Only ten millions? This sounds wrong.
Nemo
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
First they deleted Michelle Obama's arms,[1] now they want to get rid of
Justin Bieber on Twitter.[2] What is the world coming to!
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michelle_Obama%27s_arms
[2]
Analysis: Uncovering scientific plagiarism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/Analysis
Op-ed: Representing knowledge â metadata, data and linked data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-02/Op-ed
News and notes: RfC on joining
On 3 July 2012 12:02, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 July 2012 at 10:15, Svip wrote:
I can't believe _I_ am not the ultimate ruler on what is valuable
enough to get on Wikipedia. It seems most of the delete comments on
the Justin Bieber article are mostly people who
I think that is a very dismissive misreading of the discussion.
Some people have it in their heads that appears in reliable sources
equates to article-worthiness, but the problem here is that the doings
of celebrities is covered in excruciating detial by the media, including
what tey eat,
Would it be possible to get copies of the older non-notable articles?
I would like to add them all to speedydeletion.wikia.com
thanks,
mike
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
On 3 July 2012 14:49, Svip svi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 July 2012 15:35, Tarc Meridian t...@hotmail.com wrote:
What does 'encyclopaedic worthiness' even mean? If Wikipedia is an
encyclopaedia, then all those niche-wikis are encyclopaedia too.
Well, yes, they basically replace the specialist
Hi
I would like to bring up an issue with office actions that was brought up
elsewhere. There has been an issue on commons with User:Saibo tagging
images from WMF staff. He disagreed with a particular office action taken
by WMF staff. He gives an explanation with relevant diffs here[1]. The
issue
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
So, can you say what it is about this that made you bring it up now, in
July?
I heard about this issue fairly recently, on a private list. So, you
probably already know more than I do.
I really don't care about the specifics of
On 3 July 2012 19:08, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I love it when people send e-mails to the public list, and purposefully
refrain from actually discussing the actual events at issue. You have to
read 3/4ths of the e-mail to get an idea that it's about someone being
blocked, but you still
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Office actions have historically been used to blank or delete pages, the
current listed policy on Meta and commons[3][4] make no mention of Global
bans or blocking a user locally, or even globally. I have not known for
office
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote:
On 3 July 2012 19:08, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I love it when people send e-mails to the public list, and purposefully
refrain from actually discussing the actual events at issue. You have to
read 3/4ths of
Phillipe, a global ban, even by the policy proposed, requires more than 2
communities agreeing that the ban is necessary, as far as I know, even if
we count the office staff as one community that is only one.
At least the guy know why he was blocked? And what is the guarantee we have
that
No, that was clumsy wording. I did not mean that it could have been used
in THIS instance; I meant that in future instances, I can see circumstances
where it could be used.
___
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 6643
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Philippe Beaudette
phili...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
To the best of my knowledge, no.
And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We
would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn
to when at all possible (and
On 03/07/2012 11:09 AM, Delirium wrote:
1) the sources really are *very* good in that case, not merely ok
sources like newspaper articles;
My own (admitedly radical) point of view is that popular media - and
that includes newspapers nowadays - are not reliable sources at all in
the first
Since 2008 I wonder, why the logo of Wikimedia projects are under copyright? I
see it as something contradictory.
--
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
+55 11 7971-8884
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
hummm... No!
I've read all this, I can give workshops about it, my question is more about
values, why not believe in what we preach and release our logos?
--
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
+55 11 7971-8884
___
Wikimedia-l mailing
What purpose would it serve to release the WMF's logos? Surely it would
damage the project rather than help it... copyright isn't always a bad
thing!
Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Disclaimer viewable at
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer
Visit
The trademark doesn't protect only the owner, it can protect also the user.
Imagine that a fashion house would release his trademark under free license.
Imagine that you buy a Gucci or Armani shirt and you are sure that it's
a Gucci or Armani shirt. And you pay as you may pay the original one
is someone's off-wiki opinion or behavior or even criminal past, grounds
for a block?
In my opinion, yes. I have carried out many blocks (and bans) based partly
on the off-wiki behaviour of an editor. It's really only necessary in very
serious cases involving violence, stalking, child
A mark is not a simple image.
