On 8 Sep 2009, at 18:46, Samuel J Klein wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We wanted to have a more informal forum for discussing Wikimedia
> issues with Board members, so the three new Wikimedia Trustees (Arne,
> Matt, and myself) are hosting an open meeting on IRC in #wikimedia
> this Friday.
>
> Where : #wik
On 2 Sep 2009, at 12:35, David Goodman wrote:
> There is sufficient missing material in every Wikipedia, sufficient
> lack of coverage of areas outside the primary language zone and in
> earlier periods, sufficient unsourced material; sufficient need for
> updating articles, sufficient potentia
On 9 Sep 2009, at 00:42, Yann Forget wrote:
> Michael Peel wrote:
>> ** A few of my favourite examples: WikiJournal, publishing scholarly
>> works;
>
> These works are welcomed on Wikisource, if they are under a free
> license, of course.
>
>> WikiReview, provi
On 14 Sep 2009, at 22:47, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
> At another conference, the video switched from the camera
> viewpoint to the slides back and forth (I do not know wheth-
> er that was done while recording or in post-production). Ob-
> viously, this requires more manpower but the result was
> wo
On 17 Sep 2009, at 17:22, Gregory Kohs wrote:
> They are a key constituency in
> supporting the financial stream, as every single one of them is
> worth 16 or
> more "average" donors.
This doesn't seem quite right to me. "average" donors may financially
be worth less in each donation, but re
On 10 Oct 2009, at 00:41, Samuel Klein wrote:
> In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3
> years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing
> would be a fascinating survey to run year after year.
Does the WMF commission surveys like this? It would s
On 10 Oct 2009, at 15:00, geni wrote:
> 2009/10/10 Michael Peel :
>>
>> On 10 Oct 2009, at 00:41, Samuel Klein wrote:
>>
>>> In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3
>>> years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today.
On 10 Oct 2009, at 16:54, Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 10/10/09 11:32 AM, geni at geni...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Depends on the school. By being anti-wikipedia you make a statement
>> that you insist on a certain quality in your sources. You could view
>> it as a form of snobbery "Wikipedia may seem
My viewpoint is: why restrict editing? As Geoffrey and Peachey
mentioned, there are some pages that do need protecting, but other
than that? A central part of the Wikimedia zeitgeist for me is that
anyone can edit.
If you restrict editing, then you're removing the ability for non-
members t
Hi all,
In case you haven't heard already, "Britain Loves Wikipedia", a free
photography scavenger hunt following on from Wiki Loves Art et al.,
will be taking place in 21 museums and archives across the UK
throughout February, and is launching on Sunday at the Victoria and
Albert Museum!
On 2 Mar 2010, at 01:18, MZMcBride wrote:
> You know what sounds toxic? The
> claim that a man is "a new resident in the area and a known child
> molester."
> That's been in one of our articles for months and months; the only
> provided
> source is a dead link that's part of an advocacy site.
For anyone in the UK (or willing to visit the UK ;-) that hasn't seen
the below, please take a look. Apologies for the cross-posting. This
event is also hosting Wikimedia UK's AGM, so it is fairly
important. ;-) Please distribute it to anyone else that you think
might be interested.
Thanks
Also see the 'content partnerships' page on the Wikimedia UK wiki
that I've put together:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cultural_partnerships/Content_partnerships
Additions are welcome.
Thanks,
Mike
On 16 Mar 2010, at 23:33, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> They are not "donations" they are im
Hi Bishakha,
Welcome! I hope that you enjoy your new role.
Could you share a little about your involvement with the Wikimedia
projects before this, either as an editor or a reader?
Thanks,
Mike Peel
On 5 Apr 2010, at 15:03, Bishakha Datta wrote:
> Thanks, Michael and Ting.
>
> Look forward t
Hi all,
The Wikimedia UK AGM will also be taking place at this conference.
All are welcome - the more the merrier!
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_AGM
If you want to vote on the election and motions, then you'll need to
be a member - but it's quick and easy to join if you haven't already:
h
On 21 Apr 2010, at 16:08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 21 April 2010 05:43, Huib! wrote:
>> Participation announcements for Wiki meet-up
>>
>> I'm sure there is a Wiki meet-up every weekend around the globe,
>> posting
>> this information to this list will probably spam. People
>> interested in
I'm glad to see that the resolved bugs include this one:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23223
Hope you all manage to escape Germany sooner rather than later.
