Re: [Foundation-l] Academic article review

Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > Just to remind that I am a university professor and that I posted my > thoughts a while ago on meta > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Yaroslav_Blanter/Temp17 > > So far, nobody showed any interest. > One of your points there was: > 6. The current experience (o

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > My English is considered to be quite good. I have not learned any new words > and I do not mind to have an occassional word. For me this was excessive and > it stopped my reading and my interest. > Thanks, > Gerard > > PS David, what was you first language again

Re: [Foundation-l] Academic article review

Delirium wrote: > I don't think that's actually true. I think some areas, like evolution > that you mentioned, are covered reasonably well, because there are > enough Wikipedians who have an interest in and reasonably decent > knowledge of the field to write a good article, and perhaps more > i

Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey and licensing next steps

Erik Moeller wrote: > My preliminary conclusion is that a simple, manageable attribution > model, while causing some short-term disruption, will widely be > considered not only acceptable, but preferable to complex attribution > models, in support of our mission to disseminate free information. > T

Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Wikipedia on xkcd

Ziko van Dijk wrote: > For principal reasons, the establishing of "simple" Wikipedias is no longer > allowed. Sorry, but I was under the impression that it was for bureaucratic reasons. > But maybe they could become a Wikimedia project tyipe of their own, > merged with the idea of a Wikipedia fo

Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/3/4 Anthony: > >> What constitutes a significant majority? What if the survey results had >> said that a significant majority was happy with their work being released >> into the public domain. Would you then find it reasonable to release >> *everyone's* work into t

Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

Sage Ross wrote: > On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Chad wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote: >> >>> p.s. Personally, discussions of "offline" here and everywhere (say, >>> accessibility of educational materials) are absurdly myopic. >>> Consideration of offli

Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

Milos Rancic wrote: > On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Sage Ross > wrote: > >> This is a typical pattern when a complex technology is introduced in >> the presence of a simpler one; it's not a simple matter of >> replacement, and old technologies (where the infrastructure is easy to >> maintain

Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

Milos Rancic wrote: > On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM, geni wrote: > >> 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic : >> >>> So, they don't care about their own copyright law. >>> >> Common law is very much driven by legal precedent. Looking to see what >> similar legal systems have done is a fairly comm

Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

David Gerard wrote: > Remember that licenses are not merely a game of Nomic, but responses > to a given legal threat model. > Not necessarily a "given" legal threat, but an even weaker "perceived" legal threat. > In this case, the threat model is: what if some raving and/or > malicious lunatic

[Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource

The behaviour of three people in driving me out of adminship at en:wikisource has left me bitterly disappointed with and deeply offended by the length to which some will go to rid themselves of someone whom they personally dislike. I cannot but view their efforts as anything but a series of co

Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

geni wrote: > 2009/3/10 Ray Saintonge: > >> Milos Rancic wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM, geni wrote: >>> >>>> 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic: >>>> >>>>> So, they don't care about their

Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource

John Vandenberg wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > >> I have no idea of the en.ws situation, nor do I want to have any idea, but >> I would like to remark that leaving such things to the community decision >> is a good idea only if the community itself is big

Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource

Birgitte SB wrote: > Sorry but there is no reason to have a RFC on Meta for anything remotely like > this situation. And I would say that if were regarding any wiki (I am sure I > have said that for similar situations on other wikis in the past). The wikis > are autonomous on these issues. If

Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource

Birgitte SB wrote: > --- On Thu, 3/12/09, Ray Saintonge wrote: > >> In the course of the discussion about me, I considered >> coming here at an >> early stage, but decided that I would let things play out >> on wiki >> first. I did not raise the issu

Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language

geni wrote: > 2009/3/14 David Gerard : > >> Here's an idea: nice URLs for the history. So we don't end up with >> stupid things peppered with ? and & and = printed on mugs, travel >> guides, etc. >> > If the people producing the mugs want that they are free to produce a > version of the his

Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Language will not bind contributors who understand they > are protected by the copyleft provisions of both GFDL and > CC-BY-SA. That just will not happen. > > In the real world much of the terms of use will be just so > much arm-waving, let us be realistic. > This

Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language

geni wrote: > 2009/3/15 Charlotte Webb : > >> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: >> >>>> If the people producing the mugs want that they are free to produce a >>>> version of the history on their servers or more legally more

Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language

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 "[...] et >> al." (or none at all) out there that cannot be resolved >> without access to a catalog or the so

Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language

geni wrote: > 2009/3/20 David Gerard: > >> This is what I mean when I say this is not a game of Nomic, and the >> law is squishy. Does anyone actually think they could stop someone >> from doing this? (If so, you're too batshit crazy to be listened to in >> this discussion.) >> > DMCA take

Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons

Pedro Sanchez wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> This is a (predominantly) English-language mailing list, so using >> those traditions used in the English-speaking world seems to make >> sense to me. >> > Of course, wasting resources on april 1st is very sen

Re: [Foundation-l] NYTimes article: Exploring Fact City

The Cunctator wrote: > A lovely article. The only pity is it doesn't note how much of this social > theory of wikis owes to Sunir Shah's pioneering work on MeatballWiki. > > A nostalgically memorable moment for me was sitting at a table full of beer just listening to Sunir Shah and Ward Cunnin

Re: [Foundation-l] Frustration with the conversion engines issue

Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Ziko van Dijk > wrote: > >> I am sceptical about automatic conversion. As you said, it is mainly a >> solution for reading, but not for writing, because the source text is in one >> specific spelling or character system. >> > Why coul

Re: [Foundation-l] Court: Congress can't put public domain back into copyright

Dan Rosenthal wrote: > The 10th circuit (or the US District Court for Colorado, which > actually made the decision on remand from the 10th circuit) does not > cover the ninth circuit either. > > AFAICT Eldred v. Ashcroft remains the latest SCOTUS case on the matter. > > If you read Larry Lessig

Re: [Foundation-l] Compulsory policies for all Wikipedias

Fred Bauder wrote: > I think the assumption is that any Wikipedia will adopt the general > policies found on the English Wikipedia, but tailor them for local > conditions. A project which wishes to significantly deviate from the > general principles of everyone can edit, neutral point of view, and

Re: [Foundation-l] Compulsory policies for all Wikipedias

Milos Rancic wrote: > Note that I am not talking about some edit war, but about a dominant > opinion of not so small number of communities. And those are just > dominant and generic excuses. A lot of others are well rationalized > excuses used by many communities and defined (or not) inside of the

Re: [Foundation-l] Compulsory policies for all Wikipedias

Fred Bauder wrote: > However, I have faith that any > Wikipedia will, through experience, learn that such a policy is required > and adapt it. I think that is healthy, to develop policies as you learn > from experience. They mean more. This is important, but in conflict with having pre-determined

Re: [Foundation-l] Compulsory policies for all Wikipedias

Nemo_bis wrote: > Jaska Zedlik, 09/04/2009 19:49: > >> So, does an all-Wikipedias rules list exist, or if not, what are there >> global rules which all the Wikipedias must follow? >> > Yes: e.g. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy > (surprisingly not yet mentione

Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding biographies of living people)

David Gerard wrote: > 2009/4/22 Milos Rancic >> And if you want to force any kind of neutrality there, you would get >> the same kind of scientific production which existed in East European >> countries during 50s and 60s: A (very good) book about ancient Greek >> literature starts with 20-30 pages

Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value?

Milos Rancic wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Michael Snow wrote: > >> Scientific? Is there something scientific about neutral point of view as >> a framework for Wikipedia, even? It has some similarities to the >> scientific method, I suppose, but I'm not sure that's what we imagine >>

Re: [Foundation-l] More on Wikimedia strategic planning

Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/5/1 phoebe ayers: > >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> >>> 2009/5/1 Samuel Klein: >>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/4/30 Samuel Klein: > >> I'd like to see W

Re: [Foundation-l] More on Wikimedia strategic planning

geni wrote: > 2009/5/1 phoebe ayers : > >> Besides, this is a (slightly long) generation, which makes a useful >> human-scaled measure to think in. I really want my kids, at some >> point, to be able to say in exasperation, "Mom, this isn't *your* >> Wikipedia anymore!" Or better yet: "Grandma,

Re: [Foundation-l] More on Wikimedia strategic planning

Gerard Meijssen wrote: > As the discussions about all these plans is going to be in English, it will > be very much "others" telling communities how to behave, how to move > forward. The notion that policies and guidelines are good is offset by > people who found themselves not or no longer welcome

Re: [Foundation-l] More on Wikimedia strategic planning

geni wrote: > 2009/5/2 Ray Saintonge: > >>> If wikipedia like collections of information are still being written >>> by human beings in a couple of decades I will be rather surprised. >>> We've already to a large extent reached the point where the quickest

Re: [Foundation-l] More on Wikimedia strategic planning

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Besides the off-planet complete database-backup I envisioned, > another intriguing conceit would be to start on the process > of transcribing wikipedia onto vellum with non-corrosive and > persistent ink (I don't think there are enough stone tablets, or > even clay fo

Re: [Foundation-l] Murdoch newspaper websites to go paywall -opportunity for citizen journalism!

