Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

Anthony wrote: > My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and > distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that > expressly provided under any license I have granted them. Apart from the "expressly" provided (GFDL), there is the tradition of how Wikipedia and ot

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

geni wrote: > 2009/1/10 Anthony : >> It isn't clear what it means. >> There seems to be a belief that it can be interpreted to only require >> attribution of 5 authors, and I don't like that at all. > > The word "five" doesn't appear in the license and "5" only appears in > a section name and one

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

Erik Moeller wrote: > The proposed attribution (crediting authors where it is reasonably > possible and linking to the version history where that would be > onerous) is completely consistent with > 1) established practices on Wikipedia; > 2) the ethics and spirit of the GNU Free Documentation Lic

Re: [Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews in China Blocked

The proxy servers of the China Channel Firefox Add-on seems to be out of order. An alternative way of testing can be found here:Website Test behind the Great Firewall of China Here are some results from the above web page. Tested From:

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

2009/1/9 Anthony : > I don't know if these interpretations are correct or not. But I'd rather > not chance it. Especially since if they're not correct, there's not much > point in switching to CC-BY-SA in the first place. You are completely free to oppose the switch because you find the license

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:15 AM, geni wrote: > 2009/1/10 Anthony : > > > > > The WMF is not just making and distributing verbatim copies of my works. > > Not effectively, not even remotely close to it. The only time they're > even > > arguably distributing verbatim copies of my works would be f

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:18 AM, geni wrote: > 2009/1/10 Anthony : > > On the other hand, it would remove the requirement to deposit two > > copies of the best edition of every single revision ever created with the > > copyright office. > > No such requirement exists under US law. Title 17, S

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

2009/1/10 Anthony : > On the other hand, it would remove the requirement to deposit two > copies of the best edition of every single revision ever created with the > copyright office. No such requirement exists under US law. -- geni ___ foundation-

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

2009/1/10 Anthony : > > The WMF is not just making and distributing verbatim copies of my works. > Not effectively, not even remotely close to it. The only time they're even > arguably distributing verbatim copies of my works would be for articles > where I am the last author or for historical re

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Robert Rohde wrote: > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: > > 2009/1/10 Erik Moeller : > >> 2009/1/8 Thomas Dalton : > >>> We discussing a move to CC-BY-SA, attribution is still > >>> required. I'm not an expert on the attribution requir

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, geni wrote: > 2009/1/9 Anthony : > > My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing > my > > copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under > any > > license I have granted them. > > I doubt it. You are probably

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> But they aren't violating GFDL 1.3, since they aren't using it, so > >> what was you complaint about? > > > > > > My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing > my > > copyrighted content in a manner other than

Re: [Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews in China Blocked

I can confirm that http://zh.wikinews.org is blocked in Beijing and several other cities in China. Ian [[User:Poeloq]] 2009/1/10 Jason Safoutin > > > foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: > > > Message: 10 > > > Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 17:27:23 +0800 > > > From: "shi zhao" > > > Subjec

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

geni wrote: > 2009/1/9 Robert Rohde : >> As a major organization with legal council, the WMF is in a much >> better position to understand what the license requires than most >> reusers. > > The law however doesn't care how easy licenses are for reusers to > understand. The WMF cannot provide lega

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/1/10 Erik Moeller : >> 2009/1/8 Thomas Dalton : >>> We discussing a move to CC-BY-SA, attribution is still >>> required. I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of >>> CC-BY-SA (I've just read them, but it isn't entirely

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

2009/1/10 Erik Moeller : > 2009/1/8 Thomas Dalton : >> We discussing a move to CC-BY-SA, attribution is still >> required. I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of >> CC-BY-SA (I've just read them, but it isn't entirely clear to me >> whether Original Author is, in the context o

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraiser update

And - the banners should now be gone in all languages. In the coming days & weeks we'll discuss what a consistent, non-obnoxious but visible "Donate / We're a non-profit" link could look like across projects. (Right now we have a Donate link in the sidebar, and some projects have experimented with

Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?