Mike
On 21 Apr 2010, at 17:43, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> Dear world: Help wanted. Plz send a rowboat and a few paddle
On 9 May 2010, at 17:57, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>> I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do
>> things from the "Founder" flag. I even removed my ability to edit
>> semi-protected pages! (I've kept permissions related to 'vie
On 24 May 2010, at 07:57, Erik Zachte wrote:
> Revision Review is my favorite. It seems more neutral, also less 'heavy' in
> connotations than Double Check.
> Also Review is clearly a term for a process, unlike Revisions.
The downside is that 'Review' could be linked to an editorial review, and
On 2 Jun 2010, at 22:51, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> A tiny benefit to a hundred
> million people wouldn't justify making wikipedia very hard to use for
> a hundred thousand
Can you justify that the change has now made it very hard for users of those
interlanguage links? Given that it's now one cl
Is it just me, then, that finds it easier and quicker to read top post replies
than to search through large amounts of text to find the response? Inline
posting makes sense if you're replying to an email that makes its point in the
space of a few lines, but otherwise it seems easier to me to top
On 23 Jun 2010, at 16:23, David Gerard wrote:
> Reliance on Google for what is really an essential function for those
> who aren't native English speakers is problematic because it's (a)
> third-party (b) closed. Same reason we don't use reCaptcha.
I always think than not using reCaptcha is a sh
(Renaming the subject as we've changed topic)
On 23 Jun 2010, at 21:31, Mariano Cecowski wrote:
> --- El mié 23-jun-10, Michael Peel escribió:
>
>> I always think than not using reCaptcha is a shame, as it's
>> a nice way to get people to proofread text in a rea
On 25 Feb 2012, at 17:15, Castelo wrote:
> In my opinion, and i already pointed that in Meta discussion, Wikipedia is
> not the place for original content, but Wikinews can publish the interviews
> and the content can be uploaded to Commons so others volunteers can check the
> material.
Actu
Hi all,
I'm expecting to be contradicted here, but I have to ask these questions in
order to personally understand the politics surrounding this topic.
My understanding here (having been subscribed to the chapters mailing list
since the start of the chapter-selected WMF board seats - i.e. since
Best all around to simply destroy the evidence (by eating it?).
... can this topic end now? Or be moved on-wiki so that it can be filed under
WP:SILLY?
Thanks,
Mike
On 5 Mar 2012, at 23:23, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 5 March 2012 23:14, Lodewijk wrote:
>> eating the cake would damage the moral
Hi Domas,
I'd like to see more information here. What activities are MarkMonitor involved
in with the 'anti-piracy fight'? Are they involved in filtering all
peer-to-peer traffic, or just the traffic that contravenes copyright law? As a
domain name supplier, what is their relation to ISPs, and
Hello,
Thanks MZMcBride for your reply here.
On 10 Mar 2012, at 22:32, MZMcBride wrote:
> Michael Peel wrote:
>> I'd like to see more information here. What activities are MarkMonitor
>> involved in with the 'anti-piracy fight'? Are they involved in filtering a
On 14 Mar 2012, at 12:21, Russavia wrote:
> Interesting news indeed.
>
> Lead's one to wonder when WMF will launch it's first printed
> encyclopaedia. Perhaps a 2013 Citation Needed edition is in the works?
Something like this:
http://www.labnol.org/internet/wikipedia-printed-book/9136/
?
(And
Think of this more as the hub of a bicycle wheel with many spokes, rather than
a centralised body. A device that makes for quicker progress than walking
alone, but isn't a burdensome stone wheel.
Having a lightweight central organisation that can keep an eye on what is going
on, that can provid
"We ask the Executive Director not to allow any additional chapters to payment
process, until the Board revisits the framework for fundraising and payment
processing in late 2015 in advance of the November 2016 fundraising campaign."
This is very disappointing. It's a real shame that chapters as
On 30 Mar 2012, at 23:17, Nathan wrote:
> Since payment processing is not contemplated as a vector for receiving
> funds, either in 2012 or beyond,
[citation needed]. Also, [attribution needed]. There are those that are
contemplating this, and those that aren't - it's not as clear cut as you im
Hi Phoebe,
Thanks for posting this. I've asked a question (OK, three related questions) at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_and_Funds_Dissemination/Board_FAQ#Why_just_the_four_chapters.3F
Thanks,
Mike
On 5 Apr 2012, at 19:29, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 5 April 2012 19:14, phoebe
Hi all,
Just to check: I've been assuming of late that everyone that's interested in
reading announcements (including things like chapter reports, committee reports
and signpost issues) is subscribed to the wikimediaannounce-l mailing list - is
that a valid assumption, or should reports continu
> From: Nikola Smolenski
> On 22/09/11 10:12, Andrea Zanni wrote:
>> when Sue presented us the Strategic Plan and Wikipedia was all over the
>> pages,
>> but none of the sister projects.
