On 27 October 2010 09:53, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2010/10/27 John Vandenberg :
>> " ... and their collective mind is probably better than your own, so
>> invite comments before you make decisions."
> "... and their willingness to second-guess everything you do has no
> boundaries, so exercise disc
On 27 October 2010 10:15, John Vandenberg wrote:
> "That said, our core [[wmf:Values]] includes transparency, and
> recognises that our community is our biggest asset."
Wikimedia is about the most transparent charity on the face of the
earth. It's possible that taking it to the pathological de
On 2 November 2010 12:02, wrote:
> In a message dated 11/1/2010 11:50:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> cimonav...@gmail.com writes:
>> Another thing that might shut this stuff down, or atleast make people
>> more
>> savvy in judging what quality they are getting, would be if we finally got
>> some
... and compromise content, as TV Tropes found out:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSituation?from=Main.TheGoogleIncident
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.o
On 5 November 2010 22:44, Fred Bauder wrote:
> How many billions in potential advertising revenue do we leave on the
> table each year?
Less than one soul.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lis
On 7 November 2010 02:18, John Vandenberg wrote:
> By flagging a piece of research as 'funding by ACME Big Pharma', we
> suggest that the research is somehow flawed, without clearly saying
> it, without any evidence, and without sources that support our
> suggestion.
That naming funding sources
On 8 November 2010 06:41, Milos Rancic wrote:
> One reason more why not to depend on ad providers, like Google is:
> "The popular wiki TV Tropes, a site dedicated to the discussion of
*cough* That would be the reason I started this thread with ;-p
- d.
___
On 11 November 2010 18:25, Milos Rancic wrote:
> However, this is not the full list of possibilities. Canada should be
> the option, too. Other countries? If WMF is not able to hold such
> servers, we have chapters.
Chapters would be ideal bodies to build up servers for such material,
that may
On 12 November 2010 07:56, geni wrote:
> We should offer to host citizendium on our servers at no cost for a
> period of 1 (one) year offering a level of support equivalent to our
> smaller projects. After one year the citizendium community/Editorial
> Council is expected to have sorted themselve
On 12 November 2010 08:12, FT2 wrote:
> My only concern is on precedent - is this a good one (we help others in the
> free knowledge/education world) or a bad one (our bandwidth is open to be
> used by any forum or website with a story to tell). Would perception and
> reporting in the media that
On 12 November 2010 12:27, FT2 wrote:
> Some prime time coverage of WMF CEO: "As one of the worlds largest
> volunteer educational charity movements in human numbers, we have
> begun supporting other compatible movements in order to ensure a
> healthy provision of many different sources of free i
On 12 November 2010 14:57, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> I just cannot imagine that Larry Sanger could bear to see his beloved
> Citizendium on a Wikimedia server, among all that child pornography he
> is supposing there.
It's not his any more. (Part of their problem is that he micromanaged
it so clos
On 12 November 2010 18:11, Chad wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:56 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> Their current problem is that they have never had to think about this
>> stuff, ever, and suddenly find themselves with no support and
>> desperately gathering cash to p
On 12 November 2010 17:34, Anthony wrote:
> These are all questions which would have to be answered before WMF
> should even consider getting involved. To cover itself legally it
> should have the agreement of Larry Sanger, the Tides Center, and at
> least a majority of the Management Counsel
>
On 12 November 2010 17:34, Anthony wrote:
> These are all questions which would have to be answered before WMF
> should even consider getting involved. To cover itself legally it
> should have the agreement of Larry Sanger, the Tides Center, and at
> least a majority of the Management Counsel
>
On 13 November 2010 07:24, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
> We did that with Uncyclopedia. Wikimedia hosted it until Wikia was formed.
> And we're talking Uncyclopedia here. It's satirical value had...value.
> Not quite as funny anymore.
Uh, what? Not that I'm aware of. AIUI it started on Chronari
On 13 November 2010 17:53, Magnus Manske wrote:
> I'm all for that. But, did anyone actually ask the Foundation to have
> his button included there (besides spammers et al.)? It's not like an
> email is hard to write...
Robert Horning has noted in this very thread:
===
Based upon my own experi
On 14 November 2010 20:04, John Vandenberg wrote:
> The name given of this type of open source + vendor lock-in has been
> on the tip of my tongue since this conversation started, but I've not
> been able to dislodge it.
