2009/2/3 Brian :
> I would like to see the most flexible attribution rules possible (just the
> Article Title, Wikipedia perhaps). If Geni's adamance regarding strict terms
> of attribution is a correct interpretation of the CC-BY-SA then I can't see
> it as being the correct license for the projec
2009/2/3 Brian :
> Where can I read about what, exactly, the spirit of the GFDL is?
> I've already explained why flexible attribution is equivalent to full
> attribution in a recent post. It's easy to do the reverse lookup from a
> piece of content to its authors. Anyone wanting to know who the con
2009/2/3 Nathan :
> I don't think Thomas Larsen needs to remind us about Epistemia regularly,
> although I can't say it really bothers me. It isn't spam, though.
I don't think this email was spam - it was informing a larger audience
(foundation-l rather than just wikien-l) of the project now that
2009/2/3 Nikola Smolenski :
> On Tuesday 03 February 2009 20:22:02 Sam Johnston wrote:
>> Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
>> the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g. paragraph
>
> Please stop beating the dead horse. No one has ever suggested t
2009/2/3 Brian :
> With a system that can find the authors of any given piece of text no matter
> when it existed in any language version:
Where is this system? Is it included with the work when it is
distributed (I doubt it)? If not, it's no help.
___
2009/2/3 Brian :
> I've seen this point made at least three times today.
>
> What leads you to believe that the attribution must be on the same medium?
It doesn't necessarily need to be the same medium, but it needs to be
included in the distribution otherwise you can't guarantee the person
receiv
2009/2/3 Sam Johnston :
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>> If one wants to go down the suggested attribution route, one approach might
>> be:
>>
>> Create an "authors page" associated with each page that contains:
>
>
> There may be a far simpler (and fairer) way that could
2009/2/3 Nikola Smolenski :
> On Tuesday 03 February 2009 21:07:51 Sam Johnston wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>> >> Given that full attributions are both largely worthless and onerous to
>> >> the point of forbidding reuse in many circumstances (e.g. paragraph
>
2009/2/5 Frieda Brioschi :
> Premiolino (which means "little award") is the ancient and most
> important italian journalistic award.
> it.wiki wins in the category "New media" for this reason:
> "(because) it's a great, open, accessible for everyone, democratic
> encyclopedia, always updated in rea
2009/2/5 Cetateanu Moldovanu :
> 1. Wikipedia has a pretended version of it in "Moldovan language" using
> the Cyrillic script
> 2. The state language is Moldovan (identical to Romanian), and it is
> written in the Latin alphabet, not Cyrillic
> 3. we request you to delete the fake "Moldo
e2009/2/6 Halvor :
> There was a discussion at the Village Pump on en-wikipedia a year ago about
> implementing the rather familiar link sharing options that more and more
> websites have installed in order to increase readership.Typically this would
> show as:
>
> Save to del.icio.us • Share on
2009/2/7 David Gerard :
> 2009/2/4 Anthony :
>
>> Add in the legal questions over the very relicensing itself, and a reuser
>> really isn't in any better of a position than they were when things were
>> GFDL.
>
>
> There is no legal question over the very relicensing itself. You
> trying to spread
2009/2/7 David Gerard :
> 2009/2/7 Thomas Dalton :
>> 2009/2/7 David Gerard :
>
>>> There is no legal question over the very relicensing itself. You
>>> trying to spread FUD here doesn't count.
>
>> There's no question in the US. I'm not conv
2009/2/9 Delirium :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 2009/2/7 David Gerard :
>>
>>> Anyone can take any idiot question to court. That doesn't count as a
>>> reason to assume that there must therefore be a substantive reason to
>>> believe that the &q
2009/2/9 geni :
> 2009/2/9 Ting Chen :
>> I dislike this argument very much. People cannot choose that they are
>> born in Iran or in China, or in the USA or Europe. Use such a trait that
>> cannot be influence by a person against him is a kind of discrimination.