>
> I have to say, whenever I make a presentation of Wikimedia and mention
> sister projects, all I get is b
Below is the Wikimedia UK monthly report for the period 1 to 30 September 2011.
If you want to keep up with the chapter's activities as they happen, please
subscribe to our blog, join our mailing list, and/or follow us on Twitter. If
you have any questions or comments, please drop us a line on t
Below is the Wikimedia UK monthly report for the period 1 to 31 October 2011.
If you want to keep up with the chapter's activities as they happen, please
subscribe to our blog, join our mailing list, and/or follow us on Twitter. If
you have any questions or comments, please drop us a line on thi
> From: David Gerard
>
> On 12 December 2011 18:18, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> Technically, nothing was "messed up" by the feature. Rather, the
>> software previously did not take EXIF rotation into account, and some
>> images had incorrect EXIF rotation information to begin with. Those
>> images
On 11 Jan 2009, at 21:46, Erik Moeller wrote:
> The GFDL (including prior versions) deals with author names for three
> different purposes:
>
> * author credit on the title page;
> * author copyright in the copyright notices;
> * author names for tracking modifications in the history section.
> .
Scenario 1: An article from Wikipedia is used elsewhere (be it on or
offline), with a link to the history of the page. The article is
subsequently deleted from Wikipedia (e.g. accidentally and
irretrievably).
Scenario 2: Wikipedia ceases to exist in its current form. Its
content is hosted
Hi all,
The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has just
uploaded the book to Wikipedia under the GFDL, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual
My reaction when I spotted this was: great, but shouldn't this be on
Wikibooks? Part of the author
On 2 Feb 2009, at 07:11, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>- When I TELL you that something spoils a picture for me, you
> can ignore
>this, or you accept this. When I have a framed picture I do not
> want the
>license printed with it, I do not want a list of authors. I want
> a clean
>
On 3 Feb 2009, at 21:39, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> The change of the license will happen not only for Wikipedia but
> for all
> projects as I understand things.
The change of license can only apply to wiki-created GFDL works,
which does not apply to the images. They will remain with th
On 3 Feb 2009, at 21:01, Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> The economics of it are such that there is a real fine balance
>> between cheap
>> and expensive. I positvely hate text on my posters. Printing on
>> the back is
>> two prints a
On 3 Feb 2009, at 21:59, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> Your wish for attribution comes at a monetory cost so the
> difference is
> negligible. They want their reward for the creation for IP and so
> do you.
> Thanks,
>GerardmM
Huh? Where am I asking for money? Depending on the meth
On 16 Mar 2009, at 00:55, Michael Snow wrote:
> Can we please drop the nonsense that a URL is "no attribution at
> all" in
> an offline context? I've made this point before, but URLs do not
> suddenly become devoid of meaning just because you're using a medium
> where you can't follow a hyperli
On 20 Mar 2009, at 08:57, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
> Michael Peel wrote:
>> The issue, from my point of view*, is that they do "suddenly become
>> devoid of meaning" as soon as those links stop working. This can
>> happen for a number of reasons, including a
On 20 Mar 2009, at 17:03, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Michael Peel wrote:
>> On 20 Mar 2009, at 08:57, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
>>
>>> Is this problem really exclusive to online references? I'd
>>> guess there is plenitude of author references to "[...]
Perhaps a better thing to quantify is the usefulness, rather than the
quality? That is, ask the people reading and using articles how
useful the article has been to them?
Or, more generally, ask them to rate articles on a scale of 1 to N,
where N is e.g. 5.
By doing that, you can learn abou
From the Chapters point of view, Berlin is pretty much as central as
you can get (restricting locations to those on the surface of the
planet!). I don't know the distribution of developers, so can't
comment about that. If you look at the board meeting alone, then yes,
it would probably mak
I don't want to restart this rather long (but very interesting)
topic, but I'd like to point out / remind people that a couple of
well-placed fires could wipe out most of wikipedia et al. as we
currently know it - surely the first priority, before thinking about
the real long term, is to so
On 10 May 2009, at 22:06, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/5/10 Michael Peel :
>
>> I don't want to restart this rather long (but very interesting)
>> topic, but I'd like to point out / remind people that a couple of
>> well-placed fires could wipe out most of wikipe
On 15 May 2009, at 08:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Perhaps this is off-topic, but I wanted to say it for a long time. The
> more time passes, the more I wonder if people who work on Wikipedia
> have
> ever seen an encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, dictionary definitions and
> image galleries are for
On 15 May 2009, at 08:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Michael Peel wrote:
>> On 15 May 2009, at 08:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps this is off-topic, but I wanted to say it for a long
>>> time. The
>>> more time passes, the more I wonde
Having just watched the talk/show/discussion/dancing, I agree
completely with Steve's comments on wikien-l:
On 29 May 2009, at 04:52, Steve Bennett wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_UyVmITiYQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%
> 2Fwave.google.com%2F&feature=player_embedded
>
> (See from about 31:00 onwar
That is more to do with the interface to Commons, as I understand it,
rather than the governance of it. Flickr is seen as being much easier
to use. I believe that was also the origin of Pikiwiki - essentially
creating a better interface to Commons.
