> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:46:36 -0400
> From: Anthony
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
>
> There needs to be place for dozens of back-and-forth-over-minor-details
> discussion. Long detailed emails have their place, but after they are
> posted there needs to be room for a qu
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/9/8 Pedro Sanchez :
>
>> Geographical/atlas/map kind ofproject
>>
>> granted, there's wikimapia and other external equivalents
>> but we (Wikimedia) are lacking it
>>
>
> Is there any point us doing something that already exists? What would
> be better about a Wi
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
> Mailing lists are push media and they are one stop: the new posts come
> to my own mail folders automatically. Their look and feel is always the
> same: that of my mail program (or web mail operator). Browsing through
> "your" web boards in the morning takes much, much
Delirium wrote:
> Maybe I'm unusual in treating large mailing lists as if they were
> FidoNet or Usenet discussion forums, but the idea of people being
> bothered by long threads they don't care about, individuals whose posts
> they don't like, etc., is strange to me. Isn't that easily handled on
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/9/11 Waldir Pimenta :
>
>> Hi Thomas, and all who showed concern about Wikimedia Portugal's planned
>> expenses.
>>
>> I am one of the persons who calculated that budget, and thus I feel I should
>> provide you with some information.
>>
> Thank you very much, I a
Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
>> Isn't temporarily blocking such a user a way to calm him/her down? I
>>
> Yes it might be the way, but far not universal way.
> And it should be the last (ultimate) in moderator toolkit, far not the
> first to be used.
>
>
Sure. And in these situations a short-term
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Sorry,
> But my question is not if we as a wikimedia group is violating the license,
> but if they as users are.
> I would like a professional opinion on the question :
>
> Is wikipedia non commercial or commercial non profit?
>
>
It's hard to say as l
Mike Godwin wrote:
> Nathan writes:
>
>> Interesting. Although the Italian media also reported that I (and
>> Jimbo and various others) was being sued for 50 million euros, and I
>> haven't seen that lawsuit yet.
>>
> We've had a lot of experience of spurious reports of lawsuits originating
Samuel Klein wrote:
> Why are we revisiting something from 2007-08 financial planning two
> years after it happened and 15 months after the final report?
>
Planning with 20/20 hindsight is always s much more accurate? ;-)
Ec
___
foundation-l ma
Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
>
>> "Who will decide what the strategy will be, and what will be the
>> decision-making process?"
>>
>> this page explains nothing about (or explains in no detail if somebody
>> prefers) how main stakeholder - Founda
Samuel Klein wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
>
>> On Sep 26, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>>
>>> Do you think we will be in a position to run a second usability
>>> project of similar scope, two years from now, entirely from within the
>>> commu
Marco Chiesa wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Teofilo wrote:
>
>> I should have said it in my previous message : the first and foremost
>> priority for France, is that Government-owned museums allow visitors
>> who paid their entrance ticket to carry a camera and take pictures of
>> pai
Chad wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l hasn't had any edits
>> in a couple weeks now. Have we decided this isn't such a big problem after
>> all? Have we given up? Just waiting a few months for someone to post a
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> The entire page is founded on unsubstantiated and generic complaints
> which all lists share. I'm on moderated lists which are completely horrible.
> And I'm on unmoderated lists which are absolutely excellent.
>
> Jimmy Wales himself has stated, and I've quoted him in on
Waerth wrote:
> I am worried about this passage in the Bookshelf project
>
>> The materials created as part of the Bookshelf Project include basic
>> "first step" documents, compelling invitations to participate, *but
>> most importantly, **in-depth series of resources targeting potential
>> edi
Jim Redmond wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 09:18, Waerth wrote
>> I never new the goal of the wikimedia foundation was to evangelize the
>> world. As an agnost I take offence to this
> In this context, the term "evangelist" is not specifically a religious term;
> rather, it refers to a highly ent
Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM, George Herbert
> wrote:
>
>> I have had a number of excellent deep discussions with high school,
>> college, grade school teachers about Wikipedia and the ones who pay
>> more attention than "Someone copied the Wikipedia entry as an essay"
>> ge
Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:41 PM, 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.