>
> True but it's based on reality
2009/2/13 Ziko van Dijk :
> Hello,
>
> There are some language versions of Wikipedia who have no relation to a
> chapter or cannot create a chapter, or where a chapter would not be
> suitable. Examples:
> - nation-less languages such as Latin, Esperanto
> - diaspora languages or Wikipedia communiti
2009/2/15 P. Birken :
> On February, 4th, all articles of the german WP had at least one
> sighted revision. Since then, only pages newly created by noneditors
> have to be looked at. On average, around 1.000 pages were marked for
> the first time per day and these are now carried over to looking a
2009/2/15 geni :
> 2009/2/15 P. Birken :
>> Hiho,
>>
>> there have been some significant developments on de-WP, which I would
>> like to share with this list.
>>
>> On February, 4th, all articles of the german WP had at least one
>> sighted revision. Since then, only pages newly created by nonedito
2009/2/16 David Yellope :
> I certainly hope that the flow is the other way. The amount of damage that
> IP editors and non auto-confirmed accounts are doing on en:WP definitely
> recommends against it. I was thinking about proposing that the move-article
> command (as well as replacing an article
2009/2/16 David Yellope :
> As for the other part of it I'm decently sure that unless move-protect is
> set on a page, that anyone can move it.
Oh, yeah, we have explicit semi-move-protection, so it must be
possible normally. I'm sure it used to be restricted... probably
several years ago now, tho
Yes, yes, that's all very interesting, but how was the skiing? ;)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/2/17 Sue Gardner :
> 2009/2/17 Thomas Dalton :
>> Yes, yes, that's all very interesting, but how was the skiing? ;)
>
> Davos was actually hilariously gruelling: it started with breakfasts
> at 7.30 and ran past midnight every day. Any spare time I had, I
> spen
2009/2/18 Ryan Kaldari :
> it
> looks like the last update was from Erik Möller on February 3rd in
> which he said that he was hoping to "get some survey data this week,
> and move quickly after that." Was the survey conducted?
I don't remember seeing a survey... I certainly didn't fill one out.
2009/2/18 Michael Snow :
> We do still plan to have a survey, although I don't think it's critical
> that it precede the vote. The point of the survey is in particular to
> get some more information that would help work out details for
> attribution standards. Not everything is specified in the lic
2009/2/18 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> The way I read Michael, it is an open issue never mind what license we
> choose. It is therefore an issue whether we stay with the GFDL or not. It is
> in my opinion weird to allow arguments that have no bearing whatsoever on
> the subject make a difference.
I
2009/2/18 Michael Snow :
> That's why we made it a point to include some attribution standards in
> the proposal, so that we don't vote on this in a vacuum.
I don't believe I've seen a formal proposal yet - did I miss it?
___
foundation-l mailing list
f
2009/2/18 Gerard Meijssen :
> Sure but when the way we are going to do this is different from what the
> license says anyway
It is? Then I won't be voting for it...
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://list
2009/2/18 Brian :
> It's already been made clear that the foundation has no obligation to
> consult the community on this issue. My interpretation of Michael's
> post is that he is restating this point. They are *going* to make the
> switch, and when they do we will be bound by what the CC-BY-SA sa
2009/2/18 Brian :
> It's been said quite clearly that the foundation doesn't have to
> consult the community, although not in this thread.
Legally, they can do whatever the hell they like, but it's always been
made very clear that they have no intention of switching without
community approval.
__
2009/2/18 Michael Snow :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 2009/2/18 Michael Snow :
>>
>>> That's why we made it a point to include some attribution standards in
>>> the proposal, so that we don't vote on this in a vacuum.
>>>
>> I don
2009/2/18 basedrop :
>
> Hello,
> I'm not sure if this is the place to pose this question, if not could you
> respond with the proper place.
>
> I'm building out a social networking site centered around an "art" and
> "arthistory" theme. I would like to display a real time dynamic version of
> t
2009/2/19 basedrop :
> Hello Thomas and thanks for your response.
>
> I would point out that the foundation created a French version, hosted it
> on French servers, in the French language because they saw the benefit of
> delivering something to a specific constituency.
