Let me make a few basic points here.
1. Obviously, we usually have no way of knowing what an editor's personal
beliefs or even activities are, unless he or she voluntarily discloses them.
2. At least on English Wikipedia, and I assume on other projects where the
issue has come up, there has been
> access can formulate an opinion is probably not even legally allowed.
> > >
> > > A book can be found in a library and consequently there is a way to
> > verify.
> > > Thanks,
> > >GerardM
> > >
> > > 2009/11/23 Newyorkbrad (W
By that logic, a book, which costs money to buy, would never be a
"verifiable source" either.
We might *prefer* to cite free (gratis) accessible sources over others, all
things being equal, but the fact that a source is behind a paywall does not
negate verifiability.
Newyorkbrad
On Mon, Nov 23,
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/081296p.pdf
This is a Seventh Circuit case decided earlier this month dealing with the
copyright status of photographs under U.S. law, and may be of interest to
those following developments in this area. In this case, the court finds
that photographs
I'm not sure who is the appropriate person to contact the gallery to address
this issue, but I hope that it can be done as tactfully and
non-confrontationally as possible, and I trust that there will have been
consultation with the Office before any comments of a legal nature are made.
Newyorkbrad
You know ... I can't think of a single instance in which I've ever seen
Wikipedia content reused in which the GFDL was followed. In EVERY instance,
the attribution has either been messed up or omitted altogether.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, of course.
Newyorkbrad
On Thu, May 28, 2009 a
Would a 10-day period (including two weekends) be possible?
Newyorkbrad
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:16 PM, philippe wrote:
> Ah, OK, sorry for my misunderstanding of the question.
>
> Indeed, we had that same discussion amongst the committee. In the
> end, the vote timing is driven by Wikimania
Is an Elections Committee being appointed, or has one been?
Newyorkbrad
On 5/27/09, effe iets anders wrote:
> Hm, that was also the information I got :)
>
> Besides that, I personally feel that one week in the middle of the
> vacation is somewhat short for an internet election. Is there an
> urg
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:16 AM, effe iets anders
> wrote:
>> as long as they convert /before/ the deadline...
>
> Exactly.And there are some energetic new projects such as Medpedia
> that are just getting off the ground, with enthusiastic new authors
> and a c
Thanks for circulating this.
Not to create a self-fulfilling prophecy here, but I suspect that 90%
or more of those affected by this issue will not care or will not
understand the urgency, and they will not do anything, either on their
own sites or on-wiki. What are the practical implications of t
Actually, I was thinking primarily of userspace.
Newyorkbrad
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:44 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/2/23 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) :
>
> > However, one question that I have is whether the dump includes, or should
> > conclude, all namespaces, or only arti
I'm not familiar with the details of the data dump process, so I can't
comment on whether it's broken or not.
However, one question that I have is whether the dump includes, or should
conclude, all namespaces, or only articles. In the past, there have
allegedly been instances in which database du
12 matches
Mail list logo