>>
> I don't know.
George Herbert wrote:
> I know EB and World Book contributors who are very upset about
> Wikipedia's rise, and many who see it as a godsend to information
> propogation around the world, on the order of the rise of the Web and
> of Google. There are lost jobs at EB and WB - but the Post Office has
Michael Peel wrote:
> On 10 Oct 2009, at 15:00, geni wrote:
>
>> The complexity is that in certain groups being anti-wikipedia is a
>> requirement for fitting in. A statement that you take knowledge
>> seriously.
>>
> I'm sorry; I can understand those sentences separately, but not when
>
Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 10/10/09 11:32 AM, geni at 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 okey to the peons but we
>> know better".
>>
Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Anthony wrote:
>>
>>> One would think from these discussions you might have learned that
>>> Wikipedia, Britannica, and World Book are tertiary sources
>> What is accomp
Guillaume Paumier wrote:
> One thing I realized, though, was that two questions had an ambiguous
> wording: people wonder why they have to give reasons for not using
> Commons, or not participating, despite the fact that they said they do.
> These questions should read « what is the main reason
Olli wrote:
> Date: 2009/10/31
> Subject: Wikipedia christmas calendar?
>
> What about a wikipedia christmas calendar? It can maybe preview some
> articles or something similar. Then it can be multilingual.
>
>
Not necessarily just Christmas, but a published calendar for the whole
year. Wikipe
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Practically every state and municipal government in the US is subject
> to public disclosure laws, sometimes part of 'Government in the
> sunshine' legislation, which require most relevant information about
> the daily operations to be made available. This usually includes
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> Ha. I'm not ashamed to say I've been fired. Not once! I cast a spell on
> them and they were bankrupt within the year. So there.
>
> Some of the companies I've worked for think I'm the cat's meow (that's a
> good thing), and some think I'm the devil incarnate. I gue
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/11/1 Anthony:
>
>> Here in the US, if a company doesn't mind its unemployment tax rate
>> going up, they can do pretty much whatever they want.
>>
>> In the UK, what, if anything, can a company do if they want to
>> redefine a position altogether?
>>
>
> If you a
l response
to Thomas.
Ec
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>>> If you are genuinely redefining the position so the existing job will
>>> no longer exist then you can make the employee redundant (you hav
phoebe ayers wrote:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l is still up but
> hasn't gotten any new traffic in the last few weeks. Suggestions
> included:
> * starting a forum
> * starting an announcements list
> * limiting posting
>
>
Looking at that discussion's history I see t
Andrew Garrett wrote:
> On 16/11/2009, at 1:04 AM, private musings wrote:
>
>> On Wikipedia Review, 'tarantino' pointed out that on WMF projects,
>> self-identified minors (in this case User:Juliancolton) are involved
>> in
>> routine maintenance stuff around sexually explicit images reasonabl
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> The
> idea is to create a "Staging Area" - a wiki (or non-wiki) project
> which is not public and can be used for media and meta-data mass
> storage before sending the stuff to public projects. The idea is that
> all permissions and other legal stuff would be carefully solved
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> I see a lot of well meaning people responding here, but maybe its time to go
> back to the basics. No non free pictures, period. No more bureaucracy plus
> cost savings on not having to run the permissions systems.
>
This is simplistic. No-one seriously here is oppos
Milos Rancic wrote:
> But, during the couple of previous days I've got one more contribution
> to our Monument. This kind of contributions make me to think that
> Wikipedia in English (not just en.wp for sure) is becoming -- slowly
> but surely -- the main problem in spreading free knowledge.
>
altally wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> Given that the WSJ is making a lot of noise about moving all its content
>>> behind a paywall and is planning to remove its headlines from the "pryin
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> If we're going to have a thread, let's focus on the substance of the
> article. This is a digression.
