Дана Wednesday 04 March 2009 19:00:25 Thomas Dalton написа:
> maintaining what they consider adequate attribution). The options
> given, in order of simplest to most difficult are:
>
> No credit
> Credit to "Wikipedia" (or similar)
> Link to article
> Link to history
> link online, full list of aut
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic :
>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:28 PM, geni wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic :
>>>
>
>
Should we treat such persons systematically or it is better to add
some exceptional rules? Something like to give a mandate to WMF to
>>
geni wrote:
> 2009/3/10 Ray Saintonge:
>
>> Milos Rancic wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM, geni wrote:
>>>
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic:
> So, they don't care about their own copyright law.
>
Common law is very much driven by legal pre
2009/3/10 Ray Saintonge :
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM, geni wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic :
>>>
So, they don't care about their own copyright law.
>>> Common law is very much driven by legal precedent. Looking to see what
>>> similar legal systems have
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Sage Ross wrote:
>> This is a typical pattern when a complex technology is introduced in
>> the presence of a simpler one; it's not a simple matter of
>> replacement, and old technologies (where the infrastructure is easy to
>> maintain) can s
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer
wrote:
> p.s. Personally, discussions of "offline" here and everywhere (say,
> accessibility of educational materials) are absurdly myopic.
> Consideration of offline use is about as relevant now as consideration
> of horse stables in urban plannin
David Gerard wrote:
> Remember that licenses are not merely a game of Nomic, but responses
> to a given legal threat model.
>
Not necessarily a "given" legal threat, but an even weaker "perceived"
legal threat.
> In this case, the threat model is: what if some raving and/or
> malicious lunatic
Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM, geni wrote:
>
>> 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic :
>>
>>> So, they don't care about their own copyright law.
>>>
>> Common law is very much driven by legal precedent. Looking to see what
>> similar legal systems have done is a fairly comm
Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Sage Ross
> wrote:
>
>> This is a typical pattern when a complex technology is introduced in
>> the presence of a simpler one; it's not a simple matter of
>> replacement, and old technologies (where the infrastructure is easy to
>> maintain
Sage Ross wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Chad wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>>
>>> p.s. Personally, discussions of "offline" here and everywhere (say,
>>> accessibility of educational materials) are absurdly myopic.
>>> Consideration of offli
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Anthony:
>
>> What constitutes a significant majority? What if the survey results had
>> said that a significant majority was happy with their work being released
>> into the public domain. Would you then find it reasonable to release
>> *everyone's* work into t
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic :
>> So, they don't care about their own copyright law.
>
> Common law is very much driven by legal precedent. Looking to see what
> similar legal systems have done is a fairly common approach.
>
> That said Kenya allows for up 6
2009/3/9 Brian :
> "horrificly bad question?"
>
> Surely you can't be serious? This is just sensationalism.
1)It isn't actually a question so pretty much by definition a bad question
2)It's a rather vague pseudo question about a legal matter which is
always a bad idea which kicks it into horrific
"horrificly bad question?"
Surely you can't be serious? This is just sensationalism.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:40 AM, geni wrote:
> 2009/3/9 Mike Linksvayer :
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM, geni wrote:
>>> 2009/3/6 Mike Linksvayer :
Yes.
Mike (not the CC counsel but just spo
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic :
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:28 PM, geni wrote:
>> 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic :
>>> Should we treat such persons systematically or it is better to add
>>> some exceptional rules? Something like to give a mandate to WMF to
>>> solve problems of types like giving a formal permissio
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic :
> So, they don't care about their own copyright law.
Common law is very much driven by legal precedent. Looking to see what
similar legal systems have done is a fairly common approach.