BTW, to date I've never had a problem with
On 16 Jun 2009, at 18:56, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Commons is an oddball project. Other projects produce work, but
> Commons stores it. Wikisource could be considered another oddball
> for the same reason. At this point in time, I would class Commons
> as a service project (and wikisource
On 26 Jun 2009, at 02:08, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Wikimedia currently doesn't like files as large as a feature film, or
> even a high-def short. (how should we address this? Brion mentioned
> something about making video easier to upload in November.)
As I understand it, there are three issues wi
What Wikimedia events or activities would you like to see take place
in the UK?
We're currently trying to pull together ideas for "initiatives" that
Wikimedia UK can support, at
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Initiatives/Proposals
There have been lots of ideas posted at:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/
The website link states 21st July - so I assume this evening...
Mike
On 21 Jul 2009, at 10:37, Florence Devouard wrote:
> Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> We're still in the process of getting up to speed, but I'm anxious to
>> start interacting with more of you and garnering some f
On 16 Aug 2009, at 03:58, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
>> For me Google Groups do a good job and it's enough.
>
> Yes, I would support the proposal to look at Google Groups (as
> alternative mailing list platform) closer.
> As we can see Wikimedia Brasil and Wikimedia UK are using that
> platform and per
On 23 Aug 2009, at 09:50, Bod Notbod wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Milos Rancic
> wrote:
>
>> There won't be new lingua franca. ~30 years is now very small amount
>> of time for changing behavior of the global society, while it is very
>> large amount of time for machine translators
On 27 Aug 2009, at 03:46, Michael Snow wrote:
> Kropotkine_113 wrote:
>> Does he fulfill the Nomitanig Commitee selection criterion :
>> "Membership
>> in the Wikimedia community" ?
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nominating_Committee/
>> Selection_criteria#General_needed_traits
>>
> Ting al
Erm ... huh?
1) If you're interested in helping, and have experience/knowledge of languages,
then get involved with the committee.
2) They're getting things achieved - they're fostering the development of new
language projects, making decisions, getting the projects started, and doing
this in
On 5 Oct 2010, at 18:48, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
> What is the main point of wikipedia to edit it, or to read it? Because
> the readability of something like the Bulger article is very low. Making
> it easier to edit with peppered refs will probably mean that more refs
> get added m
On 10 Oct 2010, at 11:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Despite repeated assurances at Wikimania, on lists and on strategywiki,
> that the strategic plan was going to consider all Wikimedia projects as
> important, now at
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Five-year_targets the
Czesc all,
On 10 Oct 2010, at 06:54, Przykuta wrote:
> Hi
>
> In pl wiki "depth" is very weak. We have many edits, like other bigger
> Wikipedias, but Ratio is problematical (Non-Articles/Articles). We have not a
> lot of non-article pages. Could you help us? Any ideas?
>
> http://meta.wikime
Hi Peter,
On 9 Oct 2010, at 11:15, Peter Damian wrote:
> My apologies for the Godwinism. I am a writer, the idea of preventing
> someone expressing a viewpoint is reprehensible. Disruption to the project
> of building a comprehensive and reliable reference source is one thing.
> That is a ma
On 19 Oct 2010, at 18:44, Mike Dupont wrote:
>> I don't think we gain anything by providing a platform for Kohs campaign,
>> as illustrated at
>> http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia
>> against Wikipedia.
>
> Wow, this is very well written and interesting! please sh
On 19 Oct 2010, at 19:06, Mike Dupont wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
>>
>> On 19 Oct 2010, at 18:44, Mike Dupont wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't think we gain anything by providing a platform for Kohs campaign,
>>>&g
On 22 Oct 2010, at 02:02, Erik Zachte wrote:
> A quick update on our inflated page view stats:
>
> Ryan's hypothesis that deployment of the new CentralNotice banner
> loader had something to do with it has been confirmed.