Fred Bauder wrote: > If things were different, they would be different. Right now Wikinews can > serve as an aggregator of news first published elsewhere, but Google and > Yahoo can do it better. We can do some original work, at our own expense. > > When and if the crisis affecting paper newspapers

Re: [Foundation-l] Murdoch newspaper websites to go paywall -opportunity for citizen journalism!

Nathan wrote: > The biggest problem for Wikinews in my mind is that delivering news is a > competitive and innovative business. In the on-line and comprehensive > encyclopedia vacuum, Wikipedia was able to be "get there first, with the > most" and draw eyeballs and participants by being the leader.

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Have you any idea how california-centered that sounds? > > We all stood shoulder to shoulder against Uwe Kils and > the Norwegian Vikings, and this is what we get? > > A more perniciously, smoother talked version of the same > old spiel. One would be really excused at

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored (was Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

Nathan wrote: > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Samuel Klein wrote: > >> What I'd like to see is a preferences framework that allows people to >> subscribe to a set of opt-in viewing/reading options similar to how we >> currently can add JS widgets. If any of them become so massively >> popul

Re: [Foundation-l] Open teaching materials in the Netherlands

Dedalus wrote: > Ziko wrote: > > "Nearly all already existing initiatives for open teaching materials use the > CC-NC-SA, the Creative Commons license that prohibits commercial use. I was > told that you cannot explain to teachers why others should have the right to > commercially exploit their wor

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing update vote result

Robert Rohde wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Marco Chiesa wrote: > >> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Robert Rohde wrote: >> >>> The licensing update poll has been tallied. >>> >>> "Yes, I am in favor of this change" : 13242 (75.8%) >>> "No, I am opposed to this change" : 182

[Foundation-l] Vancouver & open source

Some may find this interesting. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/05/22/tech-vancouver-open-source-standards-software-city.html Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/lis

Re: [Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election

Robert Rohde wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:16 AM, philippe wrote: > >> Ah, OK, sorry for my misunderstanding of the question. >> >> Indeed, we had that same discussion amongst the committee. In the >> end, the vote timing is driven by Wikimania and the need to purchase >> tickets for the

Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote: > The point I was making is that I expect people will continue importing > and exporting as per past practice with no attention given to the > issue and few people caring. From a legal point of view that's not > optimal, but I think it's highly likely. > > That's a

Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1

effe iets anders wrote: > Which makes me wonder how a judge would rule on this btw. Because if > the GFDL and CCBYSA are enough similar before the deadline to > interchange, why wouldn't they be afterwards? Except for that line in > the GFDL version, I don't see legal reasoning behind that... So ju

Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1

Samuel Klein wrote: > Ray Saintonge wrote: > >> Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote: >> >>> The point I was making is that I expect people will continue importing >>> and exporting as per past practice with no attention given to the >>> issue and

Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1

Samuel Klein wrote: >> As much as anything else it is the short time frame that will look >> pushy. Wikipedia went through a lot of debate *before* the switch, and >> > The timeframe is a problem, absolutely. > If we were so fortunate as to have that as the only problem, there would be n

Re: [Foundation-l] One Wikipedia Per Person (regarding the distribution of and the ability to read Wikipedia)

geni wrote: > Now a lot of those languages are Indian which since they tend to be > fairly closely related and bilingualism is fairly common Bengali, > Hindi, Punjabi and English should cover most cases. That's very generously European of you. The three Indian languages that you chose are all In

Re: [Foundation-l] One Wikipedia Per Person (regarding the distribution of and the ability to read Wikipedia)

Anthony wrote: > On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 6:50 AM, geni wrote: > >> Dead tree technology. Wikipedia based encyclopedias in the most widely >> used languages. >> >> Select the 40K most important articles (that will be fun). >> > Do you really think the 40K most important Wikipedia articles a

Re: [Foundation-l] Google Wave and Wikimedia projects

Milos Rancic wrote: > On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Lars Aronsson wrote: > >> It says that as long as we follow Google's protocol standard, they >> won't sue us for infringing on their patents ("patents necessarily >> infringed by implementation of this specification"). Oh, how very >> gener