>
>
This seems to beg the question: "What do we mean by 'on topic'?"
In the present circumstances, is it about the actual content of the WSJ
article, or is it
Michael Snow wrote:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> books are available for years the copy of
>> the day may be available in a library, but how about last years copy of the
>> WSJ ? Do you really think the WSJ can be found in every USA library ??
>>
> I don't know about "every" library, but l
This lets you know why the recording industry needs more money from
consumers. :'(
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/735096--geist-record-industry-faces-liability-over-infringement
Ec
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.o
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> The spirit of the one person per account policy was to prevent people from
> disclaiming responsibility by claiming another person did it.
That means little when we don't know the real names of the contributor.
A pseudonym could be anyone with access to the family com
John M. Sinclair wrote:
> I'm new to this discussion, so I may be inserting at the wrong place and
> time, but I want to suggest that Wikipedia's counsel determine whether
> the Digital Millennium Copyright Act implicitly requires individual
> accounts in order to maintain the Foundation's protecti
phoebe ayers wrote:
> Austin and I thought it might be fun to have a Secret Santa New Year's
> drawing among Wikimedia friends! We're basing it on the MetaFilter
> community Secret Santa drawing, which has 256 participants and uses a
> website called Elfster.
>
> ...
> * buy, make or find a gift --
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Today Wikimedia's world-wide five-minute-average transmission rate
> crossed 10gbit/sec for the first time ever, as far as I know. This
> peak rate was achieved while serving roughly 91,725 requests per
> second.
The rate can't be that rough if we already know it to 5 sign
William Pietri wrote:
> On 01/23/2010 02:59 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>
>> William Pietri wrote:
>>
>>> I note that just last night I was browsing EBay to see what a set of the
>>> 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica goes for. For $10, I could get it on DVD.
>>> Or I could pay hundreds for
Casey Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:08 AM, William Pietri wrote:
>
>> The only common use I can think of where M doesn't represent millions is
>> in the advertising term CPM, or cost per mille:
>>
> Okay, so how about we just ask them to use "K" for thousands in the
> future, to
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Hi,
> I wonder if you know about :
> http://prishtinainsight.com/
>
> They have a great newspaper that is very informative. Problem is: it is
> lacking funding.
>
> My idea is that we would raise funding from wikimedia to buy articles from
> them to put in th
K. Peachey wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 3:54 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
>
>> Yes. This is idiotic. The logo contest followed the same rules as all other
>> submissions to Wikipedia -- they were submitted under the GFDL.
>>
> Yes, but not everyone knows that and any tom, dick or harry tha
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> Yes...Copyright paranoia in action... You can always copy those files
> as long as they exists and simply create your private website with all
> of them. I wonder who is going to sue you for copyvio in such the
> case. I guess nobody...
>
> Anyway this is indeed big question
K. Peachey wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> You're shifting the burden onto the wrong people. If the images followed
>> the general rule that prevailed when they were uploaded the presumption
>> is that they followed that rule
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> 2010/2/20 Ray Saintonge:
>
>> Probabilistic arguments are difficult to establish when the majority
>> still believes in legal certainty in the same way that it believes in God.
>>
> I am not quite sure what you wanted to say :-) Anyway - t
Anthony wrote:
> Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
>
>> Do we agree with the idea, that at that
>> time everything uploaded was under GNU FDL or not
> Definitely not. You were supposed to release uploads under the GFDL, *if
> you were the copyright owner*, but not everything that was uploaded was
> under GF
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> Legal decision should be taken out from project's communities
> "jurisdiction" and given into hands of professional lawyers or at
> least people who had copyright law practical training. Otherwise
> things are based on current flows of moods of amorphous communities,
> which
David Gerard wrote:
> On 1 March 2010 12:52, Andrew Gray wrote:
>
>> Judging from (an older version of?) the website, it's a general
>> non-commercial license on all submissions:
>> ::: The archive contains "free" sheet music, free for non-commercial usage.
