On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
> Phoebe, does this sound familiar? "We want you to imagine a world in which
> every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That
> is our commitment". "We're in it for the long haul". (From: "Ten things you
> may not kn
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour
wrote:
> Why would both "Associations" and "Affiliates" both need to use Wikimedia
> marks ?
Because they might feel a need to identify themselves as part of
Wikimedia. Yes, there is much talk about use of Wikimedia trademarks
here, but I think that
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> Would you care to explain anything you're talking about?
>
> I don't see anything in the Licensing section that mentions anything
> about U.S. copyright law. It says the content is licensed under the GFDL
> and CC-BY-SA, and the Attribution se
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> Am I being dense, or are you being silly? Blocking advocacy from a site with
> a NPOV policy is a bajillion miles from being censorship.
It may be a bajillion miles, I still think it's closer to it than
giving the possibility to peop
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> Do you remember your last mail in which you said that my viewpoints are
> extreme? I was writing that considering anything controversial or not
> are the only neutral positions to take. You opposed it strongly. Now you
> start your claim w
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> Am 29.11.2011 14:40, schrieb Andre Engels:
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The problem starts at the point where the user does not choose the
>>> image(s) for hi
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Alasdair wrote:
> So a big objection is that any "sets" of filters is not so much to the "weak"
> filtering on wikipedia but that such "sets" would enable other censors to
> more easily make a form of "strong" censorship of wikipedia where some images
> were n
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> I neither agree. We decide what belongs to which preset (or who will do
> it?), and it is meant to filter out controversial content. Therefore we
> define what controversial content is, - or at least we tell the people,
> what we think, th
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> The problem starts at the point where the user does not choose the
> image(s) for himself and uses a predefined set on what should no be
> shown. Someone will have to create this sets and this will be
> unavoidably a violation of NPOV in t
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> If the filter is predefined then it might meet the personal preference
> and can be easy to use. But it will be an violation of NPOV, since
> someone else (a group of reader/users) would have to define it. That
> isn't user initiated cens
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:58 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> At this point you appear to be stretching to keep a flame war going.
Stretching? It seemed like a valid chain of reasoning to me. But if
you don't agree, please give your line of reasoning as to how your
statement was a refutation of, or ev
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:14 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 28 November 2011 10:07, Andre Engels wrote:
>
>> You're saying that anything that is not wanted by more than a few
>> people goes against our core mission?
>
>
> No, and nor did I say anything that could
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:43 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 28 November 2011 09:34, Andre Engels wrote:
>
>> Our core mission is making information and knowledge available to
>> people who want it, not pushing it down their throats against their
>> will.
>
>
> Sho
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> I think the fundamental error in this reasoning is that you seem to under the
> impression that this is something new here that is considered, and that there
> have only been a few people commenting on these different schemes. The
>
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Not sure if this is appropriate for this list, but just for lulz. A
> finnish member of
> parliament just got caught for his speech being a word for word piece of
> snippets from a Finnish Wikipedia article. No intervening binding li
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
> we recently did some practice on italian wikipedia, are we going to protest
> IP legislation in US by taking down English Wikipedia?
>
>
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/disastrous-ip-legislation-back-%E2%80%93-and-it%E2%80%99s-worse-
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Peter Damian
wrote:
> A general question: is there a Wikipedian ideology? What is it? In
> particular, how does the current ideology, if there is one, compare with the
> ideology which inspired its founding fathers. And mothers - many of the
> founding editors o
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Castelo wrote:
> On 21-10-2011 03:06, Andreas K. wrote:
> > the
> > median is always smaller than the average.
> There's no such relation between median and average:
>
> {20, 21, 24, 26, 28}: Median (24) > Average (23.8)
> {20, 22, 24, 26, 28}: Median (24) = Averag
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> What I like about this proposal is its simplicity and elegance. It has the
> great benefit of leaving the communities and content writers in charge of
> where and to what extent they use the filter, and it also includes
> non-logged-in user
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> > That is just completely untrue. The image filter will allow people to
> > choose what to see and what not to see. We won't be making the
> > decisions...
> >
>
>
> Actually, "we" will be. Depending upon how such a system is implemented, it
>
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 7:07 AM, aude wrote:
> Rather than 10th birthday for the projects, I think he's talking about as
> an
> editor. Anyone here who has been editing for 10 years? ;)
>
Plus a few months, my first edits were from March 2001.