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies

David Gerard wrote: > 2009/6/4 Robert Rohde : > >> Aryeh Gregor wrote: >> >>> However, perhaps a default AbuseFilter could be installed telling >>> admins that installing Analytics is a violation of Foundation policy >>> and that they'll get desysopped if they continue. That wouldn't stop

Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with human translations of Wikipedia articles

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: > Machine translation in its current status is so useless for anything > beyond ordering Opera Garnier tickets, that the copyright status of > its output is not quite relevant and i don't expect this to change in > the next fifty years. >

Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles

Bennó wrote: > Let me agree with it completely (out of the shadow ;). This feature's aim is > obviously to help understand totally "alien" texts to a certain [at least > minimal?] extent. This whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with > 'translation/interpretation' in it's proper sense. It's a

Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with human translations of Wikipedia articles

Brian wrote: > Of course these are now things that you are able to fix and which can be > shared with everyone. > Sure, the funny errors are the most obvious and most easily fixed. The problematic ones are more subtle, remain unnoticed, and more readily spread misunderstanding. Ec > On Wed,

Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles

I often note in real life that many people who seek help want to substitute that help for any exercise of their own little grey cells. I have no problem with using a machine translation as a starting point because these translations are uncopyrightable beyond pre-existing copyrights. Ec >

Re: [Foundation-l] Iran?

Milos Rancic wrote: > I've got the first report. There are no information that something > happened to any Wikimedian. > > Take a look at [1]. I don't expect bigger scale problems in Iran, but > not just because of that analysis. Except theocratic structures, > preset situation in Iran reminds me a

Re: [Foundation-l] Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Brian wrote: > That is against the law. It violates Google's ToS. > > I'm mostly complaining that Google is being Very Evil. There is nothing we > can do about it except complain to them. Which I don't know how to do - they > apparently believe that the plain text versions of their books are akin t

Re: [Foundation-l] Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Anthony wrote: > Wow, what's Wikipedia's policy about using a bot to scrape everything? > I don't know about any policy, but I think it should still be discouraged. For me this has less to do with predation on other sites than with our inability to keep up with the volume of data that would

Re: [Foundation-l] Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

ooks from Google have any greater effect on server load than downloading a whole book of similar length from Internet Archive? Ec > ____ > From: Ray Saintonge > > > Brian wrote: > >> That is against the law. It violates Google's ToS. &g

Re: [Foundation-l] Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

problems arising. I would not reasonably expect a greater accumulation rate from Google. Ec > _____ > From: Ray Saintonge > > > Geoffrey Plourde wrote: > >> If a bot has a meaningful effect on server load (i.e. page requests), it >>

Re: [Foundation-l] Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Stephen Bain wrote: > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Parker Higgins > wrote: > >> Except google isn't asserting any kind of copyright control over these >> books, they're just not making it convenient to download them in your >> preferred format. Maybe not The Right Thing, but not as bonehea

Re: [Foundation-l] Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Samuel Klein wrote: > There is a wealth of work done all the time by primary source > researchers and publishers, which could be improved on by having > wikisource entries, translations, &c. > > Related question : how appropriate would large numbers of public > domain texts, with page scans and the

Re: [Foundation-l] Iran?

Robert Rohde wrote: > On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > >> While there may very well have been widespread fraud, that alone >> wouldn't be enough to explain away a 29 percentage point spread. A >> strong line of national security scare-mo

Re: [Foundation-l] Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship

Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Anthony wrote: > >> Okay, http://www.archive.org/details/catholicencyclo16herbgoog happened to >> be the first book I randomly picked from Google Book Search. There's no >> text version. >> >> And the text version I find of other editions seems

Re: [Foundation-l] Issues about Copyright

Jimmy Xu wrote: > Yeah. We ARE discussing (4) at zhwiki, but it seems to be resolved per > preceding reply. These laws are confusing, huh~ Thanks a lot. > One point that's important to keep in mind is that copyright does not protect the information; it protects the way the information is prese

Re: [Foundation-l] "antisocial production"

Tisza Gergő wrote: > Eddie Tejeda writes: > > it, > >> Wikipedians are generally "grumpy," "disagreeable," and "closed to new >> ideas."' >> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/06/the_

Re: [Foundation-l] "antisocial production"

Fred Bauder wrote: >> 'Forget altruism. Misanthropy and egotism are the fuel of online social >> production. That's the conclusion suggested by a new study of the >> character >> traits of the contributors to Wikipedia. A team of Israeli research >> psychologists gave personality tests to 69 Wikipe

