but then not
>> doing
>> anything when someone uses it without asking?
>>
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What are you saying here? Do you think free speech is promoted by telling
> people "no" when they ask if they can use your trademark, but then not
> doing
> anything when someone uses it without asking?
>
> Is that something
2008/11/25 Mike Godwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Without criticizing Mozilla at all, I'll note that we're not that much
> like Mozilla in the scale on which license trademarks commercially.
> It's probably difficult for anyone outside the Foundation to imagine
> the sheer number of licensing opportun
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Mike Godwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Without criticizing Mozilla at all, I'll note that we're not that much
> like Mozilla in the scale on which license trademarks commercially.
> It's probably difficult for anyone outside the Foundation to imagine
> the sheer
Delirium writes:
>> I would personally hope that our main interest in the trademarks is
>> not
>> their commercial value, but their usefulness in furthering our stated
>> charitable mission, by reducing confusion on the part of potential
>> users
>> and reusers of our content.
You needn't wo
Mike Godwin wrote:
>> Phil Nash writes:
>>
>>> I don't want to seem naive but it is unclear to me how this applies
>>> to an
>>> essentially non-profit organisation; if you can help me out with a
>>> link, I'd
>>> be grateful. Thanks.
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you under the
> > For those who haven't seen it yet:
> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics
>
> Very neat!
>
> Looking at tab 2 (Number of contributions):
> In 2007 from day 14 and onwards the number of gifts per day more than
> doubled.
> Is it known why that happened? Just cur
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That's a very useful tool (if rather cryptic in its output), thank
>> you! If I'm reading it right, it looks like "Wikipedia" is registered
>> far more widely.
>
> Actually, on a second glance, it seems to be registered i
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Erik Zachte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For those who haven't seen it yet:
>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics
>
> Very neat!
>
> Looking at tab 2 (Number of contributions):
> In 2007 from day 14 and onwards the number of gifts per
80 matches
Mail list logo