> Does anyone recall a name for this beast?
"Proprietary."
Other terms in
On 14 November 2010 20:13, John Vandenberg wrote:
> iirc, the first big argument about this was the binary blobs in the
> Linux kernel. A few good derogatory terms came out of that.
As far as I can tell there isn't a standard name for this sort of
thing (open source for marketing, proprietary
On 15 November 2010 15:31, Noein wrote:
> So, regardless of the political agendas, why don't we let each ethnical
> group have its own wikipedia project, and in case of several languages,
> allow a secondary fork?
> This would concretely gives three distinct projects:
> - - WP:Serbia
> - - Wp:Kos
On 16 November 2010 01:10, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> I'm sure the amount of money the Foundation receives from its cut of
> actually published books is negligible - probably a few hundred dollars
> a year. I'm more interested in your insinuation that PediaPress bought
> their partnership status. Sinc
On 18 November 2010 11:30, wrote:
> Any one signed up yet?
> http://www.ereleases.com/pr/visibility-wikipedia-easier-43135
Founder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Konanykhin
I don't see what could possibly go wrong with this idea.
- d.
___
fo
On 18 November 2010 21:28, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Keegan Peterzell
> wrote:
>> It looks to me like they just get paid to get volunteers to work. Nice
>> scheme. So it's not technically paid editing :)
> That sounds similar to the role of a few WMF staff...
On 18 November 2010 22:37, John Vandenberg wrote:
>>> Someone on another list discussing this suggested the WMF marketing
>>> monitoring the article about you as a service ...
> Which list is this?
Comcom. Idle chitchat, not a serious suggestion. (I certainly hope.)
> It would be easy to bui
On 18 November 2010 23:09, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Am I 'paid editing' when I write articles during 9-5 ? Is that bad?
The problem with paid editing is when it violates content guidelines,
such as NPOV.
Someone paid to improve the area of linguistics in general? (This has
happened.) Fine by
On 19 November 2010 13:41, Abbas Mahmoud wrote:
> Does Wikimedia Foundation engage in Corporate Social Responsibility?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility
It appears to be something for for-profit corporations to do to appear
less rapacious.
It's not clear what its ap
On 21 November 2010 01:27, Noein wrote:
> I hope that you don't feel threatened by novelty. Please don't close
> your mind to my ideas just because you've never heard of them. The
> Wikipedia idea begins by "Imagine".
You seem to have been presenting your disagreements as if you believed
yourse
On 21 November 2010 04:21, Noein wrote:
> I was used to more respectful manners from you, David.
I'm afraid I have little respect for the ideas you're expressing here
because they seem silly, and more silly the more you explain of them.
I could of course be wrong, but you're not helping your i
On 21 November 2010 21:14, MZMcBride wrote:
> I wouldn't say that disagreements are due to unclear roles. I would say most
> disagreements come from the Wikimedia Foundation not adhering to its
> principles, values, and mission as closely as some feel it should. This
> includes a commitment to tr
On 22 November 2010 11:10, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Glad to read this question here, have often wondered about this myself.
> User:Emelian1977, an African American PhD student named Brenton Stewart,
> conducted a survey of Black American Wikipedians in 2008. I can only find a
> short write-up of hi
On 22 November 2010 07:26, MZMcBride wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> What are some examples of particular current problems that you feel
>> this position would fix?
> I'm not sure I agree that this position is designed to fix any current
> problems. The task of fix
On 22 November 2010 03:18, Yann Forget wrote:
> BTW, I am looking for financial support, or some free hosting solution.
> My idea was and still is that this project should be managed by a community,
> not by myself alone. I am open to any proposition.
Sounds like something that would fit nicely
On 24 November 2010 10:24, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Fine grained control over which banners appear on which pages would
> also result in the community being extremely worried that WMF is
> gearing up to run ads on content pages.
If the community has that level of assumption of bad faith, then
e
On 29 November 2010 19:39, wrote:
I suspect you are the only person on this thread who considers that
you are asking for something substantive and important.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://l
On 30 November 2010 22:53, Fred Bauder wrote:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/opinion/30zhuo.html
For added self-referentiality, you can't read this article unless you
identify yourself to the NYT.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation
On 6 December 2010 09:02, private musings wrote:
> I thought I'd note for those interested in the latest from the
> community side of the 'controversial content' discussions - the
> Commons 'Sexual Content' proposal has just gone into a polling stage
> for the second time;
> http://commons.wikime
On 7 December 2010 01:00, Muhammad Yahia wrote:
> Wouldn't an RFC on meta be the appropriate channel to voice both issues?
