Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
Brian wrote: Who owns the copyright for the selection, coordination or arrangement of the dumps? Given that no one selects, coordinates or arranges the dumps, no one owns the copyright on them. On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/1/8 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: I was under the impression that the WMF does hold a copyright over the entirety of a particular Wikipedia as they offer that collection for download. And re-users often use these dumps as seeds for their illegal re-use. IANAL, but I think you need to have had a creative input in the work to hold a copyright to it, what creative input has WMF had is combining all the articles into one dump? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
Hoi, That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The dump of the English language Wikipedia is even notoriously difficult to create. It is for this reason easy to argue that the WMF has the copyright on the collection. Given that it is a composite of separately copyrighted material and given that there is no selection involved, the WMF may be insulated from people objecting to material that is of interest to them being included. That is however a different issue. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/9 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu Brian wrote: Who owns the copyright for the selection, coordination or arrangement of the dumps? Given that no one selects, coordinates or arranges the dumps, no one owns the copyright on them. On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/8 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: I was under the impression that the WMF does hold a copyright over the entirety of a particular Wikipedia as they offer that collection for download. And re-users often use these dumps as seeds for their illegal re-use. IANAL, but I think you need to have had a creative input in the work to hold a copyright to it, what creative input has WMF had is combining all the articles into one dump? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
Gerard Meijssen wrote: That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The dump of the English language Wikipedia is even notoriously difficult to create. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow Huge effort is not copyrightable. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
And simplistic arguments are not convincing. If you would like to explore the space with me, you'll have to try more than one sentence at a time. On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote: Gerard Meijssen wrote: That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The dump of the English language Wikipedia is even notoriously difficult to create. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow Huge effort is not copyrightable. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- You have successfully failed! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
Gerard Meijssen wrote: That is only for US law. It is also debatable if this is just sweat of the brow because a lot of creativity is involved in creating this collection. It does not even necessarily apply to you as you are in a different jurisdiction. Other laws do have similar provisions, specifically the one in my jurisdiction. A huge amount of creativity involved in making computer programs that made the collection still do not translate in even a small amount of creativity involved in selecting their contents. 2009/1/9 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu Gerard Meijssen wrote: That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The dump of the English language Wikipedia is even notoriously difficult to create. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow Huge effort is not copyrightable. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews in China Blocked
Today Chinese wikinews in China Blocked. GFW keyword is zh.wikinews.org. other wikinews can acess. -- Chinese wikipedia: http://zh.wikipedia.org/ My blog: http://shizhao.org twitter: https://twitter.com/shizhao [[zh:User:Shizhao]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
Ha? -- White Cat On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote: Anthony writes: Fine with me if and only if you c) remove all references to my last name from all Wikimedia projects. So you're claiming to be able to revoke our right to use your last name? I had no idea you had licensed it under GFDL to begin with! --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote: Gerard Meijssen wrote: That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The dump of the English language Wikipedia is even notoriously difficult to create. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow Huge effort is not copyrightable. I haven't seen anyone trying to lay claim to a copyright on the dumps. I would venture to say that it's merely a transformative work, as it doesn't do anything but collect them in a machine-readable format. The various dumps are designed to organize the information, not change them in any way. -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/1/8 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/8 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Now read the version in GFDL 1.3. Why? Wikipedia uses 1.2. Because the WMF claims to have a license under GFDL 1.3 as well. Yes, but they're not using it. Some of us like to prepare for the near future. If you're not one of us, your loss. But they aren't violating GFDL 1.3, since they aren't using it, so what was you complaint about? My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any license I have granted them. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
But they aren't violating GFDL 1.3, since they aren't using it, so what was you complaint about? My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any license I have granted them. Sure, but the license they're using doesn't recognise complaints so your complaint can only really be considered to be an informal request for them to change what they're doing. If you want to take any formal action you'll need to file a lawsuit (please don't! The fact that you're here suggests you did, at some point, support what we're doing here, please don't ruin it!). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
2009/1/9 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any license I have granted them. I doubt it. You are probably considering the wrong part of the GFDL with regards to what they are doing. Suffice to say the foundation isn't actually required to credit you in any way shape or form with regards to the dumps (since they are effectively verbatim copying and since there are no cover texts section 3 doesn't place any significant further requirements). You may not like this but that would be inconsistent with your claims to prefer the GFDL over CC-BY-SA 3.0. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Wikipedia would only satisfy the license if the author specifically said that was ok. The FAQ says there will not be a requirement to designate Wikipedia or anything else to receive the attribution. I would expect the attribution requirements to be made perfectly clear before we vote, if they're not, I would almost certainly vote against the proposal. I concur. The WMF should clearly state what they anticipate attribution to look like. Whether one agrees that the WMF position is adequate might end up being an important issue in the decision on whether to support the vote. However the absence of any guidance about what is appropriate attribution strikes me as a strong reason to be critical. If attribution rules are going to change, I think it is important to be as unambiguous as possible about what they are changing to, and encourage a uniform interpretation rather than leaving it for every user to ponder what the license expects of them. Agreed. It might not be possible to provide completely unambiguous rules, given this is free content we're talking about :P -- but at the very least it would be extremely helpful, from a practical sense, for the WMF to provide clear guidelines for attribution under a wide variety of circumstances: reprinting an article on a website, in a book, using a photo, etc. etc. Heck, even if the license doesn't change, it would be super useful to write up such guidelines and make them widely available. AFAIK the document that directly addresses this question on en: was primarily written by a non-lawyer, many years ago, and it could probably use some help. As for voting, I think both would be useful -- a straw poll on meta for discussion, but boardvote for actual taking and counting of the votes, since this a community-wide issue. -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