--
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
__
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 1:19 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One of my objections that I hope some others share is that an IP based
> system inevitably means one person deciding what others may see - which to
> my mind is the point where an image filter becomes a cen
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Tobias Oelgarte <
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I still can't the a rational difference between images included in
> articles by the will of the community and text passages included by the
> will of the community.
It's much easier to note offensive te
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Oliver Koslowski wrote:
> Am 18.09.2011 13:56, schrieb Andre Engels:
> > On itself the one who tags the image, but we happen to have a system for
> > that in Wikimedia. It is called discussion and trying to reach consent.
> Who
> > decide
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay. Is there a commitment on the part of the foundation that they will
> help
> people using our filtering scheme and the usual browser add-ons to Wmake it
> impossible to view material on wikipedia from sch
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Tobias Oelgarte <
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am 18.09.2011 09:46, schrieb Andre Engels:
> > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen<
> cimonav...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> Wikimedia
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Wikimedia *used* to hold the position that we wouldn't aid China to block
> images of the Tianamen Massacre, and went to great lengths to assure
> that chinese users of Wikipedia could evade blocks to viewing. I am not
> sure you ar
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:16 PM, David Levy wrote:
> > I find it strange that you consider this an objection to a filter.
> Surely,
> > giving someone an imperfect choice of what they consider objectionable is
> > _less_ making a decision for them than judging in advance that nothing is
> > obje
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Tobias Oelgarte <
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> This would imply that the referendum indeed asked the wrong questions.
> If all would have equal values, then i must wonder about the strong
> difference in result. We have a referendum which points out th
Sorry, I dropped some hot food on me as I wrote this, and then apparently
accidentily hit sent.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Tobias Oelgarte <
> tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would not have any pro
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Tobias Oelgarte <
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I would not have any problems if we would not play in the hands of
> censors (local ISPs, a simple proxy, regimes, institutions, ...) by
> actually labeling content as objectionable. Which gives away the co
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Tobias Oelgarte <
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> You would have to proof that your facts are indeed true. But if you
> accept it as a huge difference between cultures, how can you impose a
> filter for a culture that doesn't need it or wants it?
>
Just
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> This is an interesting point. In some ways Wikipedia has so fetishised
> reliability that there isn't much room for oral histories and memoirs.
> We can contact and communicate with each other by electronic means far
> more efficiently than
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
> Can you help me in understanding in why such a user control feature may
> possibly bring more people to Wikipedia?
By giving people who do not want to run the risk of seeing certain images
that they disagree with one less reason to _not_
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Tobias Oelgarte <
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Does rebranding change anything then the "name" or "appearance"?
>
> Or better asked: Does it help to solve any of our real problems?
>
It might be useful in reducing confusion - when saying that one is on
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:24 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> >
> > Are there any encyclopedia which have been
> > classified/banned/bowlderised by any country in the last 50 years?
> >
> > If Wikipedia is a quality encyclopedia, most rating agenc
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> Can not you just introduce a flag of a "trusted editor", similar to an
> autoreviewer? I mean, if the news creator is a en.wp administrator most
> probably he/she is not a vandal trying to post junk in the Google News. Why
> this message
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Thomas Morton
wrote:
> But as Tom say, online media has quickly found that the traditional
> editorial process doesn't work so well on the internet. On the other hand
> the net does allow very quick rewrite & expansion for a developing story.
>
> It's this last ste
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Risker wrote:
> On 5 September 2011 11:02, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
>
> > On 05/09/2011 10:55 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> > > As to why no-one is distributing a "filtered" version of Wikipedia, I
> > > think that falls more under the general heading of "where are the
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> The selection of labels isn't supposed to be unbiased. Users select
> whichever labels they want. All you have to do is make sure it's easy
> for people to create new labels if none of the existing ones fit their
> needs, and you're sorted.
>
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter >wrote:
> >
> > Did the idea of the second trial get any momentum in the end of the day?
> > As a en.wp newbie, I could only find the poll that the trial has been
> > discontinued, but n
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:25 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Risker wrote:
> > I have a hard
> > time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the
> > community. They're representative of people who like to join chapters.