Hi all; I would like to know how is going to be rated the success of this operation/project. Do you hope a big wave of new users? More edits per day? To improve the visits/edits ratio? What are your wishes and your realistic predictions? Regards, emijrp Naoko Komura escribió: > On Fri, Jan 9,

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

2009/1/8 Thomas Dalton : > We discussing a move to CC-BY-SA, attribution is still > required. I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of > CC-BY-SA (I've just read them, but it isn't entirely clear to me > whether Original Author is, in the context of a wiki, just the latest > edi

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

I think this is probably true. On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > Chad wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Nikola Smolenski > wrote: > > > >> Gerard Meijssen wrote: > >> > >>> That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The > dump > >>> > >>> of

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

Chad wrote: > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > >> Gerard Meijssen wrote: >> >>> That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The dump >>> >>> of the English language Wikipedia is even notoriously difficult to create. >>> >>> http://en.wi

Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?

Well, I believe my concerns have been adequately addressed. I have only one last point of input on usability (for now ;-). I believe it my be the case that the often bizarre idiosyncrasies of MediaWiki were implemented because the developers were spread out around the world, in isolation, communica

Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:30 PM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/1/9 Brian : > > > I am skeptical of the current development process. That is because it has > > led to the current parser, which is not a proper parser at all, and > includes > > horrifying syntax. > > > Er, that would be a direct descend

Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:19 PM, wrote: > > Erik/Naoko: does the Stanton grant include a condition for (external) > specific program evaluation? > Yes, we are required to submit a quarterly report to the Stanton Foundation to inform the project progress and status which includes financial repor

Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?

2009/1/9 Brian : > Erik I am glad you are still around and keeping an eye on things. Thank you, I appreciate that. :-) > I believe that, with the audience the Foundation has access to, it could > save a lot of money by hiring people who love Wikipedia and want to work for > it. I don't think its

Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?

2009/1/9 Brian : > I am skeptical of the current development process. That is because it has > led to the current parser, which is not a proper parser at all, and includes > horrifying syntax. Er, that would be a direct descendant of UseModWiki. That this has been a hair-tearing nightmare ever s

Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?

2009/1/9 Brian : > In order to solve usability, even for new users, I believe that you must > write a new parser from scratch. I disagree, though the project team may ultimately agree with you. The biggest barriers to entry for new users aren't likely to be obscure edge cases involving apostrophes

Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?

Erik I am glad you are still around and keeping an eye on things. I believe that, with the audience the Foundation has access to, it could save a lot of money by hiring people who love Wikipedia and want to work for it. I don't think its true that the only way to get seasoned developers is to wave

Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?

As you surely know, the work of all staff, including 'how they spend money' is continuously assessed by the ED who in turn is evaluated by the board. There is also 3rd party financial audit. What are you hinting at? Erik/Naoko: does the Stanton grant include a condition for (external) specific pro

Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?

2009/1/9 Brian : > 800,000 / 30,000 = 26. Is that not a fair wage? If the Foundation only plans > to hire three developers to work on this project then it must be spending > the money on something else entirely. First of all, we're hiring three people because we already have two. We've hired Naoko

Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?

Erik, I am skeptical of the current development process. That is because it has led to the current parser, which is not a proper parser at all, and includes horrifying syntax. The current usability issue is widespread and goes to MediaWiki's core. Developers should not have that large of a voice

Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?

Thank you Naoko. How can we be sure the money will be spent wisely? Obama recently appointed a Chief Performance Officer. Do you have someone providing similar oversight? On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Naoko Komura wrote: > Hello, Brian. > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Brian wrote: > > >

Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?

2009/1/9 Brian : > Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the > Foundation? Most of them aren't applicable (YouTube, Google Maps extensions, etc.) or not tested to the scale of Wikipedia and would therefore require significant investments of resources to be ready for deplo

Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Brian wrote: > In order to solicit community feedback on this very important issue, I > suggest the Foundation put up a multi-language banner on all Wikipedia's > soliciting input via a survey. Are you willing to make the translations and the banner? Are you willin

Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?

Hello, Brian. On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Brian wrote: > Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the > Foundation? > The plan for Usability Initiative includes intensive reviews of MediaWiki extensions which are already available. Then we will enable candidate exten

Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?

> Let me ask, are you doing any testing of potentially useful MediaWiki extensions yourself? I run a dozen wikis, a few of them quite large. And I am a software developer. I have put to use pretty much every significant extension to MediaWiki, and I have pushed SMW to its limits. That it currentl

Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?