>
> So those extra page views were actually internally generated reques
On 31 Oct 2010, at 23:08, John Vandenberg wrote:
> We should be careful with new studies even when published in respected
> journals, until the citation count rises to the point that we feel
> comfortable that the study has been accepted by the academic
> community.
The citation count isn't the
On 6 Nov 2010, at 17:43, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 6 November 2010 17:07, Liam Wyatt wrote:
>> ads there would be able
>> to be served in a way that is both relevant to the end-user (based on the
>> term being searched for)
>
> That's a big problem. To use a somewhat clichéd example, we should
On 6 Nov 2010, at 17:46, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 6 November 2010 17:43, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> I just checked it again. It is cc-by-sa.
>
> I don't know what you checked, but that image is released under ND,
> not SA. Check the link near the top of this page (that you link to):
>
On 6 Nov 2010, at 20:54, MZMcBride wrote:
> Liam Wyatt wrote:
>> Whilst I don't support or advocate for Wikimedia projects including
>> advertising, I would like to ask a hypothetical question. Would people's
>> opinions towards ads would be different if google's ads were to be
>> incorporated ON
Fantastic. :-) Semantic issue: these aren't new projects, they're new language
versions of existing projects. We haven't had a new project since 2007.
Mike
On 13 Nov 2010, at 18:51, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Our family has got new projects:
>
> * Wikipedia in Gagauz: http://gag.wikipedia.org/
> *
On 18 Nov 2010, at 15:42, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 14:09, David Gerard wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18 November 2010 11:30, Â wrote:
>>>
Any one signed up yet?
http://www.ereleases.com/pr/visibility-wikipedia-easier-43135
>>
>> I could find anything wrong in their code of
(also including foundation-l as this isn't really a commons-specific discussion)
On 22 Nov 2010, at 21:04, Samuel Klein wrote:
>> A wikidata project could use semantic mediawiki from the outset, and
>> be seeded with data from dbpedia.
>>
>> A lot of existing & proposed projects would benefit fr
On 22 Nov 2010, at 23:17, Brian J Mingus wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Andrea Zanni wrote:
>
>>>
>>> As it is the first new project in quite a long time, having a WMF
>>> staff member assigned to it would be brilliant.
>>> As this would/should involve the first deployment of semanti
On 30 Nov 2010, at 22:53, Fred Bauder wrote:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/opinion/30zhuo.html
>
> Fred
>
> User:Fred Bauder
Unfortunately, comments are disabled/absent, which makes it rather difficult to
add my own (non-trolling) thoughts... It's well worth reading this for a
general
On 30 Nov 2010, at 23:53, George Herbert wrote:
> Two, nearly all WP users use pseudonymity rather than real names, and
> for most people not having their real name attached anywhere gives
> them a sense of anonymous empowerment similar to the truly anonymous
> trolls seen elsewhere. We see a lo
On 14 Nov 2008, at 15:47, geni wrote:
> 2008/11/14 teun spaans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Agree.
>>
>> And perhaps other organizations working with copy left licenses
>> could be
>> informed?
>
>
> There is nothing in there of any real significance to free licenses.
Isn't that something that shou
On 30 Nov 2008, at 20:11, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Erik Zachte
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> English -> English dump
>>
>>> Because myself and others have been frustrated by the lack of good
>>> stats on the number of active editors on the English Wikipedia, I
Where did they fail? Did they fail to find a red link to create an
article? (those seem to be getting increasingly rare) Could they not
find a subject to start a new article on? Were they unable to type
text into the appropriate box and submit it? Were they unable to
structure the article w
ee with you that there are many more pain points. The trick is
> to solve
> the issues that are easy to solve first. From this we can progress
> to a next
> issue.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> 2008/12/2 Michael Peel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Where did they fai
On 12 Dec 2008, at 10:52, Florence Devouard wrote:
> Now, seriously, what is more important right now ?
> That citizens can not read one article ?
> Or that all the citizens of a country can not edit all articles any
> more ?
>
> I would argue that the content of Wikipedia can be copied and
> d
On 13 Dec 2008, at 14:02, Platonides wrote:
> teun spaans wrote:
>> Many times it works well.
>> But the procedures also irregularly goes amiss.
>>
>> I also received deletion messages of a pic i had uploaded with a
>> correct
>> license. Some wikimedian had accidently removed the license,
>>
On 8 Jan 2009, at 22:16, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> I don't think that's clear at all. I don't know how many authors you
> are meant to attribute things to under CC-BY-SA, it may well be all of
> them. I need to do more research (or, I need someone to tell me the
> answer!).
My preference would be:
88 matches
Mail list logo
