Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Anthony wrote: > > >> The torturous logic can't > > >> disguise that the license has been GFDL from the git-go > > >> and is not departing from that license against the prime > > >> guardian of that license. That is the bare fact. > > >> > > > > > > > > > Huh? > >

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

> >> The torturous logic can't > >> disguise that the license has been GFDL from the git-go > >> and is not departing from that license against the prime > >> guardian of that license. That is the bare fact. > >> > > > > > > Huh? > > > > See my above reply. See mine. I was speaking here with reg

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Anthony wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > > wrote: > > > > > >> Anthony wrote: > >> > >>> Surely there is a significant difference between an updated version of > >>> > >> the > >> > >>> same license,

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

Anthony wrote: > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > wrote: > > >> Anthony wrote: >> >>> Surely there is a significant difference between an updated version of >>> >> the >> >>> same license, and a license which says the work can be relicensed under a >>> dif

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Anthony wrote: > > Surely there is a significant difference between an updated version of > the > > same license, and a license which says the work can be relicensed under a > > different license. > > > > Define "same license". It real

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

Anthony wrote: > Surely there is a significant difference between an updated version of the > same license, and a license which says the work can be relicensed under a > different license. > Define "same license". It really seems to me you want to define a license as being different if it chang

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

David Gerard wrote: > 2009/2/9 Delirium : > > >> At the very least, it seems to empirically not be a problem. The GPL has >> included the "or later" language since it was first published in 1989, >> and has since gone through two updates (the first in 1991), without, as >> far as I can find, a s

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/2/9 geni : >> 2009/2/9 Ting Chen : >>> I dislike this argument very much. People cannot choose that they are >>> born in Iran or in China, or in the USA or Europe. Use such a trait that >>> cannot be influence by a person against him is

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

sorry this was ting not geni i quoted... On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:28 PM, oscar van dillen wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Ting Chen wrote: >> >> >> >> If there's any sign that a steward had misused his previlege, for what >> ever reason, he would instantly lost that previlege. >>

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Ting Chen wrote: > geni wrote: > > > If there's any sign that a steward had misused his previlege, for what > ever reason, he would instantly lost that previlege. > > yes indeed. if i remember correctly it was in 2005 that i removed as a steward someone's adminbit

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

2009/2/9 Tomasz Ganicz : > The "real danger" is that stewards have access to global checkuser, so > they can theoretically be used to trace users when forced by secret > police of an non-democratic country. However, various special forces > and secret services of democratic countries also use to f

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

Cary Bass wrote: > I would suggest that the "current tendency to remove 14 current > stewards" is inaccurate--firstly, the retention requirement should not > be the same as to pass initially, and this chart uses a 78% percentage > to pass in both cases, whereas a 50% tendency should be sufficient

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

2009/2/9 Ting Chen : > Surely is this a prejudice. Because there is no data that support such > an assumption. In the eight years since the being of Wikipedia I don't > know any such case happend on any Wikimedia project. > > Ting Prejudice? We know Iran's record on human rights and we know Iran's

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

> > > 2009/2/9 Ziko van Dijk : > > > >> If I understand it right, Wikimedia or other stewards can trace what a > >> single steward is doing. Even if a dictatorship forces a local steward > to do > >> something, there is the danger that this becomes public. > >> Ziko > > If there's any sign that a s

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

2009/2/9 Ziko van Dijk : > If I understand it right, Wikimedia or other stewards can trace what a > single steward is doing. Even if a dictatorship forces a local steward to do > something, there is the danger that this becomes public. The "real danger" is that stewards have access to global check

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

geni wrote: > 2009/2/9 Ziko van Dijk : > >> If I understand it right, Wikimedia or other stewards can trace what a >> single steward is doing. Even if a dictatorship forces a local steward to do >> something, there is the danger that this becomes public. >> Ziko >> > > Thats the danger for