Delivering something to a
2009/2/19 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Without disagreeing on the importance of attribution standards
> per se, it is clearly inaccurate to say that they signify how we
> interpret the license. Contributors can be asked to waive
> rights to content they add to the site (where they are the
> sole origi
2009/2/19 Robert Rohde :
> Do other people agree that supporting live mirrors, if it could be
> done in a practical manner, would be a natural extension of the
> Foundation's free content goals?
No, because I can't see the benefit over a hyperlink.
___
2009/2/19 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> Thomas OTHER people can see this benefit.. It is not that hard.. even I can.
Then would you care to explain it to me?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedi
2009/2/19 Robert Rohde :
> In my opinion, it is incumbent upon us to give examples of how we
> believe third parties can legally and practically reuse WMF content by
> exercising rights under CC-BY-SA. If we can't, in our collective
> wisdom, agree on how third parties ought to be able to accompli
2009/2/19 David Levy :
> David Goodman wrote:
>
>> The benefit is in getting users who would not be comfortable on
>> Wikipedia because of the perceived and real behavior problems on that
>> site--even if this is no worse ultimately than in the academic world,
>> the mode of interaction is certainl
numbers come from Erik Zachte's list page, and
> sum posts for the top 25 posters from Jan 08 to Feb 09.
>
> Thomas Dalton 753
That's the result of having to write a master's thesis!
Actually, I think that list is very positive - we have 25 people all
posting at least an aver
2009/2/19 Nathan :
> So the question really should be, what of this would be to our disadvantage?
It's very difficult to set up technically, for a start. Live mirroring
of existing content isn't too hard, but sorting out editing would be a
nightmare. We presumably wouldn't want everyone editing un
2009/2/19 Nathan :
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> That's the result of having to write a master's thesis!
>>
>> Actually, I think that list is very positive - we have 25 people all
>> posting at
2009/2/19 Robert Rohde :
> I think you are significantly overestimating the difficulty. We
> already have an API [1] and similar tools that allow one to accomplish
> many similar tasks. For example, calling ?action=render will give you
> a llive HTML version of any current page that could be wrap
2009/2/20 Mingli Yuan :
> Since "Songhu Hui" use Wordpress, so I just propose a technical idea to
> improve the cooperation between Wikimedia and "Songhu Hui". How about a
> keyword-link-generator to Wikipedia for Wordpress? This new Wordpress plugin
> will query Wikipedia to get a keyword list, an
2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann :
> * Ditch the dual licensing. I don't understand it. I am trained as a
> lawyer to understand about licenses and I have not the slightest idea
> how the dual licensing is supposed to work. No one I talked to -
> layperson or professional - understood about it. Make a
2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann :
> geni wrote:
>> 2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann :
>>> * The responsibility for decisions of this magnitude lays with the
>>> board. WMF is a non-membership association. Don't even try to evade that
>>> responsibility by delegating it to the "community". Accept the
>>>
2009/2/22 River Tarnell :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> hi,
>
> currently the dump process is a bit broken. what is the Foundation's position
> on this? why are developer resources allocated to put the server admin log on
> twitter, but no one has touched dumps in months?
2009/2/22 Casey Brown :
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:49 AM, River Tarnell
> wrote:
>> why are developer resources allocated to put the server admin log on
>> twitter
>
> er... I think that was a personal choice by one of the shell users, I
> don't think the Foundation said "dudes, we HAVE to put th
2009/2/22 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> As I understand it, the WMF made an agreement with RMS that the
>> projects would be dual licensed and not switched entirely. I think
>> making that agreement was a mistake, but there's not much that can be
>
2009/2/22 Anthony :
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/2/22 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
>> > Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> >> As I understand it, the WMF made an agreement with RMS that the
>> >> projects would be dual licensed an
2009/2/22 Anthony :
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> The reasons are fairly obvious - the FSF
>> wants people to still be using their license and the WMF felt the need
>> to compromise, so agreed to it.