>> This
>> ::: means that you may dow
David Gerard wrote:
> Suggestion: weekly updates (to en:wp Village Pump and wikien-l,
> perhaps), with whatever there is to report, including nothing. People
> hear nothing and worry and get upset - you can see the frantic
> activity below the surface, everyone else just sees a duck sitting on
> a
Mike.lifeguard wrote:
> On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> What about c) people not editing (or not continuing to edit) because
>> they don't like their edits not going live immediately? Any data on
>> that?
>>
> I think this is one of the two main reasons flagged revs has fai
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Doesn't matter how they were posted. If they were, and there is a valid
> notice, the action is to expeditiously remove them, notify the poster and let
> the poster decide if they want to counter-notice and contest it.
>
> All the second guessing in the world is irrelevant
Techman224 wrote:
> Unfortunately, the WMF got involved the moment when they removed the keys,
> also the DMCA notice (or any other notice)
> is given to the person or organization that runs the website. It is not given
> to the user who posted the content as they can't
> remove content after it
Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 4 March 2010 19:41, wrote:
>
>> Which means of course that a person could claim copyright to the very
>> technology underlying Wikipedia, and demand the entire project be taken
>> down.
>> In fact a different mentally ill person could make this claim every month
>> a
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:40, Brian J Mingus
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Dalton >
>>> We're the biggest non-profit website in the world. That sounds like
>>> argument for us to get the prize money to me.
>>>
>> The Internet is defi
Samuel Klein wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>
>> According to the Language proposal policy, Language committee may approve
>> just a project which intends to be written in one language.
>>
> True, the language sub committee is asked to attend to details about
Brian J Mingus wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> It's not that those discussions wouldn't be relevant to have on this
>> list, and periodically people try and encourage others to move them to a
>> more public setting. It's that when this list continues to show a
Milos Rancic wrote:
> One more change have happened. Wikisource in Sorbian have become eligible.
>
> The problem with eligibility of Wikisource in Sorbian is that there
> are two Sorbian languages: Upper Sorbian and Lower Sorbian. According
> to the Language proposal policy, one project should be w
Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Setting this up as a separate Wikisource does not seem like a good
>> idea. It should be noted that the 180 or so pages in Upper Sorbian at
>> Oldwikisource are essentially the effort
Cary Bass wrote:
> Ultimately, there are no restrictions on /applying/ for scholarship so
> you should feel free to apply. However, the application was designed
> to allow only for years that start with "19", so people born 2000 or
> later will have to contact us separately to apply.
>
Wow! The
George Herbert wrote:
> Both the "yes he does" and "no he doesn't" sides are asserting and
> assuming rather than reporting a known quantity.
>
> There has been no organized or widespread attempt to either ask Jimmy
> to give it up or to take it away. I can name a number of individuals
> who asser
Mike Godwin wrote:
> ... in my experience the kinds of people who
> agonize over copyright permissions are uniformly capable of parsing longer
> sentences.
>
>
I wouldn't bet on that.
Ec
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Anthony wrote:
> MZMcBride wrote:
>
>> You're suggesting using a specific, proprietary
>> client (that has all sorts of privacy issues) in order to combat what is,
>> at its core, laziness.
>>
> Every great software application has, at its core, laziness.
Indeed! Or perhaps that might be
Kwan Ting Chan wrote:
> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> What if we start to write articles about street and include all the
>> buildings and boring parts of the streets in the WP or some
>> subproject, where would it stop? What would protect a database of
>> streets against such a swarm of
Bod Notbod wrote:
> It's plausible to regard Britannica as a competitor to Wikipedia,
> although I doubt whether many of us actually wish them harm. They've
> come to an agreement with Fora.tv. I've viewed quite a lot of material
> on Fora. It's a great site, well worth a search or five.