Re: [Foundation-l] "antisocial production" & pt:wiki policies

Steven Walling wrote: > 1. You're wrong. Just today I myself received some kind words offlist, but > related to a thread. Just because you're not getting the air of friendliness > you desire (at this moment anyway), doesn't mean friendliness doesn't exist. > Getting friendly words offlist, says

Re: [Foundation-l] "antisocial production" & pt:wiki policies

Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote: > Marc, you comment is not very optimistic, but it was a great > incentive to do what I announced above. Hopefully others will be more > encouraged to voice their ideas about other matters, knowing they'll > find a friendly hear and some useful and very welcome feed

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia article traffic statistics - copyright?

K. Peachey wrote: > They might not be, but with that San Francisco bus data issue [1] > happening at the moment, everyone's checking everything these days to > cover their asses. > > [1]. The Battle Over Who Owns Bus Arrival Times: > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090628/1419595382.shtml > >

Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: A chapters-related question]

Anders Wennersten wrote: > I agree with you analysis, and that we need to come up with some > definition of entities not being a chapter but in need of official > recognition and having some rights being formally regulated . > > I would suggest we > 1. come up with a name for these types of grou

Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal for Wikimedia Weather

Tris Thomas wrote: > I'm interested in people's thoughts on a new Wikimedia project-maybe > WikiWeather, which basically would do what it says on the tin. Along > with importing national weather from other sources(especially to begin > with), contributors could then put their weather where they

Re: [Foundation-l] The problem with native languages vs. the lingua franca

David Gerard wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/world/asia/10iht-malay.html > > The Malaysian government has declared that science instruction will be > conducted in Bahasa rather than English. Parents, teachers and > professors are very unhappy because "English is the language of > science

Re: [Foundation-l] The problem with native languages vs. the lingua franca

Michael Snow wrote: > Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> 2009/7/10 stevertigo : >> >>> If someone knows someone, putting eight billion dollars a year into >>> English-language teaching in Africa, China, Australia and elsewhere >>> would be a good place to start. >>> >> You're going to hav

Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National Portrait Gallery ...

Thomas Dalton wrote: > The UK Intellectual Property Office (http://www.ipo.gov.uk) says: > > ... > > That's the relevant bit of law. Is the intellectual input and > investment of resources involved in taking such a photograph > "substantial"? > Anyone who's been around here for any amount of tim

Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National Portrait Gallery ...

Thomas Dalton wrote: > Wikimedia UK may also be able to help, > I don't know (we don't yet have a lawyer, but for something this > specific we can find one). I don't know if WMUK wants to get involved > with this sort of thing but if it does it could be a useful vehicle > for collecting the funds.

Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National Portrait Gallery ...

Nathan wrote: > If Dcoetzee complies with the request made in the letter from the NPG, and > some other > user from the U.S. (having previously made copies of the images at issue) > uploads them > again, what recourse would the NPG have wrt its database rights and TOS > claims? > > Or better sti

Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National Portrait Gallery ...

Andrew Lih wrote: > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> I don't know if there is precise precedent, but from what I've read I >> think most people agree that "sweat of the brow" is, at least in some >> cases, enough under UK law. >> > I suppose we'd need a humidity re

Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National Portrait Gallery ...

Robert Rohde wrote: > There are serious legal disagreements about this, but people have > argued for some time that the UK is perhaps the purest example of a > "sweat of the brow" state with respect to their copyright law. In > other words, the prevailing view of many has been that UK law rewards

Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National Portrait Gallery ...

Mike.lifeguard wrote: > Furthermore (and in a bizarre distortion of anything reasonable), NPG > actually claims copyright on photos that individual visitors take. So, > copyright on PD works is only OK if they own it... now that's just > ridiculous. I'm not sure appeasing them is possible or even a

Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National Portrait Gallery ...

John at Darkstar wrote: > This is public and has been so since the first posting. The press > release was just a reference of whats going on at Wikimedia Commons, the > specific user page describing the case and this mailing list. It is sent > out through the mailing list for Wikimedia Norway and i

Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National Portrait Gallery ...

Geoffrey Plourde wrote: > Lets finish up the press releases and drop this thread. NPG can read it too. > Has a US press release been sent out? > > > There's no problem with keeping this thread going, as long as we don't pretend that there is anything official about the comments. Keeping the

Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...