That said Kenya allows for up 6 years of jail time for some forms of
copyright infringem
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:28 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic :
>> And Kenyans would care about US and European copyright laws? :))) And
>> we would care why they didn't attribute us? In such cases, those who
>> care from both sides are maybe ignorants, maybe idealists, but they
>> are defin
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic :
> And Kenyans would care about US and European copyright laws? :))) And
> we would care why they didn't attribute us? In such cases, those who
> care from both sides are maybe ignorants, maybe idealists, but they
> are definitely stupid.
>
Kenyan copyright law is ultimately
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Sage Ross wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Chad wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer
>> wrote:
>>> p.s. Personally, discussions of "offline" here and everywhere (say,
>>> accessibility of educational materials) are absurdly myopic.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Chad wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer
> wrote:
>> p.s. Personally, discussions of "offline" here and everywhere (say,
>> accessibility of educational materials) are absurdly myopic.
>> Consideration of offline use is about as relevant now
2009/3/9 Mike Linksvayer :
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM, geni wrote:
>> 2009/3/6 Mike Linksvayer :
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Mike (not the CC counsel but just spoke to her)
>>
>> And what was the exact wording of the question asked and what was the
>> line of reasoning?
>
> The question was whether at
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer
wrote:
> p.s. Personally, discussions of "offline" here and everywhere (say,
> accessibility of educational materials) are absurdly myopic.
> Consideration of offline use is about as relevant now as consideration
> of horse stables in urban plannin
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/3/6 Mike Linksvayer :
>> Yes.
>>
>> Mike (not the CC counsel but just spoke to her)
>
> And what was the exact wording of the question asked and what was the
> line of reasoning?
The question was whether attribution by URL works offline as well
2009/3/6 Mike Linksvayer :
> Yes.
>
> Mike (not the CC counsel but just spoke to her)
And what was the exact wording of the question asked and what was the
line of reasoning?
--
geni
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsu
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Erik Moeller :
>> 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton :
>>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>>> CC lawyers?
>>
>> We've been in repeated
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:18 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> Part of my questioning the survey is because
> its design explicitly excludes the opinions of
> people like my friend, who edits under an IP afaik.
If they didn't include *all* visitors to the site then it really is a
biased sample. Collect fr
For what it's worth, what Nathan says basically sums up my concerns as
well. I think for a (relatively informal, community-opinion) survey
it's less important to have an absolutely rigorous methodology (not
what I was asking for) than it is to ask the question: is this good
enough for our purposes?
The official results of the survey haven't even been announced yet,
and already it is being accused of bias. Have any of you actually
looked at the survey? It does include demographic questions and it's a
ranked preference poll. If someone were trying to skew the results in
a particular way, this s
Gregory Kohs wrote:
>> *Phil Nash* pn007a2145 at blueyonder.co.uk said:
>>
>> ++
>> Except of course, that such a survey would arguably not have
>> "preconceived desires". So much for empiricism!
>> ++
>>
>> I offered to give some pro bono guidance on overcoming (to a degree)
>> self-select
As a non-statistician (and, from this list, you'd think there are lots of
professional statisticians participating...), can one of the experts explain
the practical implications of the bias of this survey? It seems fairly
informal, intended perhaps to be food for thought but not a definitive
answer
Gregory Kohs wrote:
>> *phoebe ayers* phoebe.wiki at gmail.com writes:
>>
>> ++
>> I'm not sure there's any way to get a non-self-selected survey about
>> anything on the projects due to anonymity concerns.
>> ++
>>
>> I'm a 17-year veteran of implementing professional quantitative
>> surve
This entire field has been formalized but in my experience the key
things to worry about are experimenter and subject bias.