>
> http:/
David Gerard wrote:
> On 9 May 2010 02:20, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> Given that several Commons admins had dropped out, and bearing in mind the
>> clean-up campaign called for by the board and Jimbo, I put in an RFA at
>> Commons, saying I would help clean up pornographic images *that are not
Sue Gardner wrote:
> 1) There has been a very active strand about Jimmy's actions over the
> past week and his scope of authority, which I think is now resolving.
> That's mostly happened here and on meta.
>
>
What made that one easier to resolve is that the problem could be easily
defined, and
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> What I am missing is that Iran has blocked the whole Wikimedia domain as
> Commons is included in that domain. I understand that the reason is there
> being too much sexual explicit content. As a consequence this important
> free resource is no longer available to t
Sue Gardner wrote:
> Yeah. I don't remember exactly what Ting said, and even if I did, I wouldn't
> comment on it. But FWIW to your point, Ting's not in a chapters-selected
> seat; Ting was elected by the Wikimedia community.
>
>
His seat doesn't come up for re-election until next year, but I
Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
>
>> Let me know if I'm missing anything important.
>>
> Actually, yes. In spite of multicultural nature of Wikimedia, this
> process shouldn't be formulated as purely related to sexual content,
> but as related to c
stevertigo wrote:
> Kat Walsh wrote:
>
>> "Commons should not be a host for media that has very
>> little informational or educational value
>>
> This is too broad. Confine the scope toward dealing with what does not
> belong, rather than trying to suggest that everything be purposed as
>
Tim Starling wrote:
> Solution 1: Exercise editorial control to remove particularly
> offensive images from the site.
>
> Standard answer 1: Some people may wish to see that content, it would
> be wrong for us to stop them.
>
> Solution 2: Tag images with an audience-specific rating system, like
>
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
>
>> On foundation-l we are divided between moderates and libertarians. The
>> libertarians are more strident in their views, so the debate can seem
>> one-sided at times, but there is a substantial moderate contingent,
Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Milos Rancic wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let me know if I'm missing anything important.
>>>
David Goodman wrote:
> I think we will only make progress when we accept the apologies of the
> people involved. I can understand that they want to at least formally
> defend the original board statement, but I think they--and we all-
> -recognize that the discussion has moved in a somewhat more p
Sue Gardner wrote:
> And thanks to the jury and its moderators: Mariano, Austin, Mako,
> Teemu, Delphine, James, Joseph, Stu, Phoebe, James & Cary. I know we
> all appreciate your hard work. (James definitely had some late
> nights, and I will be curious to see if he volunteers for the jury
> aga
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> Wouldn't it? Unless you're going to support what appears to be an
> unsupportable platform that "child porn" (or whatever you want to call it) is
> somehow different from any other type of content such as snuff films or
> instructions on how to build a fertilizer bomb
Stillwater Rising wrote:
> Actually, it's not only the uploaders that have 18 USC 2257(A) record
> keeping requirements, *anybody* who "inserts on a computer site or service a
> digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a
> computer site or service that contains a visu
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Mike Godwin wrote:
>
>> wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
>>
>> Across the world the "Nobody is home" argument is quickly running out of
>>
>>> steam. Google execs sentenced to 6 months in Italy, LimeWire guilty for
>>> its user's piracy, and blog owne
David Goodman wrote:
> The traditional academic system is based upon status differences
> between pupils and teachers. One of the problems is the reception they
> get--a great many experts do not take it kindly when they are
> challenged by the ignorant, and get no respect for their
> qualification
Noein wrote:
> 1. I just had a short chat with [[Erik Orsenna]], a member of the
> [[Académie française]] who "loves to learn and pass along knowledge".