In order to solicit community feedback on this very important issue, I suggest the Foundation put up a multi-language banner on all Wikipedia's soliciting input via a survey. *How can Wikipedia be more usable?* I also suggest the Foundation put up a We're Hiring banner. In tough global economic c

Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Brian wrote: > Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the > Foundation? It's an issue of scale. Do you have any idea how big the foundation projects are? Inefficient code could cripple our donation-supported infrastructure. It's not that pe

Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?

2009/1/9 Brian : > Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the > Foundation? > > Why do developers have such priviledged access to the source code, and the > community such little input? > > Why must the community 'vote' on extensions such as Semantic MediaWiki, and > yet th

Re: [Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews in China Blocked

Plese install China Channel Firefox Add-on, test GFW of China :) http://chinachannel.hk/ 2009/1/10 Jason Safoutin > foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: > > Message: 10 > > Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 17:27:23 +0800 > > From: "shi zhao" > > Subject: [Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews in Chin

[Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?

Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the Foundation? Why do developers have such priviledged access to the source code, and the community such little input? Why must the community 'vote' on extensions such as Semantic MediaWiki, and yet the developers can implement any

Re: [Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews in China Blocked

foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: > Message: 10 > Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 17:27:23 +0800 > From: "shi zhao" > Subject: [Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews in China Blocked > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > > Message-ID: > <762c04810901090127t1517f3fcm74bf129a77f0d...

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:59 PM, geni wrote: ... > Secondly you hit the issue that the license states that attribution > should be reasonable "reasonable to the medium or means". Quite apart > from the problem that this will vary from legal system to legal system > the range of medium means that th

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

2009/1/9 Thomas Dalton : > But they aren't violating GFDL 1.3, since they aren't using it, so > what was you complaint about? Being querulous? - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.o

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Robert Rohde wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> "Wikipedia" would only satisfy the license if the author specifically >> said that was ok. The FAQ says there will not be a requirement to >> designate "Wikipedia" or anything else to rec

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

2009/1/9 Anthony : > My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my > copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any > license I have granted them. I doubt it. You are probably considering the wrong part of the GFDL with regards to what t

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

>> But they aren't violating GFDL 1.3, since they aren't using it, so >> what was you complaint about? > > > My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my > copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any > license I have granted them. Su

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/1/8 Anthony : > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote: > > > >> 2009/1/8 Anthony : > >> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton < > thomas.dal...@gmail.com > >> >wrote: > >> > > >> >> > Now read the version in GF

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The > dump > > of the English language Wikipedia is even notoriously difficult to > create. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow > >

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

Ha? -- White Cat On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Mike Godwin wrote: > > Anthony writes: > > > Fine with me if and only if you c) remove all references to my last > > name > > from all Wikimedia projects. > > So you're claiming to be able to revoke our right to use your last > name? I had no i

[Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews in China Blocked

Today Chinese wikinews in China Blocked. GFW keyword is "zh.wikinews.org". other wikinews can acess. -- Chinese wikipedia: http://zh.wikipedia.org/ My blog: http://shizhao.org twitter: https://twitter.com/shizhao [[zh:User:Shizhao]] ___ foundation-l ma

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

Gerard Meijssen wrote: > That is only for US law. It is also debatable if this is just "sweat of the > brow" because a lot of creativity is involved in creating this collection. > It does not even necessarily apply to you as you are in a different > jurisdiction. Other laws do have similar provisi

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

Hoi, That is only for US law. It is also debatable if this is just "sweat of the brow" because a lot of creativity is involved in creating this collection. It does not even necessarily apply to you as you are in a different jurisdiction. Thanks, Gerard 2009/1/9 Nikola Smolenski > Gerard Me

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

And simplistic arguments are not convincing. If you would like to explore the space with me, you'll have to try more than one sentence at a time. On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps.

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

Gerard Meijssen wrote: > That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The dump > of the English language Wikipedia is even notoriously difficult to create. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow Huge effort is not copyrightable. __

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

Hoi, That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The dump of the English language Wikipedia is even notoriously difficult to create. It is for this reason easy to argue that the WMF has the copyright on the collection. Given that it is a composite of separately copyrighted mat

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

Brian wrote: > Who owns the copyright for the selection, coordination or arrangement of the > dumps? Given that no one selects, coordinates or arranges the dumps, no one owns the copyright on them. > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> 2009/1/8 Brian : >>> I was under the