Re: [Foundation-l] Public Domain Mark - what does this mean for us?

2010-10-13 Thread Mike Linksvayer
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Liam Wyatt wrote: > I for one am very keen to see us use this system, if for no other reason > than it leverages the existing visibility of the Creative Commons > machine-readable licensing structure. The CC-Public Domain Mark is not > actually doing anything new/

Re: [Foundation-l] Public Domain Mark - what does this mean for us?

2010-10-13 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)
Liam Wyatt, 13/10/2010 23:43: > From what I hear (I'm here at the Europeana conference now where they are > officially launching the PDM tomorrow - as per the press release > http://creativecommons.org/press-releases/entry/23755 ) CC were debating > whether to use a logo that was "C-with-a-line-thr

Re: [Foundation-l] Public Domain Mark - what does this mean for us?

2010-10-13 Thread Liam Wyatt
I for one am very keen to see us use this system, if for no other reason than it leverages the existing visibility of the Creative Commons machine-readable licensing structure. The CC-Public Domain Mark is not actually doing anything new/different to the concept of the public domain and doesn't pre

Re: [Foundation-l] Public Domain Mark - what does this mean for us?

2010-10-13 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)
geni, 13/10/2010 23:14: > On 13 October 2010 21:02, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: >> Ziko van Dijk, 13/10/2010 21:35: >>> While reading the FAQ of Creative Commons about the new Public Domain >>> Mark, I wondered what are the consequences for our projects. Will I >>> use PDM in future anyhow on Commo

Re: [Foundation-l] Public Domain Mark - what does this mean for us?

2010-10-13 Thread geni
On 13 October 2010 21:02, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > Ziko van Dijk, 13/10/2010 21:35: >> While reading the FAQ of Creative Commons about the new Public Domain >> Mark, I wondered what are the consequences for our projects. Will I >> use PDM in future anyhow on Commons, for example? > > We shoul

Re: [Foundation-l] Public Domain Mark - what does this mean for us?

2010-10-13 Thread Mike Linksvayer
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote: > While reading the FAQ of Creative Commons about the new Public Domain > Mark, I wondered what are the consequences for our projects. Will I > use PDM in future anyhow on Commons, for example? > Hopefully the main consequence is that the PDM

Re: [Foundation-l] Public Domain Mark - what does this mean for us?

2010-10-13 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)
Ziko van Dijk, 13/10/2010 21:35: > While reading the FAQ of Creative Commons about the new Public Domain > Mark, I wondered what are the consequences for our projects. Will I > use PDM in future anyhow on Commons, for example? We should use CC0 instead of PD-Self. The PDM in itself doesn't mean mu

[Foundation-l] Public Domain Mark - what does this mean for us?

2010-10-13 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Hello, While reading the FAQ of Creative Commons about the new Public Domain Mark, I wondered what are the consequences for our projects. Will I use PDM in future anyhow on Commons, for example? Kind regards Ziko http://wiki.creativecommons.org/PDM_FAQ -- Ziko van Dijk Niederlande ___

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia: Coherent proposal

2010-10-13 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, What reason would there be that is consistent with the aims of the Wikimedia Foundation. What reason could be given that explicitly does not negate your wish for the deletion of the mo.wikipedia? You can not have it both ways imho. Thanks, GerardM On 13 October 2010 17:59, Gutza wrote

[Foundation-l] Office Hours with Sue Gardner (Tomorrow)

2010-10-13 Thread James Alexander
Hi all, I know Steven just sent out a note for Barry's Friday office hours but this is in addition.Sorry for the late notice and for sending them out of order. Sue Gardner, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, will be having office hours this Thursday (Tomorrow) at 17:00 UTC (10:00

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia: Coherent proposal

2010-10-13 Thread Marcus Buck
I created a small test script at . Works well to Cyrillize nds.wp ;-) (or any other wiki). It only supports reading so far, editing will be harder. The problem will be cases like a Romanian article written in Latin script and containing

[Foundation-l] Office Hours with Barry Newstead

2010-10-13 Thread Steven Walling
Greetings all, The next IRC Office Hours will be with Barry Newstead, Chief Global Development Officer (CGDO) of the Wikimedia Foundation, on Friday October 15th, 17:00 UTC. As usual, this chat will be informal and in an open format. You can learn more about past Office Hours and how to conn

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia: Coherent proposal

2010-10-13 Thread Milos Rancic
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 17:59, Gutza wrote: >  On 13-Oct-10 18:52, Milos Rancic wrote: >> >> There are also some rewrite rules. For example, the default (based on >> amount of texts written in Cyrillic; however, script-neutral) of >> Serbian Wikipedia is Cyrillic. If you go to http://sr.wikipedia.