This is Virgilio's pet around-and-around topic on this list.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.
On 8 December 2010 15:26, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> Yes, but that may also exclude sites that are useful and original, but
> happen to mention Wikipedia.
Add -"quoted sentence from article intro" to the search?
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foun
2010/12/9 Huib Laurens :
> I switched the option on to get notification when my emails get to the
> list... But that seems to stopped working today?
Gmail is "helpful" and won't show you a copy of any email you sent.
And there's no way to get it to.
- d.
__
On 10 December 2010 08:45, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Apart from summarising COM:PORN*, all that the draft sexual content policy
> was meant to do, actually, was to address two cases:
> * Material that is illegal to host for the Foundation under Florida law
> * Sexual images of people uploaded withou
On 12 December 2010 16:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
> We might suppress a leak made directly into Wikipedia, for example
> information about a troop movement, but once something has been published
> on a thousand mirrors there is little point. I don't think links on
> Wikipedia to documents which remai
On 12 December 2010 20:25, Fred Bauder wrote:
> The information is classified; republishing it is a crime in the United
> States; Wikipedia is hosted in the United States.
As Daniel Ellsberg found out. Oh, wait.
That is: your claim is remarkable; please back it up.
- d.
On 15 December 2010 17:39, ResearchBiz wrote:
> True to FT2's vision, this story has already been picked up by the major
> media!
> http://www.examiner.com/[spam url snipped]
examiner.com is basically a paid blogging host with the only relation
to "media" being a news-site-like skin.
http://en
On 20 December 2010 01:24, MZMcBride wrote:
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>> http://knowino.org/wiki/Welcome!
> Anything particularly notable about this site? It looks like another drop in
> the sea of Wikipedia clones.
Not vastly, except that it's actually a fork from Citizendium rather
than Wikipedia
On 20 December 2010 02:31, Noein wrote:
> On 19/12/2010 23:07, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> There can be no viable
>> alternative to Wikipedia.
> What?
This is a perennial thread on wikien-l. There's basically no way at
this stage for someone to be a better Wikipedia than Wikipedia. So
anyone else w
On 20 December 2010 17:15, MZMcBride wrote:
> Marc Riddell wrote:
On 19/12/2010 23:07, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> There can be no viable alternative to Wikipedia.
>> This is the type of thinking that sets you up to being blindsided.
> In this case, that sounds like a feature, not a bug.
Spec
On 20 December 2010 19:47, Noein wrote:
> Is there a general consensus about achieving a monopoly as a good goal.
> Is this part of some public strategy? Is this the position of WMF? Of
> chapters?
> I thought I heard some weeks ago on that mail list that diversity is
> good. That competitors ar
On 20 December 2010 22:46, Fred Bauder wrote:
> The network effects are massive. Simply wanting doing something better
> doesn't work. What does work is Wikia wikis such as Lostpedia that will
> draw a small crowd.
Yeah. The small, specialist approach is clearly something that can
produce tiny
[crossposted to foundation-l and wikitech-l]
"There has to be a vision though, of something better. Maybe something
that is an actual wiki, quick and easy, rather than the template
coding hell Wikipedia's turned into." - something Fred Bauder just
said on wikien-l.
Our current markup is one of
On 28 December 2010 16:06, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
> I have thought about WYSIWYG editor for Wikipedia and found it
> technically impossible. The main and key problem of WYSIWIG are
> templates. You have to understand that templates are not single
> element of Wikipedia syntax, they are integral p
On 28 December 2010 16:54, Stephanie Daugherty wrote:
> Not only is the current markup a barrier to participation, it's a barrier to
> development. As I argued on Wikien-l, starting over with a markup that can
> be syntacticly validated, preferably one that is XML based would reap huge
> rewards
On 29 December 2010 05:13, MZMcBride wrote:
> You inexplicably posted this to foundation-l, so let's look at this from an
> organizational/political standpoint.