John at Darkstar wrote: > Local chapters can say something about whats going on, they can't make > claims on behalf of others, but they can interpret written statements > like any other blogger or news outlet. Just remember that wmf sends > press releases on behalf of wmf, nobody else do that. > >

Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National Portrait Gallery ...

Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/7/11 geni : > >> The case is under English and welsh law. For solid legal reasons the >> NPG will be willing to make a reasonable settlement. >> >> Since we know that the NPG are not completely stupid and English law >> in any case lacks statutory damages it would see

Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National Portrait Gallery ...

Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge : > >> Thomas Dalton wrote: >> >>> 2009/7/11 geni : >>> >>>> The case is under English and welsh law. For solid legal reasons the >>>> NPG will be willing to make a reasona

Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National Portrait Gallery ...

Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge : > >> If he didn't want public comments he would not have made the letter >> public; he might have chosen more private WMF channels. >> > > Do you know that he sought legal advice before publishing the lett

Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National Portrait Gallery ...

2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge : > >> If he didn't want public comments he would not have made the letter > >> public; he might have chosen more private WMF channels. > >> > Thomas Dalton replied: > Do you know that he sought legal advice before publishi

Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National Portrait Gallery ...

Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > [snip] > >> If in retrospect, publishing the letter is seen as a strategic mistake, >> it can't be unpublished. There are arguments available for it being a >> strategic positiv

Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National Portrait Gallery ...

Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge : > >> I've restored the comments that I was replying to since you deleted them >> to wilfully mischaracterize my "ROTFL" as applying to the general issue >> rather than your silly comments. >> >>

Re: [Foundation-l] [Slashdot] Why the Photos On Wikipedia Are So Bad

wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: > David Gerard wrote: > >> Explaining this to professional content creators and media companies >> leads to exploding heads. Pointing out that giving it all away has >> made Wikipedia a top-ten website and must be doing all right from it >> isn't enough to con

[Foundation-l] Canadian copyrights

The Canadian government has asked for comments on copyright revision at http://copyright.econsultation.ca/ It will accept comments until September 13. Amazingly this mostly coincides with the time when most people interested in liberalized copyright laws are away touring Europe or planting tre

Re: [Foundation-l] Britain or Ukraine? What UK stands for in Wikimedia jargon

stevertigo wrote: > Nikola Smolenski wrote: > >> I suggest a hatnote on the main page of the site: "This is the website >> of Wikimedia United Kingdom. For other uses, see uk.wikimedia.org >> (disambiguation)." >> > I actually coined the word "hatnote" - probably in violation of our > 'no n

Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics

Nikola Smolenski wrote: > Henning Schlottmann wrote: > > Quite frankly, a 15 years old can't contribute to de-WP anymore. Not > > even 20 years olds can. De-WP has reached a level where undergraduates > > Pavlo Shevelo wrote: > > As a matter od fact teenagers contribute mainly to articles about

Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics

Lars Aronsson wrote: > Henning Schlottmann wrote: > >> Who are our actual users? >> > This is a good question, not only with respect to level (youth or > academic), but also for topics (academic subjects like medicine, > or popular culture). Retired academics might provide useful input

Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics

Mark Williamson wrote: > This is precisely one of the problems that is holding us back. > > Individual prejudices against younger individuals may have scared > younger users away from the project. > > All in all, I feel that we should basically treat all users the same, > regardless of age. If a 15

Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics

Henning Schlottmann wrote: > John Vandenberg wrote: > >> On wikimedia, young people learn how to properly reference an article, >> which will help them as they progress in their education. >> > Originally Wikipedia was about People, who could already write academic > papers and did not need

Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics

Samuel Klein wrote: > I mean basic educational information about how things work, and how > they relate to one another; data and facts; and maps, statistics, and > visualizations of this sort of knowledge. > I vaguely remember some long-ago comments from Jimbo where he foresaw WP as including

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

Andrew Gray wrote: > 2009/8/1 John Vandenberg: > >> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Samuel Klein wrote: >> >>> Also... >>> *A wiki for book metadata, with an entry for every published work, >>> statistics about its use and siblings, and discussion about its >>> usefulness as a citation (a c

Re: [Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers

private musings wrote: > Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly. > > I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing / > evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there - > perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that w

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT

Birgitte SB wrote: > I don't know that it is useful to make a general policy for exceptions. I > think it is better just to watch out for such problems to pop up and try to > direct attention to them when they are noticed. > > I think it is a better use of time and energy to wait and react to

<    1   2   3   4   5   >