Brianna Laugher wrote:
> Is there a way to separate requests e.g. for different projects?
> Wikimedia Commons, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikisource, Wikipedia. Plus a
> general/default section for stuff that benefits multiple/all projects.
>
>
I considered that possibility too. If one such site catc
What he is pointing out is that the chapter set up the whole process, thus
making them culpable.
From: Gerard Meijssen
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 12:14:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the
While I advised that a similar matter be dropped earlier, this has some
fundamental differences that I believe may have merit. Whereas the Missing
Manual is uploaded by a known mutual agreement, these photos are not
necessarily uploaded by mutual agreement.
In theory, we are supposed to have p
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > 1. Upload high-resolution copyrighted image littered with trademarks as
> > anonymous user.
> > 2. Immediately order poster of said image.
> > 3. File against WMF, its chapter(s) and the printer for good measure
> > claiming [RI|MP]AA size
Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
>
>> 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston :
>>
Material in the public domain or under a fully free licence does not
require any kind of fair use consideration.
>>> I'm not talking about genuinely free materi
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Philippe|Wiki wrote:
> Agreed with Geoffrey, and I never cease to be amazed at how folks find
> a way to say "zOMG! This Can't Work!" instead of "OK, let's make this
> work."
>
> We've seen a lot of that the last couple of days on this list.
>
> philippe
s/days/
2009/1/29 Erik Moeller :
> If you haven't seen it yet, Ubuntu is running an interesting
> brainstorming software called IdeaTorrent to think collectively about
> common problems and solutions:
>
> http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/
>
> The software:
>
> http://www.ideatorrent.org/
>
> I wonder - would p
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Platonides wrote:
> I don't think it should be added, but moving bugzilla to brainstorm
> could be considered.
IdeaStorm is not acceptable as a replacement for Bugzilla. Ubuntu
uses a separate bug tracker too, mind. Good bug trackers have many
essential features
Platonides wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> If you haven't seen it yet, Ubuntu is running an interesting
>> brainstorming software called IdeaTorrent to think collectively about
>> common problems and solutions:
>>
>> http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/
>>
>> The software:
>>
>> http://www.ideatorren
Yes. For fun, which brainstorming needs. Ever since Jamesday stopped
spiking the punch in the virtual server room, the bugzilla quote list
+ mascot hasn't sufficed.
SJ
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> If you haven't seen it yet, Ubuntu is running an interesting
> brainsto
ideas transcend bugzilla. Bugzilla is a place to report bugs. Sure you can
file feature requests there, but its not a friendly place for the
cultivation and discussion of new ideas on any conceivable topic relating to
the WMF.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Platonides wrote:
> Erik Moeller wro
Erik Moeller wrote:
> If you haven't seen it yet, Ubuntu is running an interesting
> brainstorming software called IdeaTorrent to think collectively about
> common problems and solutions:
>
> http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/
>
> The software:
>
> http://www.ideatorrent.org/
>
> I wonder - would pe
2009/1/28 Brian :
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> If you haven't seen it yet, Ubuntu is running an interesting
>> brainstorming software called IdeaTorrent to think collectively about
>> common problems and solutions:
>> http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/
>> The software:
>>
I think this would be awesome. I've used Ubuntu's Brainstorm and while it
isn't a perfect system, I think it does a really good job of letting the
community say what they really want to see. Some of that "not perfect" is
the fact that some idea's tend to get duplicate entries, and as any voting
s
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Brian wrote:
> Yes! Better tools are needed for finding good ideas and gauging consensus.
> The worst thing is that it won't get used - the best thing is much better.
I agree, too. It would be good to have SUL integrated there, as well
as to promote it at other Wi
Yes! Better tools are needed for finding good ideas and gauging consensus.
The worst thing is that it won't get used - the best thing is much better.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> If you haven't seen it yet, Ubuntu is running an interesting
> brainstorming software calle
If you haven't seen it yet, Ubuntu is running an interesting
brainstorming software called IdeaTorrent to think collectively about
common problems and solutions:
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/
The software:
http://www.ideatorrent.org/
I wonder - would people consider it useful to set up somethin
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> In your post the crucial bit is that a liability results as a consequence
> of an invoice from either the Wikimedia Foundation or from a WMF chapter.
False.
"Furthermore, while WMF *may* be safe from attack on the grounds that *it
Hoi,
In your post the crucial bit is that a liability results as a consequence of
an invoice from either the Wikimedia Foundation or from a WMF chapter. This
will not happen because you buy a print from a printer. Our terms of service
explicitly state that we do our utmost to ensure that our produc
Gerard,
I find your response (which fails to address the issues I have raised)
abrasive bordering on offensive. I also note that this will not be the first
time *today* that someone has requested that you tone it down. What is clear
though is that we have a snowflake's chance in hell of convincing
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
> > cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> >>
> >>> As others have pointed out on this or nearby threads
Agreed with Geoffrey, and I never cease to be amazed at how folks find
a way to say "zOMG! This Can't Work!" instead of "OK, let's make this
work."
We've seen a lot of that the last couple of days on this list.
philippe
__
Philippe|Wiki
philippe.w...@gmail.com
[[en:User:Ph
2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth :
> Wikipedia would have to write some kind of
> special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there.
We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means
Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!)
___
Anthony wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
> cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>>
>>> As others have pointed out on this or nearby threads, attribution is
>>> highly medium specific.
>>>
>> [snip]
>> However, if what you say ha
I hate to say it, but it would probably flourish best on Wikipedia,
since there are more knowledgable wikipedians on that site with a
vested interest to make the book better. The question is more one of
appropriateness, does Wikipedia want to host books, even books about
Wikipedia? Wikibooks has po
I don't think that either the Foundation or Mr. Broughton will be complaining.
Drop it.