2009/1/9 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: But they aren't violating GFDL 1.3, since they aren't using it, so what was you complaint about? Being querulous? - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:59 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: ... Secondly you hit the issue that the license states that attribution should be reasonable reasonable to the medium or means. Quite apart from the problem that this will vary from legal system to legal system the range of medium means that the resources needed for the guidance section are immense consider: Plastic models stained galss Globes with maps on them Cameo (carving) Wood pannel painting knitting Portrait photographs Ceramic sculpture metal cannon models maps computer games documentaries quiz books magazines Ceramic cups Engravings on Tankards music on magnetic tapes music by popular beat combos on vinyl records popularly known as ah 45s etc All of which I can see without moveing from where I'm sitting or indeed turning around. Ha! I would like to immediately challenge community members to come up with some way to reuse wikimedia content in one of the media listed by geni, above... (a knitted article, authors embroidered on the back? An engraved-tankard with PD picture? A spoken-wikipedia 45?). Best example brought to Wikimania this summer will win a prize, with categories: most creative, best craftsmanship, best use of/compliance with the GFDL, etc. If a contributor sues you over content reuse, I'll help pay the legal fees, any items produced/sold commercially excepted. -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews in China Blocked
foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: Message: 10 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 17:27:23 +0800 From: shi zhao shiz...@gmail.com Subject: [Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews in China Blocked To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 762c04810901090127t1517f3fcm74bf129a77f0d...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Today Chinese wikinews in China Blocked. GFW keyword is zh.wikinews.org. other wikinews can acess. Is there any way to confirm this? Is there anyone else who has this issue? I would like to do an article for the English Wikinews if this is indeed true. -- Jason Safoutin Wikinews accredited reporter and administrator jason.safou...@wikinewsie.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the Foundation? Why do developers have such priviledged access to the source code, and the community such little input? Why must the community 'vote' on extensions such as Semantic MediaWiki, and yet the developers can implement any feature they like, any way they like it? Why does the Foundation need 1 million for usability when amazing tools continue to be ignored and untested? Why has the Foundation gone ahead and approved the hire of several employees for usability design, when the community has had almost zero input into what that design should be? Why is this tool not being tested on Wikipedia, right now? http://wiki.ontoprise.com/ontoprisewiki/index.php/Image:Advanced_ontology_browser.gif -- You have successfully failed! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews in China Blocked
Plese install China Channel Firefox Add-on, test GFW of China :) http://chinachannel.hk/ 2009/1/10 Jason Safoutin jason.safou...@wikinewsie.org foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: Message: 10 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 17:27:23 +0800 From: shi zhao shiz...@gmail.com Subject: [Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews in China Blocked To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 762c04810901090127t1517f3fcm74bf129a77f0d...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Today Chinese wikinews in China Blocked. GFW keyword is zh.wikinews.org . other wikinews can acess. Is there any way to confirm this? Is there anyone else who has this issue? I would like to do an article for the English Wikinews if this is indeed true. -- Jason Safoutin Wikinews accredited reporter and administrator jason.safou...@wikinewsie.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Chinese wikipedia: http://zh.wikipedia.org/ My blog: http://shizhao.org twitter: https://twitter.com/shizhao [[zh:User:Shizhao]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
2009/1/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the Foundation? Why do developers have such priviledged access to the source code, and the community such little input? Why must the community 'vote' on extensions such as Semantic MediaWiki, and yet the developers can implement any feature they like, any way they like it? Why does the Foundation need 1 million for usability when amazing tools continue to be ignored and untested? Why has the Foundation gone ahead and approved the hire of several employees for usability design, when the community has had almost zero input into what that design should be? Why is this tool not being tested on Wikipedia, right now? http://wiki.ontoprise.com/ontoprisewiki/index.php/Image:Advanced_ontology_browser.gif Well... Maybe just because software development requires at least some basic knowledge of programming, and cannot be performed by voting only? I guess some feedback from Wikipedia community is welcome - but quite obviously programmers cannot work in a manner of discussing and voting every line of code they are assumed to produce... -- Tomek Polimerek Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the Foundation? It's an issue of scale. Do you have any idea how big the foundation projects are? Inefficient code could cripple our donation-supported infrastructure. It's not that people don't want to use the newest and coolest toys, it's that in order to keep the sites running at all the foundation really needs to aim for a functional level of minimalism. Why do developers have such priviledged access to the source code, and the community such little input? In my experience, this is the way that most open source projects operate. You can download and play with the source code to your heart's content, but typically only a handful of committers have access to modify the code. Average joe user like you and me can submit patches if we see fit. Through patches we could build trust among the developers and eventually become committers. I would be very interested to hear about other successful open source projects that didn't use any kinds of safeguards like this. Why must the community 'vote' on extensions such as Semantic MediaWiki, and yet the developers can implement any feature they