Mike,
The provisions of 2257 that I find concerning and potentially relevant in the
present case are (h)(2)(a)(iii) and (f)(4).
(h)(2)(a)(iii) defines producing as uploading a picture, which appears to mean
that uploaders must keep records for their photographs. It also appears that
the legis
I was just about to post that same section.
From 2257(h)(2)(B)) exception to record keeping:
(v) the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or
translation (or any combination thereof) of a communication, without
selection or alteration of the content of the communication, excep
On May 21, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Thomas Dalton
wrote:
> On 22 May 2010 01:54, MZMcBride wrote:
>> Rob Lanphier wrote:
>>> In trying to solve the user interface problems as well as
>>> generally figuring
>>> out how we're going to talk about this feature to the world at
>>> large, it
>>> be
Stillwater Rising writes:
Hosting these images without 18 USC 2257(A) records, in my opinion, is a *
> no-win* situation for everyone involved.
>
This raises the obvious question of how you interpret 18 USC 2257A(g),
which refers back to 18 USC 2257(h) (including in particular 18 USC
2257(h)(2)(
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> implementation, and there's no "flagging" in the proposed configuration.
> Additionally, "protection" in our world implies "no editing" whereas this
[snip]
> - Must not introduce obsolete terminology (e.g. there's no "flagging" in
> our pr
On 05/21/2010 05:54 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Stop, take a deep breath, and look at the big picture: nobody cares.
>
> Most users don't edit. Most users who do edit won't care what the feature is
> called. Nobody cares. And I think you're a pretty smart guy who already
> realizes this, so I'm curious
Your over-broad reading of this law would effectively gut
that other law which states that a "host" company is not responsible for what
people are hosting.
Wouldn't it? Unless you're going to support what appears to be an
unsupportable platform that "child porn" (or whatever you want to call
MZMcBride wrote:
> Stop, take a deep breath, and look at the big picture: nobody cares.
>
> Most users don't edit. Most users who do edit won't care what the feature is
> called. Nobody cares. And I think you're a pretty smart guy who already
> realizes this, so I'm curious why there seems to be d
Here here. There is a tactical map of 18th century Boston by Lt. Page of the
British Army on commons that I really am just blown away by. I believe it is
a featured picture, if anyone is interested. Also I saw a brilliant photo of
a homeless person in Philidelphia that could have been put on a maga
On 22 May 2010 01:54, MZMcBride wrote:
> Rob Lanphier wrote:
>> In trying to solve the user interface problems as well as generally figuring
>> out how we're going to talk about this feature to the world at large, it
>> became clear that the name "Flagged Protections" doesn't adequately describe
>
Rob Lanphier wrote:
> In trying to solve the user interface problems as well as generally figuring
> out how we're going to talk about this feature to the world at large, it
> became clear that the name "Flagged Protections" doesn't adequately describe
> the technology as it looks to readers and ed
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:54 PM, wrote:
>
> The foundation does not "own and operate" the site in the way that Fox
> news owns and operates their site.
> The foundation merely ensures that the site operates, functions, runs.
> It does not edit the contents of the site. That is the fundamental f
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 3:34 PM, FT2 wrote:
> Might help to sum up what exactly it does or how it's used (2-4 bullet
> points) so that people trying to pick a name to match its features but
> haven't followed the lengthy debate, are up to date on it.
>
That's fair. Here's the gist of it:
* An
The foundation does not "own and operate" the site in the way that Fox news
owns and operates their site.
The foundation merely ensures that the site operates, functions, runs.
It does not edit the contents of the site. That is the fundamental flaw in
this argument.
I really doubt that we are
Hi everyone,
As William alluded to, a bunch of us have been studying the user interface
for Flagged Protections and figuring out how to make it more intuitive.
In trying to solve the user interface problems as well as generally figuring
out how we're going to talk about this feature to the world
2010/5/21 Delphine Ménard :
> ...we should not forget, that there are on Commons some of the most
> beautiful images I've ever seen in my entire life.
Well said.
AGK
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://li
...we should not forget, that there are on Commons some of the most
beautiful images I've ever seen in my entire life.
Free. As in Speech.
A look at the lists for the Picture of the Year should convince you of that.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2009/Galleries
Ch
David Goodman wrote:
> all of these problems are with other people than us. Our copyright
> license permits commercial use, and does not apply to any potential
> problems other than copyright. This has nothing to do with our
> licensing. The reason nobody has answered this before is that it is
>
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 8:32 AM, William Pietri wrote:
>
>> We're very aware of the power of names. For those who have been
>> following my updates or the status of tasks in Tracker, you may have
>> noticed that a text and naming task has be
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 8:32 AM, William Pietri wrote:
> We're very aware of the power of names. For those who have been
> following my updates or the status of tasks in Tracker, you may have
> noticed that a text and naming task has been in progress for weeks.
> That's because good names are har
On 05/21/2010 08:51 AM, Chad wrote:
> There are two things wrong here.
>
> The first is attempting to reuse messages for different purposes. If
> the workflow and ideas behind the UI are different, then there need
> to be different messages, not changing of ones that work just fine
> and make plent
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:32 AM, William Pietri wrote:
> On the other hand, I think for FlaggedRevs the implied link between
> languages is weaker than a lot of other bits of MediaWiki. The
> FlaggedRevs extension is extremely configurable, and on top of the
> technological model the social model
On 05/21/2010 07:16 AM, Chad wrote:
> All aspects of the interface are indeed configurable, like you said.
> And this is useful when projects want to tweak the wording or add
> additional information. They should not be used to illustrate different
> concepts across the different languages though.
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:02 AM, putevod wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:50:32 +0200, "Daniel ~ Leinad"
> wrote:
>>> I thought it is up to the community how the interface is translated
> into
>>> Polish.
>>
>> It is not problem in translation to one language. There is problem in
>> source lang
On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:50:32 +0200, "Daniel ~ Leinad"
wrote:
>> I thought it is up to the community how the interface is translated
into
>> Polish.
>
> It is not problem in translation to one language. There is problem in
> source language. All translations should have the same sense as in
> sou
> I thought it is up to the community how the interface is translated into
> Polish.
It is not problem in translation to one language. There is problem in
source language. All translations should have the same sense as in
source language.
Leinad
___
fo
On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:22:19 +0200, "Daniel ~ Leinad"
wrote:
> Hello,
> On Bugzilla I reported my observations about changes in FlaggedRevs
> extension: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23615
>
> I am unhappy that you attempting to enable FlaggedRevs on en.wiki, you
> forget about
Hello,
On Bugzilla I reported my observations about changes in FlaggedRevs
extension: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23615
I am unhappy that you attempting to enable FlaggedRevs on en.wiki, you
forget about other projects.
Regards,
Daniel aka Leinad
__
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Some thoughts, not aiming at anybody in particular.
The pressure from Fox News, the childish founders' jealousies, the void
FBI threats, the "patriarch complex" of Mr. Wales, if they're real,
should be of no inflated importance. Our personal tastes ab
29 matches
Mail list logo