>
> I agree with
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Krinkle wrote:
> I haven't fully read the context of this thread, but something that
> did cross my
> mind recently, why do we treat YouTube-links different from other
> links here?
>
> Aren't most of our sources and external linked websites atleast as
> copyrigh
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:32 AM, emijrp wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct_language
>
> "It is believed that 90% of the circa 7,000 languages currently spoken in
> the world will have become extinct by 2050, as the world's language system
> has reached a crisis and is dramatically res
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:03 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> The relevant paragraph appears to be
> http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sokpop#Ontsnappingsclausule
>
> The Google translation is "In order to be unblocked, the person behind
> the corresponding IP address is a letter (paper) to a comm
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:07 AM, teun spaans wrote:
> None of these 5 seem to qualify as fitting into the gap of death of the
> author between 50 and 70 years ago, though for File:Alicebeggar.png and
> File:AliceSilvy.png: this is not 100% sure - if the artist was 20 years old
> in 1861, and be
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Rui Correia wrote:
> I know I am in the wrong place for this. Normally this kind of thing would/
> should go on the "discuss" pages, but category discuss pages don't attract
> much attention.
>
> If you consult Categories: Sailors/ Navigators/ Explorers, you will
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On 05/22/2011 06:41 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
>> An interesting "aside" on this would be...
>>
>> What is the quality of the foreign-language Wiki's that currently exist. For
>> example; the articles in my specific technical topic area have a
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 7:13 PM, wrote:
> You're missing my point.
> All the Latin languages "share a common writing system" and "only differ in
> the way the language is spoken".
>
> Address the point that the "words" within the system have the same semantic
> *meaning* and are formed with the
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Those are preliminary results. We have two chapters (and strategic
> focus) in countries of the list above. Inside of the longer list, which
> should be verified, we have more chapters. I noted that there are even
> two languages of Germany w
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Thomas Morton
wrote:
> In a number of years things may change, and ultimately the photo will
> definitely be out of copyright wherever and whenever published though the
> simple passing of time :)
If the US keeps its speed of extending copyright by 20 years in 22
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Joan Goma wrote:
> As Ray saids legal prosecution to claim for formal accomplishing of the
> copyright terms is expensive and difficult. But the same happens the other
> way around.
>
> I would like to have a clear legal opinion about applying the terms without
> g
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
> You do have the power! The world as immensely changed in the last few
> years thanks to the internet. Internet is just about connecting people
> and every little step is a change. Get an idea, get community members
> sharing it then you c
Lowering the edit counts sounds good, it does however also have a
downside, in that it makes it easier to vote using sockpuppets or
meatpuppets.
I agree with voices speaking out against giving voting rights based on
donations; I do also think giving people voting rights based only on
being 'reader
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> I can see where this ends: biased editors in control; no discussion, no
> appeal, disagree and you're history.
That is indeed a risk. There seems to be no way out. Either you treat
trolls as deccent editors, or you treat decent editors as tr
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> That's precisely the problem. Being able to remove the right to edit BLPs
> from a user, irrespective of whether they have been uncivil etc., just
> based on the nature of their edits, is the only thing that will solve it.
>
> Knowing that t
I may sound negative, as said, I know much has been tried, and little
succeeded. I do really hope this does work, and am well willing to
think along to try to make it that way. In fact, it is not that far
from ideas that I have developed myself or with other users on IRC as
well - although I was pu
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:35 PM, FT2 wrote:
> During the strategy taskforce, the quality team came to two conclusions that
> are similar to some ideas in this thread, but avoid the issues mentioned.
[snip]
First, let me apologize beforehand for sounding too cynical, but I
have many years of ex
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
> Mi ne havas kontraŭstaron pri Esperanto en ĉi tiu specifa temo. Bedaŭrinde
> mankas Google traduki en ĉi tiu lingvo!
Machine translation from Esperanto to English or Hungarian is possible
at http://traduku.net
--
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Are there any checkusers that aren't admins already? Checkuser is an
> extra tool given to admins, not a tool given out independantly of
> other tools.
On Dutch Wikipedia we currently have 5 checkusers, only 2 of which are
admins. The other
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> Yes, raw data is a primary source and therefore likely unsuitable for en:wp.