Experimenter bias in a survey context means that the survey writer
(Erik) has expectations about the likely community answers. This has
been clearly demonstrated, as he alrea
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Phoebe writes:
>
> This is a very small, self-selected sample; there would be
>> no harm or cost associated with turning it on for a much larger
>> percentage (or all) of logged-in users on the top-ten languages, not
>> just English or German a
2009/3/4 Mike Godwin :
> Phoebe writes:
>
> This is a very small, self-selected sample; there would be
>> no harm or cost associated with turning it on for a much larger
>> percentage (or all) of logged-in users on the top-ten languages, not
>> just English or German alone, which both have peculiar
Phoebe writes:
This is a very small, self-selected sample; there would be
> no harm or cost associated with turning it on for a much larger
> percentage (or all) of logged-in users on the top-ten languages, not
> just English or German alone, which both have peculiarities associated
> with being t
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
> > I'm not a statistician, someone else can work out how large a majority
> > is needed from a sample size of 570 to be confident (at the 95% level,
> > say?) that a majority of the pop
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I'm not a statistician, someone else can work out how large a majority
> is needed from a sample size of 570 to be confident (at the 95% level,
> say?) that a majority of the population as a whole agrees.
If the 570 people are a RANDOM sampl
(Last email, since I received this I was I was typing what was meant
to be the last one. Then I'll really stop.)
2009/3/4 Anthony :
> What if the FSF could be convinced to come up with a GFDL 1.4 which makes it
> legal?
They can't. The GFDL requires future versions to be in the same spirit.
>> I
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Anthony :
> >> How are you going to define "ethical"? It's an entirely subjective
> >> concept, a vote is pretty much the only way we can handle it.
> >
> >
> > I define ethical as that which promotes "the good life". I don't think
>
2009/3/4 Anthony :
> This is more than just an "argument" if it's being used to purport to give
> copyright licenses away. In fact, it's not much of an "argument" at all -
> arguments aren't won by voting, unless you're defining the "argument" as
> which position more people agree with.
I've made
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Anthony :
> > What constitutes a significant majority? What if the survey results had
> > said that a significant majority was happy with their work being released
> > into the public domain. Would you then find it reasonable to rel
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Anthony :
> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> > I imagine
> >> most Wikimedians are sufficiently mature to accept it if the majority
> >> disagree with them.
> >>
> >
> > Accept what, that the majority disagre
2009/3/4 phoebe ayers :
> I know there's time pressure on this... but on the other hand, we've
> waited years :) It would be worthwhile to get better stats before
> making sweeping generalizations about the community's desires.
That we've waited years is irrelevant. We make a decision soon, or the
2009/3/4 Anthony :
> Order of difficulty is not the same as order of happiness. I would be
> happier with "no credit" than "credit to Wikipedia".
You have declared previously on this list that you do not contribute
and in fact have tried to repudiate all your past contributions. As
such, it's e
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Marco Chiesa wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> > And yes, 80% of people ranked one of 4 options which I consider
>> > unacceptable
>> > first. But then, 67% of people would have done so
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> Do we really want to only listen to the opinions of those people
> >> actually willing to make a fuss if they don't get thei
2009/3/4 Anthony :
> What constitutes a significant majority? What if the survey results had
> said that a significant majority was happy with their work being released
> into the public domain. Would you then find it reasonable to release
> *everyone's* work into the public domain?
No, because
2009/3/4 Anthony :
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> Do we really want to only listen to the opinions of those people
>> actually willing to make a fuss if they don't get their way?
>>
>
> We should. If someone isn't willing to make a fuss if they don't get their
> way, t
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> Do we really want to only listen to the opinions of those people
>> actually willing to make a fuss if they don't get their way?
>
> We should. If someone isn't willing to make a fuss if the
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Do we really want to only listen to the opinions of those people
> actually willing to make a fuss if they don't get their way?
>
We should. If someone isn't willing to make a fuss if they don't get their
way, they don't really care in the f
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Anthony :
> > You're assuming that those who ranked "no credit is needed" first will be
> > happy with attribution by URL, and you're assuming that those who ranked
> > "credit can be given to the community" will by happy with attribu
2009/3/4 Marco Chiesa :
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>>
>> And yes, 80% of people ranked one of 4 options which I consider
>> unacceptable
>> first. But then, 67% of people would have done so even if everyone chose
>> their answers randomly.