From: Klaus Graf
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 7:59:15 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Help-book made available in en Wikipedia against
2009/1/28 effe iets anders :
> Maybe a silly question, but nobody is stopping anyone to copy it to
> Wikibooks. The question is mainly, should it be deleted from Wikipedia. I
> agree there with Erik, that this is clearly a community decision.
>
> Why not just copy it and see where it flourishes bes
At
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Title_Page_and_Licensing_Information
we read:
"Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
any later version published by the Free So
Maybe a silly question, but nobody is stopping anyone to copy it to
Wikibooks. The question is mainly, should it be deleted from Wikipedia. I
agree there with Erik, that this is clearly a community decision.
Why not just copy it and see where it flourishes best?
Best regards,
Lodewijk
2009/1/28
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> > As others have pointed out on this or nearby threads, attribution is
> > highly medium specific.
> [snip]
> However, if what you say happens to in fact be correct
> (never mind if it
2009/1/28 Sam Johnston
>
> 1. Upload high-resolution copyrighted image littered with trademarks as
> anonymous user.
> 2. Immediately order poster of said image.
> 3. File against WMF, its chapter(s) and the printer for good measure
> claiming [RI|MP]AA sized damages for copyright and trademark i
2009/1/28 Chad :
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen :
>> > Hoi,
>> > You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
>> > can relicense it to anything he likes.
>>
>> Of course he can, but unless he relicenses it under CC
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen :
> > Hoi,
> > You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
> > can relicense it to anything he likes.
>
> Of course he can, but unless he relicenses it under CC-BY-SA (which I
> can't im
2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
> can relicense it to anything he likes.
Of course he can, but unless he relicenses it under CC-BY-SA (which I
can't imagine him not doing, but still), it will need to be deleted.
__
2009/1/28 Andrew Gray :
> 2009/1/28 geni :
>
>>> Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait,
>>> sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to
>>> license under GFDL 1.2 or later... oh, wait. How is this a special
>>> case?
>>>
>>> The CC switch, when and if
2009/1/28 geni :
>> Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait,
>> sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to
>> license under GFDL 1.2 or later... oh, wait. How is this a special
>> case?
>>
>> The CC switch, when and if it happens, will be complex enou
Hi Gerard,
pls remain polite and dont call names.
teun
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
> can relicense it to anything he likes.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> 2009/1/28 geni
>
> > 2009/1/
The resulting work will be welcome at Wikibooks. But I'm unclear
why you can't have someone getting paid to write content on a
Wikimedia wiki? One of our bureaucrats Whiteknight is currently
doing this as part of his employment for the Perl Foundation:
http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston :
>
> >> Material in the public domain or under a fully free licence does not
> >> require any kind of fair use consideration.
> >
> > I'm not talking about genuinely free material, I'm talking about
> protected
> > (copy
2009/1/28 Sam Johnston :
>> Material in the public domain or under a fully free licence does not
>> require any kind of fair use consideration.
>
> I'm not talking about genuinely free material, I'm talking about protected
> (copyrighted/trademarked) material being uploaded by others - for example
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> I'm obviously in favor of having more books at Wikibooks, but then
> again it does make some sense to keep the documentation close to the
> website it documents. If the book is GFDL, couldn't we just copy/fork
> it to Wikibooks too?
Agre
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Michael Peel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has just
> uploaded the book to Wikipedia under the GFDL, see:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual
>
> My reaction when I spotted this was
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Sam Johnston wrote:
>
> > My primary concern is that all the potential ramifications of such
> actions
> > be properly considered - the income is irrelevant in the context of the
> WMF
> > budget and yet the risk could be extreme. For exampl
2009/1/28 Andrew Gray :
> 2009/1/28 geni :
>
>> Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we
>> switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0.
>
> Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait,
> sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to
> license under GF
2009/1/28 Erik Moeller :
> First, we think it's wonderful that O'Reilly has done this; TMM is a
> fantastic book and a great introduction for newbies. (We have been
> giving copies away as gifts for a while.)
Also, as the O'Reilly press release notes, it's John who took the
initiative to make this
2009/1/28 geni :
> Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we
> switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0.
Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait,
sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to
license under GFDL 1.2 or later... oh, wait. How is
Hoi,
You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
can relicense it to anything he likes.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/28 geni
> 2009/1/28 Michael Peel :
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has just
> > uploaded the book to
Hoi,
You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
can relicense it to anything he likes.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/28 geni
> 2009/1/28 Michael Peel :
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has just
> > uploaded the book to
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:14 AM, geni wrote:
> Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we
> switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0.
Unless it was relicensed. And it would surprise me if they genuinely
objected to such relicensing...
--
Sam
PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik
2009/1/28 Michael Peel :
> Hi all,
>
> The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has just
> uploaded the book to Wikipedia under the GFDL, see:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual
>
> My reaction when I spotted this was: great, but shouldn't this b
First, we think it's wonderful that O'Reilly has done this; TMM is a
fantastic book and a great introduction for newbies. (We have been
giving copies away as gifts for a while.) I believe Frank is planning
to blog about this in more detail soon. Please do show them some love
for doing this; it's ob
Hoi,
Let us fist congratulate O'Reilley and John Broughton with their decision to
make their work available to us. This is in my opinion excellent news. The
question where this manual should be is not that straight forward. Wikipedia
NEEDS better help text and this truly puts all this information w
Hi all,
The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has just
uploaded the book to Wikipedia under the GFDL, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual
My reaction when I spotted this was: great, but shouldn't this be on
Wikibooks? Part of the author
Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Just how much control do you expect from the Central Committee? Sure,
>> it's a given that some will-intentioned initiatives will go dreadfully
>> awry. Bad things have happened in the past, and bad things will ha
54 matches
Mail list logo
