On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Brian wrote:
> I'm not really clear on what a link is. You specify it as a URL, but a
> URL alone does not constitute a link. A link is the rendering of this
> code:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page";>label
>
> But the proposed attribution guideline says
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Here's a first crack at revised attribution language. When the
> language is completely finalized, I'll send a separate note explaining
> some of our reasoning for this general approach in more detail. In the
> meantime, I'd appreciate it if
2009/3/11 Erik Moeller :
> Here's a first crack at revised attribution language. When the
> language is completely finalized, I'll send a separate note explaining
> some of our reasoning for this general approach in more detail. In the
> meantime, I'd appreciate it if you could point out any bugs i
> Hello,
>
> I think this is a communety thing. Its to bad that you lost your
> adminship but why should people from other projects step in?
> I mean this is something on the en.source not a global thing.
> huib
>
> --
I have no idea of the en.ws situation, nor do I want to have any idea, but
I wo
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I think this is a communety thing. Its to bad that you lost your
>> adminship but why should people from other projects step in?
>> I mean this is something on the en.source not a global thing.
>> huib
>>
>> --
>
> I have
> We also
> received major gifts totaling USD 94m.
>
>
:O is this a typo or is it actually correct? Also if its possible could we
have slightly more info about who the donations were from and whether they
were targeted/restricted to any use?
regards
mark
__
I'm curious about the plans behind meeting with branding specialists. What
is the Foundation looking to achieve? Wider brand recognition of the
Foundation itself (as opposed to the English Wikipedia)? Research into brand
penetration and audience perception, that sort of thing?
Nathan
_
2009/3/11 Nathan :
> I'm curious about the plans behind meeting with branding specialists. What
> is the Foundation looking to achieve? Wider brand recognition of the
> Foundation itself (as opposed to the English Wikipedia)? Research into brand
> penetration and audience perception, that sort of t
Sue Gardner wrote:
> Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees [...]
> From December 9-15, Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner visited India.
It is great to read this report. But the archived version has been
cut (by a software bug) at the line starting with "From",
http://lists.wikimedia.or
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Sue Gardner wrote:
>
>> Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees [...]
>> From December 9-15, Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner visited India.
>
> It is great to read this report. But the archived version has been
> cut (by a software b
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer
wrote:
> 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 reas
I'd be happy to field that.
At this stage it's very simply conversations with those who have a
deeper understanding of brand, brand architecture, and brand
development. You raise probably the most important point of
discussion (which has been around for a long time, I'm sure) - How do
the
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Anthony wrote:
> I see you've posted a blog post (
> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/13232) which suggests that
> attribution by link was added in 2.5. You point to this a blog post by Mia
> Garlick (http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5447) announcing
--- On Wed, 3/11/09, John Vandenberg wrote:
> From: John Vandenberg
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 3:49 AM
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:05 PM,
> Yaroslav M. Blanter
> wrote:
> >> Hello,
>
Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Sue Gardner wrote:
>
>> Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees [...]
>> From December 9-15, Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner visited India.
>
> It is great to read this report. But the archived version has been
> cut (by a software bug) at the line starting with "
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Mike Linksvayer
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Anthony wrote:
> > I see you've posted a blog post (
> > http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/13232) which suggests that
> > attribution by link was added in 2.5. You point to this a blog post by
> Mi
> "either by, at your choice, including"
"at your choice" is unnecessarily verbose. The sentence has the same
meaning without the extra clause.
Ryan Kaldari
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikim
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Anthony wrote:
> In 1.0 and 2.0 I assume the appropriate section is 4(d).
>
Nevermind that, it's 4(c).
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/list
2009/3/11 Mark (Markie) :
>
>
>> We also
>> received major gifts totaling USD 94m.
>>
>>
>
> :O is this a typo or is it actually correct?
Sadly, it is a typo. The correct amount is 94K.
> Also if its possible could we
> have slightly more info about who the donations were from and whether they
2009/3/11 Lars Aronsson :
> Since the report was distributed just fine, I think that Mailman
> is fine, but the bug hides somewhere in Pipermail 0.09. It is
> perhaps related to "^From " being a message separator in the mbox
> format.
I noticed this as well; I'll try resending the report with the
2009/3/11 Mark (Markie) :
>
>>
>> We also
>> received major gifts totaling USD 94m.
>>
>
>
> :O is this a typo or is it actually correct? Also if its possible could we
> have slightly more info about who the donations were from and whether they
> were targeted/restricted to any use?
