On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:57 PM, M. Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote:
So yes, lots of people think what we're doing is wrong, but so what? You
can never please anybody. That is why you need to choose a set of
principles and stick with them. At least that way, when people don't like
what
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Gregory Varnum
gregory.var...@gmail.com wrote:
Basically a charity in the USA can spend up to 20% of its expenses on direct
lobbying of related issues.
20% of the first $500,000, 15% of the next $500,000, 10% of the next
$500,000, and 5% of the rest, with a cap
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech and
corporations are people
Really? That's weird. What recent ruling said that?
___
foundation-l mailing list
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech and
corporations
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
If you read I said according to recent rulings
And as far as I can tell, what you claim those recent rulings said, is
not what the recent rulings said.
___
foundation-l mailing
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Robin McCain ro...@slmr.com wrote:
On 10/25/2011 2:57 PM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
You've made quite a few incorrect assumptions there.
Of course Commons editors should be deciding which images are PD. But
when there is a dispute, it
...a deletion discussion among
non-professionals is not the proper way to determine the law.
Neither is the opinion of a legal expert: That's the job of the courts.
Courts are the proper way to determine the law after the fact. But
this is a question of determining the law before the fact.
?
On Oct 23, 2011 2:01 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On what grounds is it out
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:13 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 October 2011 00:19, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I am *amazed* that it took a whole month for someone to mention it on
[[:en:Talk:Mickey Mouse]], and another half an hour before someone
(me) replaced the
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work
carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the
one on the derivative
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work
carry (at least) two
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 10/3/11 4:36 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think we are fairly safe hosting the images of the original fragments,
even by Israeli law. Israel
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
None of the
discussions of the Qimron case seem to mention the issue of date of
publication. The argument seems to have hinged almost entirely
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 10/4/11 8:16 AM, Anthony wrote:
If WMF wants to copy *the text* of the scrolls, I don't think anyone
is going to have a problem with that. The copyright notice claims
copyright in the digital images
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
On 10/01/11 5:36 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva
tolkiend...@gmail.com wrote:
In practical terms, what they can do? Wikipedia is hosted in US.
Therefore, for a successful
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva
tolkiend...@gmail.com wrote:
In practical terms, what they can do? Wikipedia is hosted in US.
Therefore, for a successful takedown, the museum must sue in US.
Well, for one thing, they could sue reusers.
WMF using the work is one
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:
On 29/09/11 04:12, Anthony wrote:
Why not? What constitutes an original photograph, as opposed to
whatever this photograph is?
An original photograph is a photograph that fixes an original image.
You're just
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:
On 29/09/11 04:12, Anthony wrote:
You need to reread what I said. I was not making a pro-copyright argument.
You need to rewrite what you wrote so that it reflects what you meant.
You were making a pro-copyright
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:
The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning.
Sure it does. Is there any such thing as an original photograph?
The photograph is secondary, derivative and imitative.
Yes.
The photograph is not the
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:
On 28/09/11 13:44, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenskismole...@eunet.rs wrote:
The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning.
Sure it does. Is there any such thing
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
By the common meaning of the word original, I'd say the photograph
*is* original. OTOH, under US precedent it *probably* isn't within
the US legal meaning of the term.
I should add that, in my US analysis, I was making
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
As far as law outside the U.S. is concerned, the Feist decision has had
more of an impact than Bridgeman (probably because it was a Supreme
Court decision). Since Feist (1991), many common
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
On 09/26/11 12:27 PM, emijrp wrote:
If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any
copyright for scans which lack originality?[1]
[1]
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:57 PM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
OMG ISRAEL IS OUT OF USA? REALLY?
Come on. The point here is that originality is a common requirement for
claiming copyright.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow
___
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com wrote:
I think Wikinews could work well on some topics, news that don't last
a single day, but instead
needs a history and a timetable. On those topics, Wikinews could fill
an informative gap,
because even newspapers
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Brian J Mingus
brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
It seems that giving w.net/com/org to the WMF would be in line with his
vision of no corporation controlling a letter.