A mark it's a symbol.
On 03.07.2012 23:32, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
So in your view, free images can be harmful? So why would I release a
picture?
And you're telling me is more important to believe in the logo, instead of
checking the validity of what you
I don't know how it is handled after US law, but if i consider German
law then logos and trademarks are often even in the public domain, but
protected as a trademark itself. But i also think that our logo is
something to protect while being free at the same time. If we go
strictly after the
On 03/07/2012 3:23 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
I would ask about a hypothetical, is someone's off-wiki opinion or
behavior or even criminal past, grounds for a block?
It may well be. Both for our protection and that of other editors.
There are cases of real, dangerous persons using Wikipedia to
Think of a logo or a trademark as an identity; the arguments for releasing
free informational content are totally separate from allowing others to
make free use of your (or WMFs) identity. You might as well ask why not
release your name for any possible commercial use. I suspect you wouldn't
agree
Again, the logo is a symbol, it's not an image.
I don't agree with your concept because you can move the Commons content
in another website also commercial.
So you should split content and repository. The content may be free, the
repository may be not free.
Following your concept if a
Ilario, please keep apart copyright and trademarks. Rodrigo did not
question the decision to have the logos trademarked. He just questioned
the decision to keep them copyrighted.
As Tobias Oelgarte pointed out, a logo can be in the public domain and
still be protected as a trademark.
The
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 03/07/2012 11:09 AM, Delirium wrote:
1) the sources really are *very* good in that case, not merely ok
sources like newspaper articles;
My own (admitedly radical) point of view is that popular media - and that
You will have to split between trademark laws and copyright laws. Both
concepts exist separately from each other. There are a lot of logos that
are not copyright protected. For example very simple text logos,
depending on country even more complex logos that don't reach the needed
threshold of
On 4 July 2012 00:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Marc. The other day, someone said here on the list, It's
almost as if what the press say and what the facts are in reality are two
different things that have only a very tenuous relationship.
Yes, in response to you
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:15 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 July 2012 00:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Marc. The other day, someone said here on the list, It's
almost as if what the press say and what the facts are in reality are two
different
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 03/07/2012 7:04 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
What would a Wikipedia look like that did not make use of press sources?
It
would look a hell of a lot more like an encyclopedia. Thousands of silly
arguments would never
On 03/07/2012 7:42 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
How would you deal with biographies of people like heads of state, who are
subjects of serious academic study as well as daily news articles?
There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both
namespaces. One can be seen as the
On 4 July 2012 00:48, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both
namespaces. One can be seen as the complement of the other; mainspace would
become more encyclopedic and there would be a neat space where the more
recent
On 03/07/2012 7:49 PM, David Gerard wrote:
We could call it Wikinews.
Arguably, that was the intent behind that project in the first place.
That said, the news article format (as opposed to living prose) is
demonstrably not what the readers want - they already voted with their
browsers
On 4 July 2012 00:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 July 2012 00:48, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both
namespaces. One can be seen as the complement of the other; mainspace
would
become more
I can't disagree with your understanding of the different IP laws, however
this not a very commonly understood nuance. Many people, when seeing the logo
listed as free regarding copyright, will assume they can use it the same as
any other copyleft or PD image. They will not necessarily
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both
namespaces. One can be seen as the complement of the other; mainspace would
become more encyclopedic and there would be a neat space where the more
We have special templates for this case which prominently inform the
user that the image is free due to reason XYZ but can't be used in any
context due to additional trademark restrictions.
This concept does not only apply to logos or trademarks, but also for
public domain cases. Commons
That reasoning seems to be begging the question a bit. That we should not make
an exception so that there will be no exceptions. I suggested some pragmatic
reasons why making an exception for these trademarks more successfully
communicates the message for reuse than not doing so. And also how
I love it when individuals decide that they know what is important and
worthy of inclusion, as opposed to the mindless masses. Because that's such
a healthy way to ensure an open, neutral, and comprehensive encyclopedia.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Tarc Meridian t...@hotmail.com wrote:
I
Just think, in a few years we can set up the site to construct drafts for
the site that constructs drafts for Wikipedia.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org
wrote:
There's nothing that
42 matches
Mail list logo
