Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> The lack of options to vote for makes it a biased attempt at strong arming
> into a specific directions. In my opinion as it is flawed it is hardly
> relevant.
I'm not sure if other projects have the "Requests for comment" system (or
are familiar with it), but generally pe
Hoi,
The lack of options to vote for makes it a biased attempt at strong arming
into a specific directions. In my opinion as it is flawed it is hardly
relevant.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 14 March 2011 07:21, MZMcBride wrote:
> Liam Wyatt wrote:
> > I presume you are raising this point now in beca
Liam Wyatt wrote:
> I presume you are raising this point now in because of the recent global
> banner referring people to the "March 11 Update" on Strategy Wiki signed by
> Sue - http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/March_2011_Update
> Unless I'm mistaken that banner was only displayed to logged-in e
I presume you are raising this point now in because of the recent global
banner referring people to the "March 11 Update" on Strategy Wiki signed by
Sue - http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/March_2011_Update
Unless I'm mistaken that banner was *only* displayed to logged-in editors
however this RfC
A discussion was started some time ago to discuss when it's appropriate to
use global banners. There was fairly clear consensus from the people who
chose to participate, in my view. Does this need wider discussion before
being adopted or can it be put into place now?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki
NHK is apparently reporting 9 ft. tsunami heading for Shinchicho, Fukushima
Prefecture, from what I'm reading in the stewards channel. If you are in the
potential target area, please be safe.
-Dan
(crossposting to multiple lists)
___
foundation-l ma
I regret to inform that there is indeed an article on Zick Rubin on
Wikia, like Zick Rubin writes: "I was alarmed to find the following
item, from a Wikia.com site on psychology"
(http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Zick_Rubin).
There is life beyond Wikipedia, no matter how difficult it is for
so
On 13 March 2011 22:14, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 13 March 2011 18:25, Hans A. Rosbach wrote:
> >> The English Wikipedia has a fair use policy, I know of no other
> Wikipedia
> > that has one. The statement "We can claim fair use when using images like
> > that on
> > Wikipedia" is correct for E
On 13 March 2011 20:02, Klaus Graf wrote:
> German Wikipedia is accepting Freedom of Panorama for all countries,
> and this is the right way to handle the problem.
>
> WMF board should decide not to oppose the results of a desirable
> Commons poll that all pictures of buildings (which are free in
On 13 March 2011 18:25, Hans A. Rosbach wrote:
>> The English Wikipedia has a fair use policy, I know of no other Wikipedia
> that has one. The statement "We can claim fair use when using images like
> that on
> Wikipedia" is correct for English Wikipedia, but not for the other
> Wikipedias.
When
Fair use is not allowed on the Danish Wikipedia.
Rgs
Sir48 - Thyge
- Original meddelelse -
> Fra: Marco Chiesa
> Til: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Dato: Søn, 13. mar 2011 21:05
> Emne: Re: [Foundation-l] Is there a good reason to delete the Burj Al
> Arab?
>
> On 3/13/11, Yaro
On 3/13/11, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>
> From what I know, only the Spanish Wikipedia does not recognize fair-use
> images, and the German Wikipedia has a very strict policy which makes the
> usage of fair-use tricky. All other Wikipedias allow for fair-use. I am
> absolutely sure about the Russ
German Wikipedia is accepting Freedom of Panorama for all countries,
and this is the right way to handle the problem.
WMF board should decide not to oppose the results of a desirable
Commons poll that all pictures of buildings (which are free in the US)
should be accepted (if the majority whishes)
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 19:25:32 +0100, "Hans A. Rosbach"
wrote:
> On 13 March 2011 18:55, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>
>>
>> > Given that the only Wikipedia in existence is the English Wikipedia,
>> that
>> > is.
>> >
>> > Hans Rosbach
>> >
>>
>> I am not sure what you mean by this statement. Coul
On 13 March 2011 18:55, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>
> > Given that the only Wikipedia in existence is the English Wikipedia,
> that
> > is.
> >
> > Hans Rosbach
> >
>
> I am not sure what you mean by this statement. Could you please explain?
>
> The English Wikipedia has a fair use policy, I kno
Hoi,
I know, but buildings like the Burj al Arab are icons for their country,
asking the person or organisation who can provide us with a license is a way
to go. When we publicise that fact, it shows our gratitude and the silliness
of FOP.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 13 March 2011 18:58, Yaroslav M.
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 18:26:04 +0100, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> Who is going to reach out and ask for some photos that are giving to us
> under a free license. Moaning does not help.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
I think in this specific case we are not talking about photos (which are
free)
> Given that the only Wikipedia in existence is the English Wikipedia,
that
> is.
>
> Hans Rosbach
>
I am not sure what you mean by this statement. Could you please explain?
Cheers
Yaroslav
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.
Hoi,
Who is going to reach out and ask for some photos that are giving to us
under a free license. Moaning does not help.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 13 March 2011 18:23, Hans A. Rosbach wrote:
> On 13 March 2011 15:30, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> > On 13 March 2011 12:06, Marcus Buck wrote:
> > >
On 13 March 2011 15:30, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 13 March 2011 12:06, Marcus Buck wrote:
> > The upside is, that we won't get sued by copyright holders, I guess.
>
> Actually, the upside is that our reusers won't get sued by copyright
> holders. We can claim fair use when using images like that
On 13 March 2011 12:06, Marcus Buck wrote:
> The upside is, that we won't get sued by copyright holders, I guess.
Actually, the upside is that our reusers won't get sued by copyright
holders. We can claim fair use when using images like that on
Wikipedia, but images on Commons are supposed to be
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 09:54:06 -0400, Marc Riddell
wrote:
> H.
>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/opinion/13rubin.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail
> 1=y
>
> M
>
It looks like there is no article on him, and the NYT article is clearly a
reliable source.
I have heard a similar story from Anton
H.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/opinion/13rubin.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail
1=y
M
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Am 13.03.2011 13:01, schrieb Peter Carney:
> Validly licenced images of this building and thousands of others are
> routinely deleted due to Wikimedia Commons' 'FoP' policy. Clearly this
> damages our educational mission and impacts many projects. One
> proposed remedy is a tweak to the policy on t
Validly licenced images of this building and thousands of others are
routinely deleted due to Wikimedia Commons' 'FoP' policy. Clearly this
damages our educational mission and impacts many projects. One
proposed remedy is a tweak to the policy on the lines of that arising
from the National Portrait
25 matches
Mail list logo