Last I checked, WMF was a corporation.
___
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Foundation is not a legal term
Private foundation is one, though, and it is one that is contrasted
with public charity.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_0509000-.html
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
Foundation is not a legal term
Private foundation is one, though, and it is one that is contrasted
with public charity.
Has it occurred to the people running Wikipedia that some people might
think Wikipedia is affiliated with Wikileaks?
It would be an easy mistake to make, and even I balked because I am totally
anti-Wikileaks.
The bigger question is whether or not it has occurred to Julian
Assange. Since
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
When we get letters saying things like I'd donate, but only to Wikipedia,
not to Wikimedia, it spells
out for us that it's possible we could attract more people with the
institution of Wikipedia than the
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Russell Nelson russnel...@gmail.com wrote:
Huh?? Editors are donors as well, as are people who contribute to mailing
lists, as are you.
So clearly everyone contributing to this discussion has also
contributed to the foundation!
In any case, both you and Dumas
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:21 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
This list has mailing list moderators, but they don't seem to do any actual
moderating (in the social or technical sense). That seems to be a large part
of the problem with nearly every thread like this.
Is there some sort
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 6:26 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I know quite a lot about operational requirements, and I know that policies
should state clearly what IS being done, not what may be done.
It's quite practical
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Surely there are ways to publish policies which don't require a formal
board resolution every time something changes. Also, any emergency
exceptions could
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 1:16 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 November 2010 19:30, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Geni mentioned offering a level of support equivalent to our
smaller projects, which is most definitely *not* just providing ISP
services.
err beyond ISP services what
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 2:56 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Should we offer to host citizendium?
Nah, let them go to Wikia.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
If Wikimedians want to rescue them: donate money to them.
DN-PHP-6004: This organization's DonateNow service has been
temporarily disabled. Please contact this organization for other
donation options.
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Anirudh Bhati anirudh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 November 2010 17:34, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Oh, well what's the point of that? Might as well just give them
money, as the WMF would just be purchasing those ISP services from
someone else anyway
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:29 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
So we giving another $1300 to Milton Beychok quickly, wrapped in
sufficient legalese that we know it goes towards the hosting.
Then he and others can sleep easy, and focus on more important things.
I'd say for the WMF to
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
An interesting idea would be a standalone static copy of
wikipedia that really tried their utmost to make the product
visually appealing, and used the generated money from the
advertisements purely to fund ever more
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
I'm sure they'd be willing to work out a deal where people can opt-in
to Wikipedia ads (which wouldn't be subject to the anti-porn rules).
I doubt they'd
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 November 2010 15:50, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
We use a tab at the top of the article to link to the ad page. No one has
to click on it; but if you're looking for buying, or investigating
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 November 2010 16:05, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 7 November 2010 15:50, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
We use
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
They won't be people that want ads, though. They'll be people that
want ad revenue for us. If they click, they'll be clicking to get us
revenue
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 November 2010 16:40, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
It can save a step. Also, maybe Wikipedia's ads could be better
screened than Google's ads.
Going to Wikipedia seems to be adding a step, not removing one
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 12:07 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I'm also skeptical that manually placed and
manually monitored, internet advertising even pays for the wages of the
worker.
This is why Google uses automagic. And why everyone else does as well.
Doesn't Google lets the advertiser
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Between the
lack of support for ads in the community and the difficult hurdles
that would need to be navigated to not get in trouble with the IRS, I
don't see ads ever coming to Wikimedia Foundation websites.
Yes,
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:44 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
If there were a system created, where all the *effort* were off loaded to
the payer, not the pay...ed, then you'd gain that financial benefit.
The creation of such a system however, involves the effort of a much higher
level of paid
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
... and compromise content, as TV Tropes found out:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSituation?from=Main.TheGoogleIncident
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hello,
Adverts do not make content wrong, but create mistrust.