>
> The raw data is, however, US government public domain and therefore
> suitable for Wikisource as an important historical text (which it is).
> Possibly when the
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 6:26 AM, wrote:
> In a message dated 11/28/2010 9:06:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> russnel...@gmail.com writes:
>
> Yes I agree, the policy is extremely vague.
> We may be struck by lightning, we may be abducted by aliens, we may be
> sentient beings.
> May doesn't say an
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> My precise question is: Does US law follow local copyright laws in
> relation to the works published locally and by authors with local
> citizenship? Or not?
No, many countries apply the 'law of shorter term' (that is, works
from other count
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Lennart Guldbrandsson
wrote:
> Did you know that less than a third of the users who create an account on
> English Wikipedia make even *one* edit afterwards? Two-thirds of all new
> accounts never edit! Interestingly, this percentage vary very much from
> language
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> The backlash had the potential of stopping all new Wikipedias in any
> language. To prevent this from happening, the language committee and its
> policy were created. This policy was accepted by the board of trustees. With
> the flow of ne
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:13 AM, emijrp wrote:
> Also, reading the Privacy Policy[10] of the Wikimedia Foundation, you can
> see:
>
> User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User
> contributions are aggregated according to their registration and login
> status. Data on user
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
> Andre, I personally don't have a problem with the mere existence of
> the template. I have a huge problem with it appearing at the top of
> the mainpage of a Wikipedia.
And the reason for telling this to me is what?
--
André Engels, an
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Bod Notbod wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
>
>>> As to the best of my understanding
>>> Each and every single rule on Wikipedia is completely determined by
>>> WP:5P (and NPOV is one of them) in
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
>> So? Is every single rule on Wikipedia completely determined by NPOV?
>
> As to the best of my understanding
> Each and every single rule on Wikipedia is completely determined by
> WP:5P (and NPOV is one of them) in sense that no rule may con
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:14 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> That there is ambiguity at the edges does not disprove NPOV. Day fades
> into night, but they're different things. This template is blatant
> advocacy to violate NPOV, and indeed to do so across all Wikimedia
> sites. They had it up on the ma
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:25 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 16 July 2010 17:58, Excirial wrote:
>
>> If a culture sees these images as highly offensive, and if the main
>> complement of editors / readers agrees with this i wouldn't object to such a
>> rule, as long as it remained in their local Wik
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Muhammad Yahia wrote:
>> Acehnese Wikipedia is ready to boycott Wikipedia if there is fatwa from
>> competent ulama.
>
>
> In addition to trying to have a dialog with them and explain NPOV and the
> rest of the pillars, I think someone should explain that the money
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Good question! ;-)
> Storage is one issue.
> It would be interesting to estimate the storage requirements of
> Wikisource if we had produced the PGDP etexts.
I think it is the main reason; however, a back-of-the-envelope
calculation (20.0
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Samuel J Klein wrote:
> < PGDP has a very strict and arduous workflow... The
>> result is quality, however only the text is sent downstream.
>
> Why not send images and text downstream?
Because PGDP produces for Project Gutenberg, which publishes text and
html
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters
>> <17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote:
>>> Austin,
>>>
>>> Maybe you didn't realiz
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters
<17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote:
> Austin,
>
> Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity. Gerard's
> call for political activism against that organization is completely
> unacceptable and harms projects like my own that
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:17 PM, wrote:
> When I go to YouTube, the number of videos which are some bad amateur
> singer trying to sing some good song far outweigh the number of original
> videos
> of that song/group. The amount of free content in music, in general is
> rapidly approaching or
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Jeffrey Peters
<17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote:
> Thank you for clarifying. I put forth another email based on the expectation
> of the point you just made (so, thus, I am sorry for assuming you were
> speaking against the law and not in support of the licens
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> I love those proofreading features, and the new default layout for a
> book's pages and TOC. Wikisource is becoming AWESOME.
>
> Do we have PGDP contributors who can weigh on on how similar the
> processes are? Is there a way for us to actua
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Aphaia wrote:
> One thing we can do would be to make contributors' names more visible.