like, any way they like it? well, the core software does improve and grow through normal development effort. We wouldn't want a situation where improvements could not be implemented without community approval. Foundation projects run on MediaWiki software, and updates to the software are reflected in the projects. It's not like they're installing things as big and pervasive as Semantic MediaWiki without community approval. Why does the Foundation need 1 million for usability when amazing tools continue to be ignored and untested? And who says that money isn't going to be used to test existing tools? Without money, our developers are all volunteers, and they will do the testing they want to do when they have time to do it. Let me ask, are you doing any testing of potentially useful MediaWiki extensions yourself? Why has the Foundation gone ahead and approved the hire of several employees for usability design, when the community has had almost zero input into what that design should be? Whatever the design turns out to be, I'm sure we're going to need developers to implement it. Plus, there are tons of existing usability requests at bugzilla, and not enough development hands to even implement the things the community has already asked for. Plus, there are all those cool pre-existing community-developed extensions that need to be tested by developers. Why is this tool not being tested on Wikipedia, right now? http://wiki.ontoprise.com/ontoprisewiki/index.php/Image:Advanced_ontology_browser.gif Why would it be, has the community requested it? Again, it's economy of scale: Wikipedia is too huge to serve as a beta test for all sorts of random extensions. A smaller website like Wikibooks would be a much better place to do extension testing, and in fact has been used in the past as a beta test site for new extensions. You can't load just any software onto Wikipedia and expect the servers to handle it well. Wikipedia is simply too huge for that kind of avant garde management. --Andrew Whitworth ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
In order to solicit community feedback on this very important issue, I suggest the Foundation put up a multi-language banner on all Wikipedia's soliciting input via a survey. *How can Wikipedia be more usable?* I also suggest the Foundation put up a We're Hiring banner. In tough global economic conditions, and for the amount of money the Foundation has been given, they could afford to hire 20 best in class developers who are otherwise out of work. 800,000 / 30,000 = 26. Is that not a fair wage? If the Foundation only plans to hire three developers to work on this project then it must be spending the money on something else entirely. The community also deserves a usability lab, and a full assessment of how Semantic MediaWiki, Semantic Forms, and Project Halo could contribute to usability. I predict they will find that, while they do not cover every problem, the main issue that needs to be worked on is scaling them. This is something that the core developers are experts at. They are not experts on usability. I would like to make clear that I believe the usability issue has largely been solved, and the community is just waiting for the core developers, who have kept a tight lock and key on the source code, to recognize that. On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the Foundation? Why do developers have such priviledged access to the source code, and the community such little input? Why must the community 'vote' on extensions such as Semantic MediaWiki, and yet the developers can implement any feature they like, any way they like it? Why does the Foundation need 1 million for usability when amazing tools continue to be ignored and untested? Why has the Foundation gone ahead and approved the hire of several employees for usability design, when the community has had almost zero input into what that design should be? Why is this tool not being tested on Wikipedia, right now? http://wiki.ontoprise.com/ontoprisewiki/index.php/Image:Advanced_ontology_browser.gif -- You have successfully failed! -- You have successfully failed! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
Hello, Brian. On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the Foundation? The plan for Usability Initiative includes intensive reviews of MediaWiki extensions which are already available. Then we will enable candidate extensions with some set of test data in the test and lab environment. Community involvement is essential in validating which extensions to adopt. Usability test is targeted for users with no or little experience in editing Wikipedia and the goal is to identify interactive obstacles. The proposed solution will be tested for feedback similar way as testing existing extensions. I also believe it is important to iterate the process above so that we can reach out to as many as possible. The project page is in the plan and once it is up, I hope to exchange and share ideas with the community. Best, - Naoko -- Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: In order to solicit community feedback on this very important issue, I suggest the Foundation put up a multi-language banner on all Wikipedia's soliciting input via a survey. Are you willing to make the translations and the banner? Are you willing to make the survey, administer it, and interpret results? Most of the Foundation are volunteers who can't put multilingual banners all over the place every time somebody would like to know some vague something about the software. *How can Wikipedia be more usable?* I also suggest the Foundation put up a We're Hiring banner. In tough global economic conditions, and for the amount of money the Foundation has been given, they could afford to hire 20 best in class developers who are otherwise out of work. 800,000 / 30,000 = 26. Is that not a fair wage? If the Foundation only plans to hire three developers to work on this project then it must be spending the money on something else entirely. First off, I'm a professional software developer and I would not work for $30K. For 800K/year, you're looking at more like 10-15 developers at the most, and that's under the assumption that you're only hiring them for a single year. You're going to spend a lot of up-front time training them, so the better investment by far is 3-5 developers for several years. This is not to mention cost increases for hardware and hosting that will come from adding more software to the backend and a prettier frontend. The community also deserves a usability lab, and a full assessment of how Semantic MediaWiki, Semantic Forms, and Project Halo could contribute to usability. I predict they will find that, while they do not cover every problem, the main issue that needs to be worked on is scaling them. This is something that the core developers are experts at. They are not experts on usability. If our core developers are not experts in usability (and I wouldn't necessarily agree with that point anyway), then it makes sense to hire people who are good with usability. If you look at the job postings, you'll see that it's exactly what is intended. Setting up some kind of usability lab has already been done, see https://en.labs.wikimedia.org. This is the exact clearinghouse where the Collections extension and FlaggedRevs extension were tested. I would like to make clear that I believe the usability issue has largely been solved, and the community is just waiting for the core developers, who have kept a tight lock and key on the source code, to recognize that. The issue most certainly hasn't been solved. It's not just about finding pretty tools, but about scaling them to fit Wikipedia (which is no trivial task), and ensuring that they meet the needs of our users. These things don't happen by insulting our developers or making demands on a mailing list alone. --Andrew Whitworth ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