Erik is a f
[Resending for archival purposes on Sue's behalf; also fixed typo:
94m->94K --Erik]
Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
Covering: December 2008
Prepared by:Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Prepared for: Wikimedia Foundation Board o
2009/3/10 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>> b) a link to an
>> alternative online copy which is freely accessible and conforms with
>> the license and includes a list a list of all authors,
>
> What is the purpose of the wording "and
> includes a list a list of all authors," ?
b) in
2009/3/10 Sage Ross :
> This is unclear. "but must otherwise" can be read to apply only to
> rich media that are 5+ collaborations and for which a reuser chooses
> not to use the above "same fashion" author list. But I assume
> "attributed in the manner specified by the uploader" ought to apply
>
2009/3/11 Ryan Kaldari :
>> "either by, at your choice, including"
>
> "at your choice" is unnecessarily verbose. The sentence has the same
> meaning without the extra clause.
Removed it from the draft.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimedia
2009/3/11 Bence Damokos :
> From an attribution point of view, the definition of "full list of authors"
> that excludes very small contributions is not really acceptable to me.
> Imagine, that Joe only corrects spelling mistakes: arguably very small
> contributions - you wouldn't say he is the auth
2009/3/11 geni :
> Importing wikipedia content would be an absolute pain
Why? The language doesn't require you to include a full list of
authors. Only if you want your copy to be a "link-creditable" copy,
you would need to do so.
> and moveing
> article titles would result in some interesting leg
I exactly agree with Brigette on this one. This is the way to treat
all articles on their actual merits. But in
many cases the subject himself will come to the afd and express an
opinion, and we can not prevent that.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Birgitte SB wrote:
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 3/9/09,
Anthony wrote:
> In 1.0 and 2.0 I assume the appropriate section is 4(d). The
> change from 1.0 to 2.0 adds a requirement to specify a URL.
Copyright (and also the European author's rights / Urheberrecht)
used to be all about making copies, presumably physical copies. In
trials such as the on
[I've changed the subject line.]
2009/3/11 Lars Aronsson :
> If the content is free, people don't need to drink from our
> watertap. It's the water that's important, not the tap. We could
> have a minimal webserver to receive new edits. Serving replication
> feeds to a handful of media corporat
2009/3/11 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/3/11 geni :
>> Importing wikipedia content would be an absolute pain
>
> Why? The language doesn't require you to include a full list of
> authors. Only if you want your copy to be a "link-creditable" copy,
> you would need to do so.
Is provideing credit reasonable
2009/3/11 geni :
>> Why? The language doesn't require you to include a full list of
>> authors. Only if you want your copy to be a "link-creditable" copy,
>> you would need to do so.
> Is provideing credit reasonable to the medium or means an additional
> requirement?
No; the attribution terms me
2009/3/11 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/3/11 geni :
>>> Why? The language doesn't require you to include a full list of
>>> authors. Only if you want your copy to be a "link-creditable" copy,
>>> you would need to do so.
>
>> Is provideing credit reasonable to the medium or means an additional
>> requireme
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/3/10 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>
>> Erik Moeller wrote:
>>
>>> b) a link to an
>>> alternative online copy which is freely accessible and conforms with
>>> the license and includes a list a list of all authors,
>>>
>> What is the purpose of the wording "and
>
Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
Covering: January 2009
Prepared by:Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Prepared for: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
MY CURRENT PRIORITIES
1. World Economic Forum at Davos
2. Annual fundrais
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
> Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
>
> Covering: January 2009
Btw, Brion, this last one had the same problem... maybe it just hates
Sue? (Sending to list too, because there's no doubt someone else will
notice t
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/3/11 geni :
>
>> Importing wikipedia content would be an absolute pain
>>
>
> Why? The language doesn't require you to include a full list of
> authors. Only if you want your copy to be a "link-creditable" copy,
> you would need to do so.
>
>
The language of t
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/3/11 Bence Damokos :
>
>> From an attribution point of view, the definition of "full list of authors"
>> that excludes very small contributions is not really acceptable to me.
>> Imagine, that Joe only corrects spelling mistakes: arguably very small
>> contributions -
Brian wrote:
> I'm not really clear on what a link is. You specify it as a URL, but a
> URL alone does not constitute a link. A link is the rendering of this
> code:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page";>label
>
> But the proposed attribution guideline says absolutely nothing about
> what th
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> Nope. Not as long as the deletion button continues to exist.
>
> We already make deletion logs visible to everyone; is there any reason
> why we shouldn't do the same with contribution histories other than
> the occasional case where they inc
40 matches
Mail list logo