I deliberately posted it there because what I'm asking for is broad
and difficult organisational commitment. And almost didn't post it
On 29 December 2010 11:03, MZMcBride wrote:
> The way I read this, you're almost suggesting that Wikia is a competitor to
> Wikipedia. Of all the sites on the Web, I think it's reasonable to say that
> Wikia is one of the few that inherently was not designed to be a competitor
> to Wikipedia, giv
On 30 December 2010 08:55, Stephanie Daugherty wrote:
> Any solution that calls for endless templates is a bad one socially as
> well as technically, and at the point where you even consider
> something on that scale you should probably be consulting developers
> for a better way
> This goes for
On 1 January 2011 10:40, Domas Mituzas wrote:
>> There is no reason that they would have to resort to seeking large donations
>> from
>> extremely wealthy private interests.
> They already do, don't they?
I understand that for the current fundraiser, it was in fact an
explicit goal to seek sm
On 2 January 2011 00:09, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I agree with the rest of your email, though. The WMF's increased
> budget is justified. That money is going on worthwhile things. That
> doesn't, however, mean that we should raise that money by whatever
> means necessary.
We are not within a thou
On 5 January 2011 21:51, Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote:
> Is this supposed to be funny?
> Time to address this matter to the list moderators.
I would say that posting about an RFA on Meta is not specifically
off-topic for here, but I wouldn't like it to happen for *every* RFA.
It is entirely to
On 6 January 2011 00:45, Steven Walling wrote:
> The anniversary is not just about English Wikipedia. If this was just
> English Wikipedia's celebration, there certainly wouldn't be more than 100
> events organized in dozens of countries and on every continent except
> Antarctica.
And just WHY
On 6 January 2011 00:56, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> It may be a bit late to ship t-shirts to Antarctica and, they are likely to
> be not warm enough.
We're talking about the finest mad scientists of the modern era.
No-one goes to Antarctica without being a genuine paid-up mad
scientist and proud
On 10 January 2011 11:50, emijrp wrote:
> We need a Free Knowledge Song, similar to the Free Software Song[1][2]. It
> is cool to sing it in these events.
I would suggest that we need one that is *completely different*.
Either that or ear plugs. At least RMS is unlikely to be singing it
for us.
On 14 January 2011 12:11, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> There is a correlation between broadband and age, as well, I believe.
> The elderly (when they have an internet connection at all) are more
> likely to use dialup than the general population (I think - I haven't
> looked at the numbers recently). I
On 15 January 2011 16:24, geni wrote:
> On 15 January 2011 15:26, Amir E. Aharoni
> wrote:
>> Now, fight.
> First review the discussion that has already taken place at WT:RFA
All five years of it going in circles, you mean?
Tell me, what would be the result you expect of doing this? Apart
On 15 January 2011 16:55, geni wrote:
> On 15 January 2011 16:40, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 15 January 2011 16:24, geni wrote:
>>> On 15 January 2011 15:26, Amir E. Aharoni
>>> wrote:
>>>> Now, fight.
>>> First review the discussion that has
On 20 January 2011 11:00, Achal Prabhala wrote:
> Now to the project. I see that neither of you gentlemen has any thoughts
> on it, and I welcome your engagement. The problem with oral knowledge
> vs. published knowledge is an old one, and there are many interesting
> ways in which the sum of pub
On 21 January 2011 17:36, MZMcBride wrote:
> Your commitment to openness and transparency is ready to be transferred to a
> Twitter account. You'll have to work with Erik to make all of his openness
> and transparency fit. (In all seriousness, thank you, Erik, for the
> reports.)
You started in
On 21 January 2011 21:11, MZMcBride wrote:
To try to answer your concern, somewhat, as I understand it, rather
than just tut at your tone (which is of course an annoying thing to
do):
The Advisory Board is basically specialist volunteers who’ve signed up
to be bothered about stuff if the board
On 24 January 2011 16:09, Magnus Manske wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12265173
> Anything worth salvaging?