2009/1/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the Foundation? Most of them aren't applicable (YouTube, Google Maps extensions, etc.) or not tested to the scale of Wikipedia and would therefore require significant investments of resources to be ready for deployment. Why do developers have such priviledged access to the source code, and the community such little input? I disagree with the underlying premises. There are more than 150 committers to the MediaWiki SVN. Commit access is granted liberally. Code is routinely updated and deployed in a very open fashion. BugZilla is filled with thousands of community requests. The backlog of requests is now more aggressively processed. Why must the community 'vote' on extensions such as Semantic MediaWiki, and yet the developers can implement any feature they like, any way they like it? I disagree with the underlying premises. For example, developers don't deploy any feature we/they like. Features which are likely to be disruptive are only deployed after community consultation. An example of this is the FlaggedRevs extension, for which a clear community process has been defined. Why does the Foundation need 1 million for usability when amazing tools continue to be ignored and untested? In part, to stop ignoring and start testing them. Why has the Foundation gone ahead and approved the hire of several employees for usability design, when the community has had almost zero input into what that design should be? In part, to be able to accommodate such input. Why is this tool not being tested on Wikipedia, right now? http://wiki.ontoprise.com/ontoprisewiki/index.php/Image:Advanced_ontology_browser.gif SMW is a hugely complex tool. Along with other approaches to handle information architecture, it merits examination. Such examination will happen as resources for it become available. The priority for obtaining such resources will compete with other priorities such as usability, internationalization support, rich media support, etc. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
Erik, I am skeptical of the current development process. That is because it has led to the current parser, which is not a proper parser at all, and includes horrifying syntax. The current usability issue is widespread and goes to MediaWiki's core. Developers should not have that large of a voice in usability, or you get what we have now. We do not even have a parser. I am sure you know that MediaWiki does not actually parse. It is 5000 lines worth of regexes, for the most part. In order to solve usability, even for new users, I believe that you must write a new parser from scratch. Are you prepared to do that? On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: 2009/1/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the Foundation? Most of them aren't applicable (YouTube, Google Maps extensions, etc.) or not tested to the scale of Wikipedia and would therefore require significant investments of resources to be ready for deployment. Why do developers have such priviledged access to the source code, and the community such little input? I disagree with the underlying premises. There are more than 150 committers to the MediaWiki SVN. Commit access is granted liberally. Code is routinely updated and deployed in a very open fashion. BugZilla is filled with thousands of community requests. The backlog of requests is now more aggressively processed. Why must the community 'vote' on extensions such as Semantic MediaWiki, and yet the developers can implement any feature they like, any way they like it? I disagree with the underlying premises. For example, developers don't deploy any feature we/they like. Features which are likely to be disruptive are only deployed after community consultation. An example of this is the FlaggedRevs extension, for which a clear community process has been defined. Why does the Foundation need 1 million for usability when amazing tools continue to be ignored and untested? In part, to stop ignoring and start testing them. Why has the Foundation gone ahead and approved the hire of several employees for usability design, when the community has had almost zero input into what that design should be? In part, to be able to accommodate such input. Why is this tool not being tested on Wikipedia, right now? http://wiki.ontoprise.com/ontoprisewiki/index.php/Image:Advanced_ontology_browser.gif SMW is a hugely complex tool. Along with other approaches to handle information architecture, it merits examination. Such examination will happen as resources for it become available. The priority for obtaining such resources will compete with other priorities such as usability, internationalization support, rich media support, etc. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- You have successfully failed! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
2009/1/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: 800,000 / 30,000 = 26. Is that not a fair wage? If the Foundation only plans to hire three developers to work on this project then it must be spending the money on something else entirely. First of all, we're hiring three people because we already have two. We've hired Naoko, and we will allocate Trevor full-time to the project. Secondly, base salaries if we hire locally (which we do, in this case), are obviously much higher. See payscale.com and other sites to get an idea of salaries in various parts of the world. That does not include recruitment, benefits, equipment, office space and supplies, staff development and travel, administrative overhead such as payroll, etc. Plus the other costs we've budgeted, such as research costs for usability tests, allocation of experienced on-staff developers to support the project, etc. Thirdly, if you were to hire remotely at lower salaries, you'd simply incur much of the cost you'd save in salaries in other ways, especially management, oversight, and travel. This is especially true for a project of this complexity where you're not just handing some set of specs over to an outsourcing firm. (You of all people, advocating for a complex tool like Semantic MediaWiki, should appreciate that.) There are isolated projects that can be managed well by giving them to experienced remote developers. For a project of this scope, complexity and importance, I believe it's critical to have a local team that can fully focus on the project and collaborate with the core staff in San Francisco on an as-needed basis. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
As you surely know, the work of all staff, including 'how they spend money' is continuously assessed by the ED who in turn is evaluated by the board. There is also 3rd party financial audit. What are you hinting at? Erik/Naoko: does the Stanton grant include a condition for (external) specific program evaluation? On 1/10/09, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: Thank you Naoko. How can we be sure the money will be spent wisely? Obama recently appointed a Chief Performance Officer. Do you have someone providing similar oversight? On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Naoko Komura nkom...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, Brian. On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the Foundation? The plan for Usability Initiative includes intensive reviews of MediaWiki extensions which are already available. Then we will enable candidate extensions with some set of test data in the test and lab environment. Community involvement is essential in validating which extensions to adopt. Usability test is targeted for users with no or little experience in editing Wikipedia and the goal is to identify interactive obstacles. The proposed solution will be tested for feedback similar way as testing existing extensions. I also believe it is important to iterate the process above so that we can reach out to as many as possible. The project page is in the plan and once it is up, I hope to exchange and share ideas with the community. Best, - Naoko -- Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- You have successfully failed! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