> Translators for WMF stuff too (Ting Chen made a good point about the
> latter in Alexandria). Many websites gives clear credits to
> contributors - not only for-profit media, b
I think that we cannot decide this for you, this is typically
something you (that is, the Persian Wikipedia community) have to
decide themselves. Having said that, the best strategy in my opinion
would be to do whatever is usual in Persian texts - which might well
be different for different tradema
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>> Is that possible without putting WMF lawyers in a tight spot?
>
> Sometimes. Sometimes not. (The issue is not so much putting lawyers in a
> tight spot as it is one of making WMF more vulnerable, e.g., by revealing
> defense strategies.)
Sure
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> When you look where what languages have their biggest audience, you will be
> surprised. The notion of most likely languages is either based on such
> statistics or it is only guess work. The best performance is when people can
> cho
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:13 AM, stevertigo wrote:
> Stephen Bain wrote:
>>It is not too broad; Commons has always distinguished itself in this
>>way from general purpose photo/media hosting services like Flickr or
>>YouTube.
>
> Andre Engels wrote:
>> I disag
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:05 AM, stevertigo wrote:
> Kat Walsh wrote:
>> "Commons should not be a host for media that has very
>> little informational or educational value
>
> This is too broad. Confine the scope toward dealing with what does not
> belong, rather than trying to suggest that every
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Noein wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/05/2010 05:51, Andre Engels wrote:
>> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Kim Bruning wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:23:28AM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
>&
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:23:28AM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
>> Being educational should be just another word for being in scope, and
>> in scope are, in my opinion, in the first place those files that are
>> usable for
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote:
> Okay, I've complained a lot, time to give something back.
>
> I think I've managed to create a sexual content policy that's
> consistent with the core values of commons and previous decisions,
> such as the artworks of Muhammed, while dealing
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 7:09 AM, K. Peachey wrote:
> Bugzilla 982[1] MediaWiki should support ICRA's PICS content labeling.
> From my understanding without reading much about it, It [ICRA] is ment
> to be a "international" or at least a standard for these things which
> most people seem to abide
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Alec Conroy wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>
>> I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do
>> things from the "Founder" flag.
>
> I appreciate this step, but the community has now firmly rejected your
> continued s
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
>>
>> So instead we just give in to them? We get attacked and decide to just
>> sit up like a good dog?
>
> No one is acting "like a good dog." Bad meta
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> It wasn't a response -- I hadn't read your comment yet. But when I did see
> your comment, I thought it missed the point that Fox was always going to
> congratulate itself on its story, regardless of what we did or didn't do in
> response. I'v
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:28 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> Guys,
> Lets get back to one point : terms of service.
>
> We are talking about copyright here the whole time, but the contract
> agreement in the terms of service are much more binding, they override
> your copyright.
>
> If
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:19 PM, James Alexander wrote:
> I would say claiming copyright on a map is legitimate but I think the big
> issue here is the geotag's themselves (i.e the locations) since so many
> people use google maps or another tool to find the geo location. The
> locations themselv
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> It's crazy. sv.wiki still has "unfree" logo on every page :)
>> It is "unfree" to protect wiki identity.
>>
>
> This is exactly right. If we had no copyright or trademark restrictions on
> the Wikimedia logos and marks, it would be trivial fo
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Przykuta wrote:
>> > Or just use common sense that it's silly for a Wikimedia project to say
>> > it's
>> > not allowed to use a logo own by Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>> It is not "common sense" to depend on the relationship between the
>> project and the hosti
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:36 AM, The Cunctator wrote:
> No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A "free"
> license is a copyright license.
So? What does that have to do with the post you are quoting, or
anything else in this thread?
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:11 PM,
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Chad wrote:
> While I don't agree that we need to take this away from the community
> and hand it to a team of lawyers, I must say that the "practical training"
> caught my eye.
>
> Would it be possible for the Foundation to get Mike--and other people
> who actua
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2010/1/19 Domas Mituzas :
>> Hello dear people,
>>
>> there's something very very very special about the video at
>> http://cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2010/01/19/ctw.connector.jimmy.wales.cnn
>> You can definitely see that organization just
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Ziko van Dijk wrote:
>> Thank you for the numbers, Erik!
>> I wonder why 40 % of the visitors of ksh.WP (the dialect of Cologne) are
>> from Japan. And why 25 % of the visitors of eu.WP (Basque) are from Poland?
>
> Bots?
I think that's a
1 - 100 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