Is it even under a CC-ish licence?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/forums/A639056/conversation/view/F77636/T8018187
"However, H2G2 is unusual. It is a pre-existing comm
On 25 January 2011 11:26, Alison M. Wheeler wrote:
> I would think it likely that as the BBC have already made the decision, in
> principle, to send h2g2 on its way then expanding the licence to drop any NC
> requirement would be a highly probable parting gift. Certainly worth asking
> them to
On 26 January 2011 07:24, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> On 1/21/11 5:46 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> No-one is in fact obliged to respond to you on foundation-l, indeed
>> many WMF employees and WMF and chapter volunteers don't read it,
>> referring instead to it as troll-l
On 26 January 2011 22:54, MZMcBride wrote:
> Jimmy has previously made way too many off-the-cuff remarks that have gotten
> him into hot water to repeat that mistake again, surely.
*cough*Sarah Palin*cough*
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
founda
On 27 January 2011 20:30, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 26 January 2011 23:41, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 26 January 2011 22:54, MZMcBride wrote:
>>> Jimmy has previously made way too many off-the-cuff remarks that have gotten
>>> him into hot water to repeat that mistak
[To WMUK-l for local interest, and foundation-l as the issue's been
discussed there at length.]
Just spoke to a researcher, Charlotte something, for BBC 5 Live
Investigates, Sunday 9pm, this item likely to go out 9:45pm or so.
This was just for her research, it wasn't a recorded piece.
The piece
On 28 January 2011 12:24, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> The Wikimedia movement does not have and should not have a position on
> the current situation in Egypt. While you view your suggestion as us
> taking the side of free information, it would be perceived as taking
> sides in the more general conflic
On 28 January 2011 12:47, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> 2011/1/28 David Gerard :
>> The idea of getting samizdat copies of Wikipedia into Egypt appeals.
>> Airlift in current-article dumps of ar:wp and en:wp on SD cards by the
>> thousand?
> Don't forget arz.wikipedia.
On 28 January 2011 13:28, SlimVirgin wrote:
> I think there's a sense of annoyance among writers whose work is being
> copied that the books are so expensive -- sometimes around $50 for a
> 10,000-word article -- and that the ads for them on Amazon don't make clear
> enough that they're on Wikipe
On 28 January 2011 14:12, Teofilo wrote:
> 2011/1/27 Jesse (Pathoschild) :
>> These messages are available to all wikis
>> (including non-Wikimedia wikis), instead of just one wiki.
> That means contributing as a volunteer to a variety of websites with
> different principles. Wikimedia is a non
On 28 January 2011 15:08, Teofilo wrote:
> Let's imagine a group with non-democratic values provides translators
> to Translatewiki.
You really don't understand that "for any purpose" bit, do you?
If you don't want to contribute to a project (Wikimedia,) whose works
__
On 28 January 2011 15:49, David Gerard wrote:
> On 28 January 2011 15:08, Teofilo wrote:
>> Let's imagine a group with non-democratic values provides translators
>> to Translatewiki.
> You really don't understand that "for any purpose" bit, do you?
On 28 January 2011 18:44, geni wrote:
> On 28 January 2011 13:56, David Gerard wrote:
>> Yeah. The problem is there's no direct action we can really take
>> without hampering the good reasons for reuse of our material. Or just
>> scaring people off. I think the best we
On 28 January 2011 19:04, Peter Coombe wrote:
> From March 1st it might be worth contacting the UK Advertising
> Standards Authority, as their remit is being extended then:
> http://asa.org.uk/Regulation-Explained/Online-remit.aspx
Oh, I *like* that one. That and some other comments here and
el
Relevant to Egypt and WMF, it is important that Al-Jazeera has
released a pile of photos and video as CC by-nd and CC-by-nc-nd:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/al_jazeera_releases_egypt_coverage_under_creative.php
Now, those aren't free content licenses. But for a news organisation
to releas
On 28 January 2011 23:28, aude wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 5:39 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> Relevant to Egypt and WMF, it is important that Al-Jazeera has
>> released a pile of photos and video as CC by-nd and CC-by-nc-nd:
> Already have contacted them and they are
On 29 January 2011 06:00, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Дана Saturday 29 January 2011 01:39:26 David Goodman написа:
>> A wonderful precedent for other approaches to press agencies--it will
>> perhaps work best for those agencies that have an appropriate
>> special concern for the area or subject
On 29 January 2011 16:20, phoebe ayers wrote:
> Having many wikis is an ongoing source of irritation for many, and it
> would be great to resolve this issue. Are there good arguments *for*
> having separate sites? Or at least for not recombining them into meta
> with a redirect from the clean URL
On 30 January 2011 16:00, Sage Ross wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:28 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> > Suggested principle: stuff should go on meta unless there's a very
> > good reason for it not to. The strategy and usability stuff should
> > have been on meta or
@gmail.com,
thewub.w...@gmail.com
Hi David Gerard,
I totally understand your concern about Wikipedia getting proper
credit on wiki books! And I understand how annoying it is when that
doesn’t happen.