Erik I am glad you are still around and keeping an eye on things. I believe that, with the audience the Foundation has access to, it could save a lot of money by hiring people who love Wikipedia and want to work for it. I don't think its true that the only way to get seasoned developers is to wave a large carrot (aka $$$) in front of their face. I believe there exist experienced developers who would gladly give a year of their life, working at a lower wage, to work on Wikipedia. The only way to access these people is to ask them directly - with a We're Hiring banner, for example. On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: 2009/1/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: 800,000 / 30,000 = 26. Is that not a fair wage? If the Foundation only plans to hire three developers to work on this project then it must be spending the money on something else entirely. First of all, we're hiring three people because we already have two. We've hired Naoko, and we will allocate Trevor full-time to the project. Secondly, base salaries if we hire locally (which we do, in this case), are obviously much higher. See payscale.com and other sites to get an idea of salaries in various parts of the world. That does not include recruitment, benefits, equipment, office space and supplies, staff development and travel, administrative overhead such as payroll, etc. Plus the other costs we've budgeted, such as research costs for usability tests, allocation of experienced on-staff developers to support the project, etc. Thirdly, if you were to hire remotely at lower salaries, you'd simply incur much of the cost you'd save in salaries in other ways, especially management, oversight, and travel. This is especially true for a project of this complexity where you're not just handing some set of specs over to an outsourcing firm. (You of all people, advocating for a complex tool like Semantic MediaWiki, should appreciate that.) There are isolated projects that can be managed well by giving them to experienced remote developers. For a project of this scope, complexity and importance, I believe it's critical to have a local team that can fully focus on the project and collaborate with the core staff in San Francisco on an as-needed basis. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- You have successfully failed! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
2009/1/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: In order to solve usability, even for new users, I believe that you must write a new parser from scratch. I disagree, though the project team may ultimately agree with you. The biggest barriers to entry for new users aren't likely to be obscure edge cases involving apostrophes; they're likely to be ugly blocks of syntax such as references, templates and magic words interspersed with article text. Those issues can be addressed without necessarily rewriting (or speccing out) the whole parser. It does seem that parser/syntax deficiencies become more relevant if we want to employ a two-way WYSIWYG/wiki-text model like the one that's currently being tested on some Wikia sites (e.g. twilightsaga.wikia.com). -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
2009/1/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: I am skeptical of the current development process. That is because it has led to the current parser, which is not a proper parser at all, and includes horrifying syntax. Er, that would be a direct descendant of UseModWiki. That this has been a hair-tearing nightmare ever since is largely because of the huge corpus of text that needs to remain parseable - that doesn't support your argument at all, and calls into question that you even have one. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
2009/1/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: Erik I am glad you are still around and keeping an eye on things. Thank you, I appreciate that. :-) I believe that, with the audience the Foundation has access to, it could save a lot of money by hiring people who love Wikipedia and want to work for it. I don't think its true that the only way to get seasoned developers is to wave a large carrot (aka $$$) in front of their face. I believe there exist experienced developers who would gladly give a year of their life, working at a lower wage, to work on Wikipedia. That is evidently true. In fact, everyone we're hiring accepts that they are going to be paid under market rates. We are also working with remote contractors on specific projects. If you are interested in working as a remote contractor, or you know brilliant people who would be, make a pitch to jobs at wikimedia dot org. We have put a general note on the job openings page that we appreciate hearing from people who are passionate and interested throughout the year, regardless of current openings. As for advertising this extremely broadly, I think that would be doing a disservice to serious candidates as we simply would be drowning in applications. (Sometimes, we already are.) And, having reviewed CVs for almost every position that we've hired for in 2008, I can tell you that arriving at a reasonable shortlist in a fair and accurate fashion is a lot of work - and with the exception of some sanity filtering, it's not a task you can easily give to someone else. We might try it regardless, but only if we have a process in place to deal with the predictable level of interest. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:19 PM, mbimm...@gmail.com wrote: snip Erik/Naoko: does the Stanton grant include a condition for (external) specific program evaluation? Yes, we are required to submit a quarterly report to the Stanton Foundation to inform the project progress and status which includes financial report. Best, - Naoko -- Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:30 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: I am skeptical of the current development process. That is because it has led to the current parser, which is not a proper parser at all, and includes horrifying syntax. Er, that would be a direct descendant of UseModWiki. That this has been a hair-tearing nightmare ever since is largely because of the huge corpus of text that needs to remain parseable - that doesn't support your argument at all, and calls into question that you even have one. It would be a potentially acceptable technical solution to change the parser and markup syntax to make it easier to work with, as long as there was an automated conversion tool to shift from what's in the DB now to what would be there going forwards. Adding in a new parser in parallel and a bit to flag whether a page was in old or new format would make the conversion easy and prevent the necessity for a flag day. Conversion done in semi-automated manner with user review in real time would be a lot safer than having to autoconvert the whole thing at once and deal with the edge cases all at the same time. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