>
>
> If the FSF wants people to sti
2009/2/22 Brian Salter-Duke :
> I am rather disturbed at the discussion on meta here:-
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_(2)_Wikipedia
>
> about closing this project and I am surpried that the issue has not come
> up here. While the consensu
2009/2/23 Anthony :
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> The discussion has to
>> take place somewhere, meta seems the best option (the only obvious
>> alternative is to have closure discussions on the project in question,
>> but that would mo
2009/2/23 Brian Salter-Duke :
> However my central point that a discussion of something as important as
> closing one of our most important projects in a way that few know about
> it remains. The !vote is 42:102. We get more at en:WP on a RFA.
The proposal is almost certainly going to fail, so the
2009/2/23 Al Tally :
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
>> The question of how such a discussion would be closed is what concerns me
>> the most - I can't see allowing a meta bureaucrat to close such a poll
>> (which is what we would do in en.wp), and since the Foundation would hav
2009/2/23 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) :
> I'm not familiar with the details of the data dump process, so I can't
> comment on whether it's broken or not.
It's broken, I don't think there is any dispute there.
> However, one question that I have is whether the dump includes, or should
> conclude, all
2009/2/23 Chad :
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:44 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> The value of providing good dumps is forkability, in case WMF is hit
>> by a meteor, hit by a legal meteor, goes collectively insane, etc.
>> Imagine trying to fork Wikipedia without being able to take the
>> project spaces
2009/2/24 Anthony :
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Brian wrote:
>
>> It may in fact be much more user friendly to
>> simply offer an enormous text file for download because users don't
>> have to unpack it.
>
>
> Another point, which I forgot to mention. If you have the bandwidth to kill
> an
2009/2/24 Anthony :
> What's the average ratio of CPU-seconds to download seconds for an article?
> Surely a single machine could handle thousands of simultaneous
> screen-scrapers doing this 24/7. I don't buy it.
I don't know, but people are asked not to crawl the entire site like
that, so I gue
2009/2/25 Nathan :
> http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2009/02/25/25readwriteweb-amazon_exposes_1_terrabyte_of.html
>
> According to this, a new project by Amazon that makes a terabyte of public
> data available includes a full dump of Wikipedia. It also includes the
> complete dbpedia -
2009/2/25 Brian :
> What has led you to believe there is no demand for a full dump of the
> english wikipedia?
He didn't say there was no demand, he said there was no demand for
having it on Amazon.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikim
2009/2/25 Brian :
> Ahh ok. Anyone who wants to do processing on the full history (and there are
> a lot of these people who exist!) by definition *has* to be willing to throw
> some money at it. It simply doesn't fit on commercial drives. In fact, it
> would hardly fit on either of the two raid cl
2009/3/2 Sue Gardner :
> So what can we do? Here are the things I am thinking about. I would love
> your input:
>
> * Do we think the current complaints resolution systems are working? Is it
> easy enough for article subjects to report problems? Are we courteous and
> serious in our handling of c
2009/3/2 Lennart Guldbrandsson :
>>
>> Thomas Dalton wrote
>> I've just looked at a BLP and nowhere can I see an guidance on how to
>> complain. I suggest a "Report a problem with this article" link to
>> added to the sidebar of all articles as a m
2009/3/2 David Gerard :
> I would guess it's mostly (2), in my experience. People have no idea
> who to contact. The "Contact Wikipedia" link on en:wp's sidebar
> doesn't seem to catch their eye - though it gets you to the right
> answer in three further clicks. Perhaps it should be on the page you
2009/3/2 Anthony :
>> Flagged Revs is an excellent way of dealing with vandalism to BLPs,
>> technical solutions to more subtle problems are a little trickier.
>> Flagged Revs could be used with addition levels - a "free of
>> vandalism" level and a "well balanced, fact-checked and free of
>> anyt
2009/3/2 Sue Gardner :
> There is lots I want to reply to here; this mail is just a start...