What Charlotte was investigating, as I understand it, was why Amazon
in the UK had dropped the
2011/2/7 Jon Harald Søby :
> It will be better ideologically, and it will also be pointless, as no-one
> outside the geek squad (that's us & co) know what it is or use it. The goal
> of Twitter & Facebook sharing would be to advertise the content to the
> public, and the effect would be extremely
On 9 February 2011 19:33, Strainu wrote:
> Anyway, was there an event prompting this change or you just thought
> it was a great idea to get some IDs from the volunteers?
Yes. The previous arrangement was pretty much security theatre. I
emailed a scan of my driver's licence - it was genuine (OM
On 11 February 2011 11:30, Mingli Yuan wrote:
> So I just want to know the possibility that foundation can support it or
> not?
> And how should I improve the work to make foundation accept this service?
A URL shortener is a very good idea.
Even for English, there's http://enwp.org for instanc
On 14 February 2011 04:37, John Vandenberg wrote:
> I couldn't see the 'Iceland is a province of Finland' edit over on
> Conservapedia on pages Finland, Iceland or Icelandic.
> If the edit is found, the anonymity of 'Editor' is blown.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
- d.
___
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12355740
The Dalits (Untouchables) see English as utterly necessary to breaking
out of their current sociocultural trap, and never mind the local
languages.
That said, education is good. What can we do that might help people along?
- d.
__
On 16 February 2011 19:41, MZMcBride wrote:
> Christine Moellenberndt wrote:
>> On 2/16/11 9:16 AM, McGuire, Jill wrote:
>>> Does Wikimedia have a VPAT for 508 compliance?
>> Answered off-list.
> What was the answer?
Or, as probably everyone is wondering by now: what makes this an
off-list ma
On 16 February 2011 20:58, aude wrote:
> Thank you for running this service! I use it all the time for including
> wikipedia links in Twitter.
+1
> It would be nice if it was officially supported by WMF or you were given
> resources necessary to maintain the service.
+1
Anyone in tech at
On 18 February 2011 01:25, Birgitte SB wrote:
> interests being trampled without much thought was David Gerard's posting his
> take on the copyright considerations at en.WS with regard to the UK law
> prohibiting Fox Hunting link to the foundation-l archives. Of course everyone
> at en.WS though
On 18 February 2011 13:41, Teofilo wrote:
> Having a choice of possible licenses is a richness. Because specific
> licenses might be more suitable to some specific needs than other
> licenses. Because they don't offer the same sort of protection in a
> variety of circumstances. Destroying license
On 18 February 2011 15:15, Milos Rancic wrote:
> While it is likely that they will achieve $50.000 somehow [1], it
> would be good that WMF (1) donate them some sum of money and (2) to
> cover the remainder, if they would have any.
It's a good cause, but doesn't look on the surface tremendously
On 19 February 2011 10:31, Teofilo wrote:
> A) Internationalisation. The CC 3.0 license is an "unported" license.
> This means English-based, English speaking countries' jurisdictions
> bases, English Common Law based. The 3.0 version is a disappointing
> regression from the better 2.0 version.
>
On 19 February 2011 10:41, Teofilo wrote:
> Maximising reusability is not the same as maximising usability.
This is a nice-sounding phrase, but its meaning is entirely unclear.
And maximising usability would mean rationalising the list of licenses
anyway. Paralysis of choice is actually bad in
On 19 February 2011 10:54, Teofilo wrote:
> Everything that affects internationalisation should result into a
> e-mail from me.
CC licensing does not affect internationalisation in any way whatsoever.
> The GFDL has set a certain balance of power. This balance of power is
> a "spirit". A prom
On 19 February 2011 11:08, Teofilo wrote:
> I am talking about biodiversity. You are talking like Monsanto who
> wants all the farmers on earth to use the same seeds.
You are putting words together in patterns but don't appear to
understand what the sentences you thus construct are saying.
Why
901 - 1000 of 1151 matches
Mail list logo