Have a look what Lawrence Lessig tells about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHma3ZQRVoA
After the first few minutes it turns into a long drawn out
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Lennart Guldbrandsson
wikihanni...@gmail.com wrote:
Some FLOSS solution simply take more time than proprietary ones, and I
know for a fact that the tech team have s much things to do that we
should a) give them a break if they investigate a matter properly
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 4:43 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Gmail is just ridiculously better than any other email client I've
ever used ever, having previously progressed through Pine, elm, mutt
and Thunderbird. Perhaps it's just me, but I'd guess otherwise from
the number of
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Jon Davis jda...@wikimedia.org wrote:
When we wanted to pursue
the Google Apps project further, we contacted a sales rep. In the end, we
went through the process like any other group would, and we pay the standard
price.
Wow. The standard price? Is the
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Jon Davis jda...@wikimedia.org wrote:
This migration will not effect anything but Staff email. OTRS, wiki's,
mailing lists and anything else I've forgotten to mention will continue to
work as they did previously.
Are the MX records going to point to WMF, or to
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:22 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Hi.
This morning the Wikimedia Foundation had a meeting about migrating to
Google Apps.
Using Google Apps for what?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance?
Well you could put a banner above every article that read The
information contained on the page could well be
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
Taking this problem seriously, how can we
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote:
You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other
encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts.
No, I'm asserting that Wikipedia is less reliable than other
encyclopedias, which the
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote:
You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other
encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts.
He is probably thinking about this:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Remember though Britannica is meant to be the best of the best in
terms of encyclopedias . So unless you are going to define
encyclopedia as Encyclopedia Britannica you have to accept that
works with lower levels of reliability
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
No, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is not consistent with any rational
definitions of Wikipedia and encyclopedia.
Even Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia doesn't call Wikipedia an
encyclopedia, it calls it a free, web-based
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer.
There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd
definitely expect more
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 4:04 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 October 2010 20:47, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
None of which I'd expect to say that John
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:31 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Put it in a fixed form, like on a CD, and then you can call it an
encyclopedia.
Unfortunately, you're running behind the English language.
I saw your name
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 3:54 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously, this list is commonly referred to as troll-l and lots of
chapter people refuse to even look at it. Pulling it out of the mire
might make it even slightly useful again.
Who want's a list that's slightly useful?
October 2010 14:27, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 3:54 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously, this list is commonly referred to as troll-l and lots of
chapter people refuse to even look at it. Pulling it out of the mire
might make it even slightly
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Guillaume Paumier
gpaum...@wikimedia.org wrote:
No. The Board is ultimately answerable to the community.
How so? The community's vote for the board is only advisory.
In the long run, the board is answerable to the donors. But even
then, there are millions
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Muhammad Yahia shipmas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
How so? The community's vote for the board is only advisory.
Err, how come? it's pretty clear in the bylaws?
Not really...there's subsection
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
If I thought that the community members were only there in an advisory role,
I would not have stood for election.
Right, well, you should have paid more attention when the community
was stripped of their
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
This list is for people who support the project, not those who are
actively opposing it or criticizing in public forums in exaggerated ways.
Nothing constructive or helpful is likely to be added by thekohster
Wow, I
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi John,
would it perhaps be more effective to send these questions to the audit
committee, whose role it is (as far as I can tell) to control this kind of
issues? They also have the authority to give relevant
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Happy to respond to questions raised in a
constructive setting at a later time, e.g. IRC Office Hours.
If someone does, and gets any answers (ha), let us know.
___
foundation-l
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
I have a hard time believing that it should be impossible to find a source
which states
something that everyone knows. If it's assumed prior knowledge in journal
articles, it
should still be possible to find it in basic
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:53 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In the project however, we judge you, not based upon your credential, but
rather based upon your argument and presentation. If you don't want to give
an argument, to support your view, then you eventually won't be judged well.