I think this is probably true. On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Chad wrote: On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote: Gerard Meijssen wrote: That is a bit simplistic. It takes a huge effort to create dumps. The dump of the English language Wikipedia is even notoriously difficult to create. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow Huge effort is not copyrightable. I haven't seen anyone trying to lay claim to a copyright on the dumps. I would venture to say that it's merely a transformative work, as it doesn't do anything but collect them in a machine-readable format. The various dumps are designed to organize the information, not change them in any way. While at first glance it might seem as though there was a compilation copyright in the dumps the fact that they are generated by a mechanical process would suggest that the lack the originality that is a fundamental requirement for copyrightability. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- You have successfully failed! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
2009/1/8 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: We discussing a move to CC-BY-SA, attribution is still required. I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of CC-BY-SA (I've just read them, but it isn't entirely clear to me whether Original Author is, in the context of a wiki, just the latest editor or all editors), My reading of the Attribution requirements per CC-BY-SA (4.c) in the context of a wiki is as follows: * every substantial edit is a copyrighted creative work; * every such edit must be, per the terms of the license and the terms of use of the wiki, made available under CC-BY-SA; * per the terms of that license, if the edit is originally created for the wiki, the person submitting it is its Original Author (while the combined work is an Adaptation per CC-BY-SA). A wiki page would therefore have multiple Original Authors per CC-BY-SA. but it seems clear to me that we can require people to link back to Wikipedia (in particular, the history page) so that everyone is, at least indirectly, attributed. Given that that's how most people are using the GFDL anyway, I really don't see the problem. I agree. The attribution requirements in CC-BY-SA are reasonably flexible, and we can specify in the terms of use that e.g. with more than five authors, attribution happens through a link to the History page. I want to add something which I forgot to point out (and Kat reminded me of): Requiring that authors be named where it can be reasonably expected is especially important in the context of media files such as sounds and images which very frequently have just a single author who can reasonably expect to be attributed. I think the above approach addresses this in a medium-independent fashion. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
Hi all; I would like to know how is going to be rated the success of this operation/project. Do you hope a big wave of new users? More edits per day? To improve the visits/edits ratio? What are your wishes and your realistic predictions? Regards, emijrp Naoko Komura escribió: On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:19 PM, mbimm...@gmail.com wrote: snip Erik/Naoko: does the Stanton grant include a condition for (external) specific program evaluation? Yes, we are required to submit a quarterly report to the Stanton Foundation to inform the project progress and status which includes financial report. Best, - Naoko ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraiser update
And - the banners should now be gone in all languages. In the coming days weeks we'll discuss what a consistent, non-obnoxious but visible Donate / We're a non-profit link could look like across projects. (Right now we have a Donate link in the sidebar, and some projects have experimented with occasional mini-messages in the sitenotice.) Suggestions appreciated! -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
2009/1/10 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org: 2009/1/8 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: We discussing a move to CC-BY-SA, attribution is still required. I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of CC-BY-SA (I've just read them, but it isn't entirely clear to me whether Original Author is, in the context of a wiki, just the latest editor or all editors), My reading of the Attribution requirements per CC-BY-SA (4.c) in the context of a wiki is as follows: * every substantial edit is a copyrighted creative work; * every such edit must be, per the terms of the license and the terms of use of the wiki, made available under CC-BY-SA; * per the terms of that license, if the edit is originally created for the wiki, the person submitting it is its Original Author (while the combined work is an Adaptation per CC-BY-SA). A wiki page would therefore have multiple Original Authors per CC-BY-SA. I disagree, I don't think each edit is a work but rather each revision is a work, derived from the revision before. The question is then who is the Original Author of the latest revision, is it just the person that made the last edit or is it everyone before (ie. are authors of a work automatically authors of a work derived from it)? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/10 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org: 2009/1/8 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: We discussing a move to CC-BY-SA, attribution is still required. I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of CC-BY-SA (I've just read them, but it isn't entirely clear to me whether Original Author is, in the context of a wiki, just the latest editor or all editors), My reading of the Attribution requirements per CC-BY-SA (4.c) in the context of a wiki is as follows: * every substantial edit is a copyrighted creative work; * every such edit must be, per the terms of the license and the terms of use of the wiki, made available under CC-BY-SA; * per the terms of that license, if the edit is originally created for the wiki, the person submitting it is its Original Author (while the combined work is an Adaptation per CC-BY-SA). A wiki page would therefore have multiple Original Authors per CC-BY-SA. I disagree, I don't think each edit is a work but rather each revision is a work, derived from the revision before. The question is then who is the Original Author of the latest revision, is it just the person that made the last edit or is it everyone before (ie. are authors of a work automatically authors of a work derived from it)? I don't know the answer with respect to CC-BY-SA, but I once tried to resolve a similar question with regards to US copyright registration. The answer from the Copyright Office, as I understood it, may be analogous. Their answer seems to be that a work is defined by an act of publication (i.e. making available to the public), and the authors of the work from the point of view of registration are the people who contributed to it since the last act of publication. Prior works still need to be identified during registration, but the prior authors are not given the same standing as current authors during the registration process. So if one were to apply those rules, each whole revision that appears online would be considered a work and the primary author is only the most recent one. I'm not saying that this interpretation is necessarily the best one (laws haven't exactly kept up with the tools for digital collaboration), but it is one perspective. CC-BY-SA could be written or interpreted to define the terms differently. I haven't tried to study the license in sufficient detail to be sure. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