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

geni schrieb: > 2009/2/9 Ting Chen : > >> I dislike this argument very much. People cannot choose that they are >> born in Iran or in China, or in the USA or Europe. Use such a trait that >> cannot be influence by a person against him is a kind of discrimination. >> > > True but it's based

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

2009/2/9 Ziko van Dijk : > If I understand it right, Wikimedia or other stewards can trace what a > single steward is doing. Even if a dictatorship forces a local steward to do > something, there is the danger that this becomes public. > Ziko Thats the danger for a western government. In the case

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

If I understand it right, Wikimedia or other stewards can trace what a single steward is doing. Even if a dictatorship forces a local steward to do something, there is the danger that this becomes public. Ziko 2009/2/9 Ting Chen > Robert Rohde wrote: > > Looking at the summary and comments, I a

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

2009/2/9 geni : > 2009/2/9 Ting Chen : >> I dislike this argument very much. People cannot choose that they are >> born in Iran or in China, or in the USA or Europe. Use such a trait that >> cannot be influence by a person against him is a kind of discrimination. > > True but it's based on reality

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

2009/2/9 Ting Chen : > I dislike this argument very much. People cannot choose that they are > born in Iran or in China, or in the USA or Europe. Use such a trait that > cannot be influence by a person against him is a kind of discrimination. True but it's based on reality rather than predudice.

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Al Tally wrote: > > You were expecting good arguments? :) > > - On meta elections? Not me. -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Ting Chen wrote: > I dislike this argument very much... You were expecting good arguments? :) -- Alex (User:Majorly) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

Robert Rohde wrote: > Looking at the summary and comments, I am struck by the fact that > Mardetanha [1] is getting a significant number of oppose votes from > people who believe it is fundamentally unsafe for a Steward to live in > Iran. Including comments that the Iranian government might arrest

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

Looking at the summary and comments, I am struck by the fact that Mardetanha [1] is getting a significant number of oppose votes from people who believe it is fundamentally unsafe for a Steward to live in Iran. Including comments that the Iranian government might arrest and torture him for his acc

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jesse (Pathoschild) wrote: > Hello, > > This is a summary of the steward elections and confirmations so far. The > elections are open February 1 to 22, at < > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009> and < > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wik

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/2/9 Delirium : > > Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> 2009/2/7 David Gerard : > >> > >>> Anyone can take any idiot question to court. That doesn't count as a > >>> reason to assume that there must therefore be a substantive reason to > >>> believ

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

2009/2/9 Thomas Dalton : > Have any of the updates been as drastic as the latest? Was there > anything in the previous updates that anyone would be likely to object > to? It's not the first time that licenses have merged or even the first time a license has merged with CC (that would go to the EFF

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

2009/2/9 Delirium : > Thomas Dalton wrote: >> 2009/2/7 David Gerard : >> >>> Anyone can take any idiot question to court. That doesn't count as a >>> reason to assume that there must therefore be a substantive reason to >>> believe that the "or later" language doesn't apply. Nor does being >>> unab

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Delirium wrote: > Thomas Dalton wrote: > > 2009/2/7 David Gerard : > > > >> Anyone can take any idiot question to court. That doesn't count as a > >> reason to assume that there must therefore be a substantive reason to > >> believe that the "or later" language doe

Re: [Foundation-l] Verifiability, reliable sources, notability and original research

On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Patton 123 wrote: > I really think all of these are superflous to each other. Shouldn't they be > merged into one policy, called Wikipedia:Verifiability? I mean, look at what > we're saying here: > > - Wikipedia:Verifiability >

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

2009/2/9 Delirium : > At the very least, it seems to empirically not be a problem. The GPL has > included the "or later" language since it was first published in 1989, > and has since gone through two updates (the first in 1991), without, as > far as I can find, a single ruling invalidating that l

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/2/7 David Gerard : > >> Anyone can take any idiot question to court. That doesn't count as a >> reason to assume that there must therefore be a substantive reason to >> believe that the "or later" language doesn't apply. Nor does being >> unable to prove a negative. >