Or at
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Peter Damian
peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
But in certain areas it has not succeeded at all - philosophy in particular,
and to a certain extent the humanities. The question is why is that so.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Peter Damian
peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
I gave a list of problematic articles. Here is
one of them again.
http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/08/argumentum-ad-baculum.html
I really can't comment on that one without first learning more about
argumentum ad
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I can't continue this discussion within the
bounds of the rules of this mailing list.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:35 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
On 9/29/2010 8:47 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:55 AM, Erik Moellere...@wikimedia.org wrote:
the agenda for Board meetings is set by Sue
together with the chair of the Board and other Board members
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:55 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
the agenda for Board meetings is set by Sue
together with the chair of the Board and other Board members.
It is? Isn't that really really odd?
___
foundation-l mailing list
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Peter Damian
peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
I would appreciate it if people did not make reference to banned users
Is that because you're a banned user?
___
foundation-l mailing list
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
People who donate to Wikimedia do so for a number of reasons, chief
among them (I suspect) is to support keeping the lights on. That is,
the ongoing maintenance of the project in its current form. Most
donors are probably aware
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 2:34 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
wrote:
Andre Engels wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:17 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
A video of an amateur
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
No, what ASCAP means by that is that they want to get a fee when
people distribute CC-licensed music too.
Do ASAC also expect to get a fee when music by people represented by BMI
or SESAC gets
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote:
Online distribution doesn't favor having a lot of middle men,
certainly not a lot of _profitable_ middlemen...
I've yet to see much evidence of that. Online distribution seems to love
middle men as much as any other
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
No, what ASCAP means by that is that they want to get a fee when
people distribute CC-licensed music too.
Do ASAC also expect to get
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote:
When you think that Commons is bad in supporting other languages, try to
find pictures of a horse on the internet in other languages like Estonian,
Nepalese ... It is not the same at all as when you are looking
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Don't most Internet users know enough English to be able to search for
pictures of a horse in English?
(According to Wikipedia (
http
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 18 June 2010 22:16, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
This will NOT get things out of spam that are already in it, though.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2) Type lists.wikimedia.org in the To: box
If you use Has the words: [quote]listid:*.wikimedia.org[/quote] you'll
be able to catch certain messages not caught by the To: filter.
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Someone uploading a nude picture of their ex-girlfriend can be far more
injurious to the woman concerned than the same person uploading an image of
her making tea.
It can be. Then again, an image of her making tea
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 11/05/10 23:06, Anthony wrote:
I assume here you're talking about choosing what images to allow on the
websites. I wouldn't call that making a decision on behalf of another,
but I assume that's what you're
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
I just had a thought -- what if it were possible for a user to
categorically
block views of any images that are not linked to in any project's
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Peter Coombe thewub.w...@googlemail.comwrote:
On 9 May 2010 09:50, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote:
On 5/8/10 5:38 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:24 AM, MZMcBridez...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Most of the egregiously bad deletions
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote:
I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do
things from the Founder flag. I even removed my ability to edit
semi-protected pages! (I've kept permissions related to 'viewing' things.)
The community
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote:
We are engaged in a process that will lead to some
much-needed changes at Commons, including the continued deletion of some
of the things that we used to host.
Where? Behind the scenes? On one of the internal mailing
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
This isn't an ideal situation. We should have a situation in which
Jimmy's technical power derives from the authority of the board of
trustees
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
Note however, We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting
hardcore pornography with zero educational value and doing nothing about
it.
Fred Bauder
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:39 PM, David Goodman
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Excirial wp.excir...@gmail.com wrote:
Sexual and medical images might be entirely inappropriate for children, but
they provide valuable information for other groups of people - for example,
a gynecologist or a medical student might have a completely non sexual
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
Well.. maybe... but bear in mind that it is really hard to discuss the
pictures you can't see, and commons-delinker bot actions are really
difficuilt to revert.
So fix commons-delinker. Or shut it off altogether.
1 - 100 of 523 matches
Mail list logo