geni wrote: 2009/1/9 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com: As a major organization with legal council, the WMF is in a much better position to understand what the license requires than most reusers. The law however doesn't care how easy licenses are for reusers to understand. The WMF cannot provide legal advice and in that case finding out what authors view as acceptable may well be more worthwhile than legally meaningless advice. It's not quite legally meaningless, in that legal decisions in practice aren't nearly as much like formal-logic inference as many people would like to pretend. In an ambiguous area of law with little precedent and a license that could be interpreted multiple ways, I reused Wikipedia content in accordance with how Wikimedia said the license should be interpreted would probably be granted some deference, if the Wikimedia interpretation were within the range of reasonable ones. -Mark ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews in China Blocked
I can confirm that http://zh.wikinews.org is blocked in Beijing and several other cities in China. Ian [[User:Poeloq]] 2009/1/10 Jason Safoutin jason.safou...@wikinewsie.org foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: Message: 10 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 17:27:23 +0800 From: shi zhao shiz...@gmail.com Subject: [Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews in China Blocked To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 762c04810901090127t1517f3fcm74bf129a77f0d...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Today Chinese wikinews in China Blocked. GFW keyword is zh.wikinews.org . other wikinews can acess. Is there any way to confirm this? Is there anyone else who has this issue? I would like to do an article for the English Wikinews if this is indeed true. -- Jason Safoutin Wikinews accredited reporter and administrator jason.safou...@wikinewsie.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Chinese wikipedia: http://zh.wikipedia.org/ My blog: http://shizhao.org twitter: https://twitter.com/shizhao [[zh:User:Shizhao]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/9 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any license I have granted them. I doubt it. You are probably considering the wrong part of the GFDL with regards to what they are doing. Suffice to say the foundation isn't actually required to credit you in any way shape or form with regards to the dumps (since they are effectively verbatim copying and since there are no cover texts section 3 doesn't place any significant further requirements). The WMF is not just making and distributing verbatim copies of my works. Not effectively, not even remotely close to it. The only time they're even arguably distributing verbatim copies of my works would be for articles where I am the last author or for historical revisions. You may not like this but that would be inconsistent with your claims to prefer the GFDL over CC-BY-SA 3.0. I haven't actually claimed to prefer the GFDL over CC-BY-SA 3.0. I've implied that I prefer the GFDL over the GFDL *and* CC-BY-SA 3.0. Frankly, I don't understand CC-BY-SA 3.0. It isn't clear what it means. There seems to be a belief that it can be interpreted to only require attribution of 5 authors, and I don't like that at all. Further, there seems to be a belief that it can be interpreted to only require a link to such attribution, and that's even worse. And then, topping it off, there are some who feel it can be interpreted to only require the printing of a URL as attribution. And Creative Commons is working closely with these people. So even if CC-BY-SA 3.0 doesn't mean that, there's a good chance CC-BY-SA 4.0 will. I don't know if these interpretations are correct or not. But I'd rather not chance it. Especially since if they're not correct, there's not much point in switching to CC-BY-SA in the first place. You want compatibility, why not add a clause to CC-BY-SA 3.0 letting people relicense that content under the GFDL? That'll achieve compatibility just as well. Obviously you think there are some onerous requirements in the GFDL that make that unacceptable. Of course, if that's the case, and these requirements really are so onerous, why doesn't the FSF remove them from the GFDL? Maybe the FSF doesn't actually find them to be onerous after all? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: The WMF is not just making and distributing verbatim copies of my works. Not effectively, not even remotely close to it. The only time they're even arguably distributing verbatim copies of my works would be for articles where I am the last author or for historical revisions. Yes I thought you'd try that argument. The problem with it that every modified version is first distributed by someone other than the foundation. That the foundation then produces a verbatim copy of that rather than a modified version. I haven't actually claimed to prefer the GFDL over CC-BY-SA 3.0. I've implied that I prefer the GFDL over the GFDL *and* CC-BY-SA 3.0. That doesn't even make sense Frankly, I don't understand CC-BY-SA 3.0. You've never demonstrated an ability to understand any free license or copyright law in general so that doesn't greatly concern me. It isn't clear what it means. There seems to be a belief that it can be interpreted to only require attribution of 5 authors, and I don't like that at all. The word five doesn't appear in the license and 5 only appears in a section name and one reference to the section. There might be a way to use one of the clauses to do this but it would be darn hard and the foundation has made statements that it won't use the relevant clause. Further, there seems to be a belief that it can be interpreted to only require a link to such attribution, and that's even worse. That is actually a step up from what the GFDL requires (and remember the GFDL has no problems in principle with stuff being provided by link see the whole transparent copy stuff) And then, topping it off, there are some who feel it can be interpreted to only require the printing of a URL as attribution. And Creative Commons is working closely with these people. So even if CC-BY-SA 3.0 doesn't mean that, there's a good chance CC-BY-SA 4.0 will. I doubt it. Since CC pay some attention to the moral rights issue they are unlikely to make any solid statements about what counts as acceptable attribution. I don't know if these interpretations are correct or not. But I'd rather not chance it. Especially since if they're not correct, there's not much point in switching to CC-BY-SA in the first place. There are very considerable benefits. For example you can use a CC image on a postcard. GFDL not so much. You want compatibility, why not add a clause to CC-BY-SA 3.0 letting people relicense that content under the GFDL? That'll achieve compatibility just as well. Obviously you think there are some onerous requirements in the GFDL that make that unacceptable. Of course, if that's the case, and these requirements really are so onerous, why doesn't the FSF remove them from the GFDL? Maybe the FSF doesn't actually find them to be onerous after all? Because switching because allowing the shift to CC-BY-SA-3.0 is their way of removing them. About the only remotely significant stuff still under the GFDL once the switch is over will be software manuals for which the GFDL is merely a tolerably bad license. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:18 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: On the other hand, it would remove the requirement to deposit two copies of the best edition of every single revision ever created with the copyright office. No such requirement exists under US law. Title 17, Section 407. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:15 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: The WMF is not just making and distributing verbatim copies of my works. Not effectively, not even remotely close to it. The only time they're even arguably distributing verbatim copies of my works would be for articles where I am the last author or for historical revisions. Yes I thought you'd try that argument. The problem with it that every modified version is first distributed by someone other than the foundation. What is that, the two wrongs make a right argument? If I distribute illegal bootlegs of Star Wars and then you redistribute them, does that get you off the hook? No, they have a DMCA defense, but not once they receive a DMCA takedown notice. That the foundation then produces a verbatim copy of that rather than a modified version. It's *already* a modified version. It isn't clear what it means. There seems to be a belief that it can be interpreted to only require attribution of 5 authors, and I don't like that at all. The word five doesn't appear in the license and 5 only appears in a section name and one reference to the section. There might be a way to use one of the clauses to do this but it would be darn hard and the foundation has made statements that it won't use the relevant clause. Scroll up just a few messages and you see that Erik suggesting they will: The attribution requirements in CC-BY-SA are reasonably flexible, and we can specify in the terms of use that e.g. with more than five authors, attribution happens through a link to the History page. And then, topping it off, there are some who feel it can be interpreted to only require the printing of a URL as attribution. And Creative Commons is working closely with these people. So even if CC-BY-SA 3.0 doesn't mean that, there's a good chance CC-BY-SA 4.0 will. I doubt it. Since CC pay some attention to the moral rights issue they are unlikely to make any solid statements about what counts as acceptable attribution. They pay attention to moral rights in CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported. But CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported lets you relicense the work under any of the country-specific licenses. I don't know if these interpretations are correct or not. But I'd rather not chance it. Especially since if they're not correct, there's not much point in switching to CC-BY-SA in the first place. There are very considerable benefits. For example you can use a CC image on a postcard. GFDL not so much. Images can (and are) already licensed under the CC licenses. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
2009/1/9 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: I don't know if these interpretations are correct or not. But I'd rather not chance it. Especially since if they're not correct, there's not much point in switching to CC-BY-SA in the first place. You are completely free to oppose the switch because you find the license incomprehensible or difficult to understand. (We will, of course, try to answer all reasonable questions as to the meaning of the license, and I've invited CC to participate in this conversation.) However, the FDL 1.3 allows for precisely the kind of update we are proposing, and such a migration has been validated by the General Counsel of Creative Commons, Wikimedia, and the Free Software Foundation. The proposed attribution (crediting authors where it is reasonably possible and linking to the version history where that would be onerous) is completely consistent with 1) established practices on Wikipedia; 2) the ethics and spirit of the GNU Free Documentation License; 3) the ethics of the free culture movement; 4) the legal language of both licenses; 5) the experience of a human being contributing to Wikipedia. On that latter point, a person making an edit will surely not fail to notice that their name does not actually appear _at all_ in any obvious location after they have done so. If anything, after making this update, we will attribute more clearly and consistently, and the same standards will apply to all. For example, I'm in favor of a software change to show the authors of an article, where there are less than six authors, in the footer of the article. The notion that this is a conspiracy theory to remove or reduce attribution comes from a deep misunderstanding of law, ethics, practices, and the human experience. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews in China Blocked
The proxy servers of the China Channel Firefox Add-on seems to be out of order. An alternative way of testing can be found here:Website Test behind the Great Firewall of Chinahttp://www.websitepulse.com/help/testtools.china-test.html Here are some results from the above web page. Tested From:Shanghai, China Resolved As:208.80.152.2 Status:Empty reply from server Response Time:0.414 sec Tested From:Beijing, China Resolved As:208.80.152.2 Status:Empty reply from server Response Time:3.595 sec Tested From:Hong Kong, China Resolved As:208.80.152.2 Status:OK Response Time:2.696 sec Tested From:Seattle, WA Resolved As:208.80.152.2 Status:OK Response Time:1.678 sec [[zh:User:Bencmq]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
Erik Moeller wrote: The proposed attribution (crediting authors where it is reasonably possible and linking to the version history where that would be onerous) is completely consistent with 1) established practices on Wikipedia; 2) the ethics and spirit of the GNU Free Documentation License; 3) the ethics of the free culture movement; 4) the legal language of both licenses; 5) the experience of a human being contributing to Wikipedia. On that latter point, a person making an edit will surely not fail to notice that their name does not actually appear _at all_ in any obvious location after they have done so. If anything, after making this update, we will attribute more clearly and consistently, and the same standards will apply to all. For example, I'm in favor of a software change to show the authors of an article, where there are less than six authors, in the footer of the article. The notion that this is a conspiracy theory to remove or reduce attribution comes from a deep misunderstanding of law, ethics, practices, and the human experience. The sentence in the above that interests me the most, is: For example, I'm in favor of a software change to show the authors of an article, where there are less than six authors, in the footer of the article. I would be interested in a clarification on this point. Do you mean less than six people who have edited the article ever, or less than six people whose text remains in the current form of the article? Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
geni wrote: 2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: It isn't clear what it means. There seems to be a belief that it can be interpreted to only require attribution of 5 authors, and I don't like that at all. The word five doesn't appear in the license and 5 only appears in a section name and one reference to the section. There might be a way to use one of the clauses to do this but it would be darn hard and the foundation has made statements that it won't use the relevant clause. Its actually the GFDL that has the 5 principle authors thing, section 4. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL QA update and question
Anthony wrote: My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any license I have granted them. Apart from the expressly provided (GFDL), there is the tradition of how Wikipedia and other wikis have always worked, namely that we sometimes cut-and-paste text between articles without fully attributing the original author. This is how wikis work, and if you don't like it, you better not contribute your text. -- Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
