A short note on an individual basis of my own (not community's behalf):
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Philippe Beaudette
wrote:
> To be very clear: a decision on English Wikipedia to take action on this is
> not binding on Commons.
Fine but it wouldn't be a bad idea to consider if each other
Le 14/01/2012 08:20, Yaroslav M. Blanter a écrit :
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:58:41 +, Tom Morris wrote:
>> I think the concern will be dependent on whether Commons is covered in
>> the blackout (and whether the 'full' shutdown goes ahead or the
>> 'pop-up plus banners' that seems to be getting
To be very clear: a decision on English Wikipedia to take action on this is
not binding on Commons.
___
Philippe Beaudette
Head of Reader Relations
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 6643
phili...@wikimedia.org
To check my email volume (and thus know approx how long it wi
On 14 January 2012 12:20, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:58:41 +, Tom Morris wrote:
>
>> I think the concern will be dependent on whether Commons is covered in
>> the blackout (and whether the 'full' shutdown goes ahead or the
>> 'pop-up plus banners' that seems to be ge
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:58:41 +, Tom Morris wrote:
> I think the concern will be dependent on whether Commons is covered in
> the blackout (and whether the 'full' shutdown goes ahead or the
> 'pop-up plus banners' that seems to be getting most traction on
> enwiki).
>
> I'm seeing a rough cons
On 14 January 2012 10:58, Tom Morris wrote:
> I'm seeing a rough consensus for action on English Wikipedia, and
> German Wikipedians seem to be up for acting in solidarity, but, as
> I've said on the page on enwiki, I don't see how enwiki consensus for
> a SOPA action ought to bind other proejcts
On 14 January 2012 10:15, Bastien Guerry wrote:
> Ryan Kaldari writes:
>
>> I think Liam and Dominic are correct on this. Most cultural
>> institutions, especially libraries, are very much on our side on
>> copyright issues.
>
> I have no doubt on this.
>
> But see my concrete real-world example,
Ryan Kaldari writes:
> I think Liam and Dominic are correct on this. Most cultural
> institutions, especially libraries, are very much on our side on
> copyright issues.
I have no doubt on this.
But see my concrete real-world example, where the Archives of Toulouse
uses © for pictures whil
Bastien Guerry wrote:
> A nice side-effect of such a black-out will be to send GLAM
> institutions this message: "Don't use Wikipedia as a storage
> service, use your own websites and free licenses instead."
I think this would make a much better CentralNotice banner...
Apparently there's now a vo
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> Relatedly, where is the updated, latest discussion on what Wikimedia's
> response (if anything) is going to be?
> Presumably there is are several on-wiki debates, but because there are
> different potential "levels" of blackout (all project blac
I think Liam and Dominic are correct on this. Most cultural
institutions, especially libraries, are very much on our side on
copyright issues. For example, the American Library Association
enthusiastically joined us in our amicus brief on Golan v. Holder last
year. While there are a few art gal
On 13 January 2012 09:45, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> On 13 January 2012 14:22, Bastien Guerry wrote:
>
> >
> > I still expect some of them to react in a way that will make them think
> > twice before participating to an upload project. But maybe that's just
> > me being pessimistic.
> >
>
> ...
>
> In
Liam Wyatt writes:
> Well if it's a public cultural institution I would certainly hope
> that they're not giving us the only copy of the file!
Not the only copy... but perhaps the "only freely licensed one".
> That would be a terrible use of their role as guardians of their
> country/region/
On 13 January 2012 14:22, Bastien Guerry wrote:
> Liam Wyatt writes:
>
> > We have never proposed Wikimedia Commons as a storage service for
> > GLAMs. We have always said they should have their own catalogue and
> > share copies of their multimedia with us (and everyone else) under a
> > free l
Liam Wyatt writes:
> We have never proposed Wikimedia Commons as a storage service for
> GLAMs. We have always said they should have their own catalogue and
> share copies of their multimedia with us (and everyone else) under a
> free license. That gives provenance and verifiability. We are not a
>> I would not spend time, energy and money on a service that
>> can block my contents without even warning and/or asking me.
>>
>> Especially if I'm a public service, which is often the case
>> for GLAMs.
>>
>> --
>> Bastien
>>
>
...
> Temporarily disabling access in protest is not the same as
On 13 January 2012 13:27, Bastien Guerry wrote:
> A nice side-effect of such a black-out will be to send GLAM
> institutions this message: "Don't use Wikipedia as a storage
> service, use your own websites and free licenses instead."
>
> I would not spend time, energy and money on a service that
A nice side-effect of such a black-out will be to send GLAM
institutions this message: "Don't use Wikipedia as a storage
service, use your own websites and free licenses instead."
I would not spend time, energy and money on a service that
can block my contents without even warning and/or asking m
Just a quick note that it was the subject of yesterday's office hours,
which includes several links to on-Wiki discussions:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2012-01-12
Maggie
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:21 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> Relatedly, where is the updated, latest
Relatedly, where is the updated, latest discussion on what Wikimedia's
response (if anything) is going to be?
Presumably there is are several on-wiki debates, but because there are
different potential "levels" of blackout (all project blackout, geo-located
blackout, single-project blackout, protest
There is a dedicated website too.
http://www.wikipediablackout.com/
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:58 AM, emijrp wrote:
> Forwarding an alarming e-mail for your interest.
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Wade Mollison
> Date: 2012/1/13
> Subject: Wikipedia
> To: "\"emijrp\""
>
> E
Forwarding an alarming e-mail for your interest.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Wade Mollison
Date: 2012/1/13
Subject: Wikipedia
To: "\"emijrp\""
Emily,
Quick request: Wikipedia is considering going dark to protest SOPA and
PIPA, the Internet censorship bills.
*It'd be huge new
22 matches
Mail list logo