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia: Coherent proposal

2010-10-13 Thread Gutza
On 13-Oct-10 18:52, Milos Rancic wrote: > > There are also some rewrite rules. For example, the default (based on > amount of texts written in Cyrillic; however, script-neutral) of > Serbian Wikipedia is Cyrillic. If you go to http://sr.wikipedia.org/ > -- you will find the page in Cyrillic. Howev

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia: Coherent proposal

2010-10-13 Thread Milos Rancic
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 17:31, Gutza wrote: >  On 13-Oct-10 18:25, Milos Rancic wrote: >> That sounds reasonably to me. I have to check what do other LangCom >> members think about it. > > What is it exactly that sounds reasonable to you? I haven't the faintest > idea what you're talking about. I

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia: Coherent proposal

2010-10-13 Thread Marcus Buck
An'n 13.10.2010 17:31, hett Gutza schreven: > On 13-Oct-10 18:25, Milos Rancic wrote: >> That sounds reasonably to me. I have to check what do other LangCom >> members think about it. > What is it exactly that sounds reasonable to you? I haven't the faintest > idea what you're talking about. I

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia: Coherent proposal

2010-10-13 Thread Gutza
On 13-Oct-10 18:25, Milos Rancic wrote: > That sounds reasonably to me. I have to check what do other LangCom > members think about it. What is it exactly that sounds reasonable to you? I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. I don't know how the Chinese/Serbian engine works -- you

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia: Coherent proposal

2010-10-13 Thread Milos Rancic
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 17:10, Gutza wrote: > I'm not proposing turning ro.wiki to ro-latin-and-cyrl.wiki. I'm > proposing a gadget that would seamlessly transliterate to Cyrillic *and > back to Latin again, if possible* -- that way everybody reads in their > own script, and (if possible) writes i

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia: Coherent proposal

2010-10-13 Thread Marcus Buck
An'n 13.10.2010 16:49, hett Gutza schreven: > On 13-Oct-10 17:40, Milos Rancic wrote: >>> I think the community at ro.wiki wouldn't mind that. >> Are you saying that ro.wp community would agree with transliteration >> engine between Romanian Latin and Moldovan Cyrillic orthographies? > I'm sayi

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia: Coherent proposal

2010-10-13 Thread Gutza
Milos, I'm not proposing turning ro.wiki to ro-latin-and-cyrl.wiki. I'm proposing a gadget that would seamlessly transliterate to Cyrillic *and back to Latin again, if possible* -- that way everybody reads in their own script, and (if possible) writes in their own script, while the database remai

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia: Coherent proposal

2010-10-13 Thread Milos Rancic
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 16:49, Gutza wrote: >  On 13-Oct-10 17:40, Milos Rancic wrote: >>> I think the community at ro.wiki wouldn't mind that. >> Are you saying that ro.wp community would agree with transliteration >> engine between Romanian Latin and Moldovan Cyrillic orthographies? > > I'm sayi

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia: Coherent proposal

2010-10-13 Thread Gutza
On 13-Oct-10 17:40, Milos Rancic wrote: >> I think the community at ro.wiki wouldn't mind that. > Are you saying that ro.wp community would agree with transliteration > engine between Romanian Latin and Moldovan Cyrillic orthographies? I'm saying that I *think* the ro.wp wouldn't mind a *gadget*,

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia: Coherent proposal

2010-10-13 Thread Milos Rancic
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 15:36, Gutza wrote: >    * Apart from Mark, nobody actually said they wanted to /read/, never >      mind write Romanian content in Cyrillic; the gadget I propose for >      ro.wiki would be more of a gesture of courtesy than any real help >      to anyone, but I think the

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia: Coherent proposal

2010-10-13 Thread Gutza
In light of all the arguments, political and otherwise, discussed here, I propose the following: * Redirect mo.wiki to ro.wiki; I think this is undisputed, per the LoC recognition that Moldovan is deprecated; * Store the mo.wiki content, in whatever state it may be, for later use;

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia

2010-10-13 Thread Zugravu Gheorghe
On 13.10.2010 13:41, Gutza wrote: > On 13-Oct-10 13:32, David Gerard wrote: >> On 13 October 2010 11:19, Gutza wrote: >> >>> Nobody says the current content should be deleted -- just stop >>> serving it. >> >> Here you are playing with language, not advancing the discussion. By >> "delete", the

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia

2010-10-13 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, The language committee does not involve itself normally. In this thread it was suggested that it could by exception. What I have done is apply the normal arguments we use for new languages. The history of a language is of no relevance. What is relevant is that we have one series of projects f

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia

2010-10-13 Thread Marcus Buck
An'n 13.10.2010 03:29, hett Gerard Meijssen schreven: > It has been suggested that a solution should be able to pass muster at the > language committee. I am seriously in favour of an end to this extravaganza. > However, I have not seen a proposal that would pass muster of the members of > the la

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia

2010-10-13 Thread Gutza
On 13-Oct-10 13:32, David Gerard wrote: > On 13 October 2010 11:19, Gutza wrote: > >> Nobody says the current content should be deleted -- just stop >> serving it. > > Here you are playing with language, not advancing the discussion. By > "delete", the thread starter meant precisely "stop serving

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia

2010-10-13 Thread David Gerard
On 13 October 2010 11:19, Gutza wrote: > Nobody says the current content should be deleted -- just stop > serving it. Here you are playing with language, not advancing the discussion. By "delete", the thread starter meant precisely "stop serving it." - d.

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia

2010-10-13 Thread Gutza
On 13-Oct-10 07:58, Milos Rancic wrote: > but it would have been likely that we would have > it in the future, if Transnitrian Moldovans would have adopt Internet > in significant numbers Why not create the new subdomain ro-cyrl.wikipedia.org at that point in time? Nobody says the current content