>> I've just looked at a BLP and nowhere can I see an guidance on how to
>> complain. I suggest a "Report a problem with this article" link to
>> added to the sidebar of all articles as a mailto link to the
2009/3/2 Chris Down :
> Ipatrol has just came on IRC claiming that he has been told that the WMF is
> hiring people to "validate" articles, and that the foundation is doing it in
> secret by using thousands of IPs and academics. He claims that the WMF has
> contracted colleges all across the US hav
2009/3/2 David Gerard :
> 2009/3/2 Chris Down :
>
>> Ipatrol has just came on IRC claiming that he has been told that the WMF is
>> hiring people to "validate" articles, and that the foundation is doing it in
>> secret by using thousands of IPs and academics. He claims that the WMF has
>> contracte
2009/3/2 Nathan :
> If we're being technical, the helicopters are no longer black. They're
> invisible.
They're invisible and black. They tried invisible and pink but the
targets just laughed.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.o
2009/3/2 Para :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>>>> I've just looked at a BLP and nowhere can I see an guidance on how to
>>>>> complain. I suggest a "Report a problem with this article" link to
>>>>> added to the sidebar of all articles as a
2009/3/2 David Gerard :
> 2009/3/2 Thomas Dalton :
>
>> I may be missing it due to not speaking Dutch, but it doesn't seem to
>> be linked to from anywhere... Does it include the details of the
>> article and revision in the default text? That's a key feature for
2009/3/2 :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> I may be missing it due to not speaking Dutch, but it doesn't seem to
>> be linked to from anywhere... Does it include the details of the
>> article and revision in the default text? That's a key feature for
>> what I&#
2009/3/2 David Gerard :
> 2009/3/2 Thomas Dalton :
>
>> A drop down list of queues would be easy enough to implement, I can do
>> that. (I may need to abuse the interface system, a la
>> Mediawiki:Sidebar, though...)
>
>
> Shirley that's incredibly easy to add
2009/3/2 Mike Godwin :
> Steve Smith writes:
>
>>
>> > My strong belief is that the Foundation can make *suggestions* to the
>> community about what content policy should be, but that *it must remain up
>> to the community whether to adopt such policies and how to enforce them*.
>>
>> How is this r
2009/3/3 Domas Mituzas :
> Hi!
>
>> If there is anything like that going on, even in planning, the board
>> should be acknowledged. I know nothing of such a thing. So I suppose
>> it
>> is nonsence.
>
>
> Ditto. Unless there is a cabal there too! :) (For the record, I'm
> joking, even if it doesn't
2009/3/3 Erik Moeller :
> Hello all,
>
> as some of you may have seen, I've run a small survey over the
> weekend, scattered via a 5% site-notice on the English Wikipedia for
> signed in users. The result is a self-selected sample of authors. I'll
> publish the full anonymous raw data later this we
2009/3/3 Anthony :
> Are Wikia's lawyers as paranoid as Mike Godwin, or do they allow staff to
> get involved in enforcing policy violations?
I think paranoia is a significant part of what lawyers are paid for. I
expect Wikia's lawyers have given their managers the same advice as
Mike has given ou
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>> CC lawyers? They wrote the license, so their interpretation of it
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> I think it is very on point to mention that even if some
> things were on that list, that would not make them
> *more* acceptable to the community, just by virtue of
> them being considered allowable by CC lawyers, if
> they were infact contrary to our mission.
I
2009/3/4 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton :
>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>> CC lawyers?
>
> We've been in repeated conversations with CC about t
2009/3/4 Anthony :
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> And that explicitly included offline reuse? If so, it looks like we're
>> ready to present a final proposal for the community to vote on. Even
>> with such a small sample size, tho
2009/3/4 Anthony :
> You're assuming that those who ranked "no credit is needed" first will be
> happy with attribution by URL, and you're assuming that those who ranked
> "credit can be given to the community" will by happy with attribution by
> URL. But these people will also probably be happy w
2009/3/4 Marco Chiesa :
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>>
>> And yes, 80% of people ranked one of 4 options which I consider
>> unacceptable
>> first. But then, 67% of people would have done so even if everyone chose
>> their answers randomly.
>
>
> Now, how many of the 20% wh
2009/3/4 Anthony :
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> Do we really want to only listen to the opinions of those people
>> actually willing to make a fuss if they don't get their way?
>>
>
> We should. If someone isn't willing to m
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 the public domain?