>
>
> Now, how many of the 20% wh
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Marco Chiesa wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > And yes, 80% of people ranked one of 4 options which I consider
> > unacceptable
> > first. But then, 67% of people would have done so even if everyone chose
> > their answers randomly.
>
>
2009/3/4 Anthony :
> You're assuming that those who ranked "no credit is needed" first will be
> happy with attribution by URL, and you're assuming that those who ranked
> "credit can be given to the community" will by happy with attribution by
> URL. But these people will also probably be happy w
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> And yes, 80% of people ranked one of 4 options which I consider
> unacceptable
> first. But then, 67% of people would have done so even if everyone chose
> their answers randomly.
Now, how many of the 20% who wants their name cited would have
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> The numbers given by Erik at the start of this thread are sufficient
>> to draw the conclusion that a significant majority of the community
>> will be happy with attribution by URL.
>>
>
>
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Anthony :
> > 1) Have the numbers been released? All I saw was a selective summary.
> > 2) What do you think they're conclusive of?
>
> The numbers given by Erik at the start of this thread are sufficient
> to draw the conclusion th
2009/3/4 Anthony :
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> And that explicitly included offline reuse? If so, it looks like we're
>> ready to present a final proposal for the community to vote on. Even
>> with such a small sample size, those numbers are pretty conclusive.
>>
>
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> And that explicitly included offline reuse? If so, it looks like we're
> ready to present a final proposal for the community to vote on. Even
> with such a small sample size, those numbers are pretty conclusive.
>
1) Have the numbers been re
2009/3/4 Geoffrey Plourde :
> They wrote the damned thing, so they are most likely to understand it.
So? Their line of reasoning will still be very much based on the
questions asked and the outcomes they have considered.
--
geni
___
foundation-l mail
2009/3/4 Erik Moeller :
> We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
> attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that
> attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is
> consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*.
From: geni
What is their
2009/3/4 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton :
>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>> CC lawyers?
>
> We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
> attribution models.
trafic
> --Original Message--
> From: Erik Moeller
> Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
> Sent: Mar 4, 2009 1
l Message--
> From: Erik Moeller
> Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
> Sent: Mar 4, 2009 10:15 AM
>
> 2009
: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
Sent: Mar 4, 2009 10:15 AM
2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton :
> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
> CC lawyers?
We've been in repeated
-l] Attribution survey, first results
Sent: Mar 4, 2009 10:41 AM
2009/3/4 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton :
>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>> CC lawye
They wrote the damned thing, so they are most likely to understand it.
From: geni
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 7:41:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/4 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/
2009/3/4 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton :
>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>> CC lawyers?
>
> We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
> attribution models.
2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton :
> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
> CC lawyers?
We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
attribution models. CC counsel has commented specific
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>
>> I think it is very on point to mention that even if some
>> things were on that list, that would not make them
>> *more* acceptable to the community, just by virtue of
>> them being considered allowable by CC lawyers, if
>> they were i
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> I think it is very on point to mention that even if some
> things were on that list, that would not make them
> *more* acceptable to the community, just by virtue of
> them being considered allowable by CC lawyers, if
> they were infact contrary to our mission.
I
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>
>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>>> CC lawyers? They wrote the license, so their interpretat
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>> CC lawyers? They wrote the license, so their interpretation of it is
>> highly relevant. Communi
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/3 Erik Moeller :
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> as some of you may have seen, I've run a small survey over the
>> weekend, scattered via a 5% site-notice on the English Wikipedia for
>> signed in users. The result is a self-selected sample of authors. I'll
>> publish the ful
2009/3/3 Erik Moeller :
> Hello all,
>
> as some of you may have seen, I've run a small survey over the
> weekend, scattered via a 5% site-notice on the English Wikipedia for
> signed in users. The result is a self-selected sample of authors. I'll
> publish the full anonymous raw data later this we
75 matches
Mail list logo