> He's also interested in the adventure of knowledge and in the democratic
> processes and appreciate being able to tap into the knowledge of the
Mike Godwin wrote:
> Gerard writes:
>
> Hoi,
>
>> When I read: "Wikisource content in the French language targets the French
>> public, and therefore, under French conflict of laws principles, the
>> copyright law of France applies to this content." I do read the French
>> public. Wikisource do
Itzik Edri wrote:
> More Canadians to the staff?! I tought we already talk about that!!!
>
> Good luck :)
>
>
More Canadians on staff can't be all that bad. Noting that he was not
born in Canada gives his appointment a more global flavour. :-)
Ray
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:23 AM, Sue Gardn
susanpgard...@gmail.com wrote:
> Canadians are good for Wikimedia because we have a, uh, healthy sensitivity
> to American cultural dominance. When Barry and I were kids, our prime
> minister famously characterized Canada as a mouse in bed with an elephant --
> no matter how friendly the elephan
susanpgard...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's Tranna. You got me. *sigh*
>
The pronunciation varies, and becomes much clearer if you live farther
from the centre of the universe. The risk with the "Tranna" punctuation
is that one might be taken for an Albanian spy.
Ray
> --Original Message-
Lodewijk wrote:
> so if I understand correctly, the US is afraid of Canada? hmmm interesting
> ;)
>
Self-deprecating humour is another great weapon. It is very difficult to
understand when you believe that you are in the most powerful nation in
the world.
Ray
> 2010/6/3 > Canadians are good
Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> If you want to challenge a takedown notice, the proper (and only) course
> of action is to file a counter-notice. I had work that I did on Commons
> taken down by a bogus DMCA takedown notice several years ago. Instead of
> complaining to the Foundation, which would have be
David Gerard wrote:
> Yep! You want to write a first draft of a guide? I'm sure the EFF or
> someone like that will have something suitable to start with.
>
> We can't have a lawyer employed by the WMF look over it, but we have
> lots of lawyers amongst the volunteers.
>
An important point; we
Peter Gervai wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 11:37, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>> The only catch is that by filing the counter-notice you are putting your
>>> money where your mouth is and legally asserting that you have the right
>>> to post the work (so make sur
Here's my attempt at trying to answer these.
Yann Forget wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Could someone please explain the following from this page:
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf
>
> 1. What does it mean that "I consent to accept service of process from
> the party who submitted the take
Nathan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> It seems then that there is a question of jurisdiction involved. It has
>> been my long held understanding that the Wikimedia projects have
>> operated under the laws of the United State
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I used the interwiki links all the time in this manner at work, and still do.
> It was one of the things that turned me on to Wikipedia and caused me to
> start contributing, and eventually to register an account.
>
> As others have said, if the interwiki links had not bee
geni wrote:
> On 7 June 2010 19:21, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
>
>> I've added a new section on DMCA compliance to both the en.wiki and meta
>> Office actions pages:
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions
>>
>> Please feel free to augm
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> As an example consider an orphan work last published in the United
>> States more than seventy years ago. It would at first glance appear to
>> qualify for the shorter libraries and archives rule for rep
Michael Snow wrote:
> To avoid further disrupting discussion of interlanguage links and
> usability, I'll address the cultural problems separately now. I must
> admit, though, that in a discussion where we seemed to have agreed
> (rightfully so) that a 1% click rate was significant enough to war
Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Bod Notbod wrote:
>
>>> "For internecine intrigue and power struggles, the Wikipedia makes the
>>> Vatican look like a coffee clatch.
>>>
>> I don't think you become one of the top ten websites in the world,
>> raise millions of dollar
Steven Walling wrote:
> "Wikipedia makes the Vatican look like a coffee clatch"
>
> They're saying we're so cliquish that we make the Vatican look like a casual
> coffee work party, not that we are one. Still a mixed metaphor though,
> considering the Catholic Church hardly meets the definition of
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>>>> And how are you determining that a work is orphaned? What JuJU do you
>>>>> have to declare that a work is free to use commercially?
>>>>>
>> Whether a wor
1 - 100 of 474 matches
Mail list logo