No, because
2009/3/4 phoebe ayers :
> I know there's time pressure on this... but on the other hand, we've
> waited years :) It would be worthwhile to get better stats before
> making sweeping generalizations about the community's desires.
That we've waited years is irrelevant. We make a decision soon, or the
2009/3/4 Anthony :
> This is more than just an "argument" if it's being used to purport to give
> copyright licenses away. In fact, it's not much of an "argument" at all -
> arguments aren't won by voting, unless you're defining the "argument" as
> which position more people agree with.
I've made
(Last email, since I received this I was I was typing what was meant
to be the last one. Then I'll really stop.)
2009/3/4 Anthony :
> What if the FSF could be convinced to come up with a GFDL 1.4 which makes it
> legal?
They can't. The GFDL requires future versions to be in the same spirit.
>> I
2009/3/4 Mike Godwin :
> Phoebe writes:
>
> This is a very small, self-selected sample; there would be
>> no harm or cost associated with turning it on for a much larger
>> percentage (or all) of logged-in users on the top-ten languages, not
>> just English or German alone, which both have peculiar
2009/3/6 David Gerard :
> Politicians get quite annoyed at this stuff. In my experience they
> mostly take a certain level of rubbish in their stride, but that
> doesn't mean we shouldn't work to improve the situation.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7921985.stm
This article has now bee
2009/3/6 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> When the English Wikipedia is the only Wikipedia with BLP issues, I
> completely agree.
It's the only Wikipedia where BLP issues significantly affect UK
politicians, which are the subject of the article.
___
foundatio
2009/3/6 David Gerard :
> 2009/3/6 Thomas Dalton :
>> 2009/3/6 Gerard Meijssen :
>
>>> When the English Wikipedia is the only Wikipedia with BLP issues, I
>>> completely agree.
>
>> It's the only Wikipedia where BLP issues significantly affect UK
2009/3/6 Cary Bass :
>> That's interesting. We should try and get some more up-to-date
>> stats on that - it would be useful for Wikimedia UK to have stats
>> like that to throw around in negotiations, etc., to show how
>> important we are.
>
> For that matter, just look at the contributors to this
2009/3/7 Erik Moeller :
> The author attribution survey is now closed. We have 1017 complete
> responses. I've posted results of the attribution data in the
> following report:
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Attribution_Survey_Results.pdf
>
> I've posted the raw data of the attributi
2009/3/8 Milos Rancic :
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> For example, if the survey had shown community credit to be highly
>> desired and not controversial at all, that would be interesting: We
>> could have an informed conversation about whether we should try to
>> accomm
2009/3/8 John at Darkstar :
> One person told me that attribution of a single article and a bigger
> collection could be made different. That is, a single printed copy of an
> article could use a credit of "Wikipedia" and a mirror on a website
> could use a history link. We don't have to choose a "
2009/3/8 Anthony :
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> Crediting "Wikipedia" would never be acceptable under CC-by-SA, since
>> existing contributions weren't made under a terms of service that
>> required permission be granted for
2009/3/10 Delphine Ménard :
> Are there any plans to have usability tests in other languages than
> English and other "cultures" than "North-American"? It seems to me
> these two factors actually would play quite a role in the way people
> interact with the software and probably should be taken int
2009/3/11 Nathan :
> I'm curious about the plans behind meeting with branding specialists. What
> is the Foundation looking to achieve? Wider brand recognition of the
> Foundation itself (as opposed to the English Wikipedia)? Research into brand
> penetration and audience perception, that sort of t
2009/3/13 Erik Moeller :
> The point of the provision is to ensure that attribution by link
> always happens by linking to a copy that actually gives authorship
> information.
It is vitally important that that be the case, otherwise you could
have two mirrors each linking to each other with neithe
2009/3/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> I think you fail at logic.
>
> You could not have two mirrors linking to each others with
> neither listing the authors, if the first one to mirror was
> compliant with the CC-BY-SA. Posit the first mirror complied with
> and required compliance of that license. It
501 - 600 of 1059 matches
Mail list logo
