Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
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 happen in the future; None of it will be prevented by imposing strict central control. Wikimedia is a resilient organisation, and it didn't get that way through paranoid musings about a tarnished reputation. It's not that fragile. 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 example, deriving revenue directly from the content could cause problems for fair use[1], let alone the prospect of users uploading copyrighted or otherwise restricted (eg trademarked) content. Material in the public domain or under a fully free licence does not require any kind of fair use consideration. The WMF already takes a stricter position in fair use in its contents than I would ever consider necessary, by insisting that fair use material must be able to remain so when used by a downstream consumer. An important element of WMF's risk management is to *not* have general editorial participation in its contents. If it takes an official hand in such things it endangers the safe harbors it has as an ISP. It must respond to legal demands, but it cannot be faulted if it fails to notice an irregularity, or if it fails to accept the word of an uninterested third party that some content is a copyright violation. Of course, we must use common sense about such things, even when failing to do that would be technically legal. Another liability to consider relates to problems with delivery. Normally such convenience services include strong disclaimers of warranty and liability but checking one of my contributions[2] shows offers to 'Choisissez un imprimeur *accrédité*'. By referring to these vendors as 'accredited' we are stating that they are officially approved and raising many questions about the accreditation process itself. I wouldn't take such a narrow reading of accredité. French Wikitionary, under accrediter shows Rendre crédible http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/cr%C3%A9dible, vraisemblable http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/vraisemblable, donner cours http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/cours. There's a lot of wiggle room with that word, and if I encountered it in a legal context the first thing I would ask is, What do they mean by that?. In the absence of a specific definition any of several reasonably applicable definitions can be applied. If necessary it would be easy to amend the disclaimer. Suggéré would be an even less stringent term. Delivery problems are a matter of the contract between the printer and the consumer, and should not normally be a legal concern for WMF. If there is a reported history of bad service in multiple incidents we should not be recommending that printer, but even if there is such a history proving that kind of international complicity over the printing of a single book would be well beyond the capacity of a small-claims court. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
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's response to this was that the agreement between O'Reilly Media and the Wikimedia Foundation was that this would be at /Wikipedia/ ... [do] not remove it from this site without a /lot/ more discussion among a /lot/ of other people. Did the WMF really make an agreement saying that the content should be on Wikipedia, rather than a WMF project or simply under a free license? Does anyone want to weigh in with comments on this on the talk page? Thanks, Mike Peel ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
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 where it is most needed; on the English language Wikipedia itself. When you consider the usability of software, good documentation is definetly part of it. This justified that this book is on en.wp itself. The least it will do is spark attention on our documentation and how the book should be integrated in our project documentation. I can imagine that the book itself also gets its place on Wikibooks. The rationale behind that would be that it survives as a book. This book will need maintenance as does the help text but they are essentially two different things. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/28 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net 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's response to this was that the agreement between O'Reilly Media and the Wikimedia Foundation was that this would be at /Wikipedia/ ... [do] not remove it from this site without a /lot/ more discussion among a /lot/ of other people. Did the WMF really make an agreement saying that the content should be on Wikipedia, rather than a WMF project or simply under a free license? Does anyone want to weigh in with comments on this on the talk page? Thanks, Mike Peel ___ 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] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
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 obviously highly unusual and very nice. :-) O'Reilly took the initiative to release the book under a free license, and we've encouraged it - but we don't have any formal agreement with them that it ought to be posted on Wikipedia. That's a community decision, and neither we nor O'Reilly would want it to be any other way. My personal take is that it should live where it's most likely to be used and maintained, and regardless of its dead tree origins, the help section of en.wp seems to be a pretty logical place. But that's just my take - in future, we are also considering to set up a dedicated portal with various learning resources for wiki newbies, where static copies could live. Erik 2009/1/28 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net: 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's response to this was that the agreement between O'Reilly Media and the Wikimedia Foundation was that this would be at /Wikipedia/ ... [do] not remove it from this site without a /lot/ more discussion among a /lot/ of other people. Did the WMF really make an agreement saying that the content should be on Wikipedia, rather than a WMF project or simply under a free license? Does anyone want to weigh in with comments on this on the talk page? Thanks, Mike Peel ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- 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] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
2009/1/28 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net: 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's response to this was that the agreement between O'Reilly Media and the Wikimedia Foundation was that this would be at /Wikipedia/ ... [do] not remove it from this site without a /lot/ more discussion among a /lot/ of other people. Did the WMF really make an agreement saying that the content should be on Wikipedia, rather than a WMF project or simply under a free license? Does anyone want to weigh in with comments on this on the talk page? Thanks, Mike Peel Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we switch toi 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] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:14 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com 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/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
2009/1/28 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org: 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 happen. So big, big thanks to John. :-) I've been meaning to write about this for a while, as a quick related heads up: We're also contracting John to write a Wikipedia Educator's Guide for us, which will hopefully help students and educators to get a better understanding regarding Wikipedia use. It will also include case studies about student assignments. The guide won't be directly developed on a Wikimedia wiki to avoid an icky paying-for-content situation, but once it's ready we'll publicize it widely and hope it'll find a home on Wikibooks or elsewhere for future development. For those who want to get a first glimpse behind the scenes, John is working on at it at howto.pediapress.com. He is happy to collaborate, but it's his baby and he'll build it however he wishes. -- 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] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
2009/1/28 geni geni...@gmail.com: 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 this a special case? The CC switch, when and if it happens, will be complex enough without inventing extra problems! -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
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 geni...@gmail.com 2009/1/28 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net: 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's response to this was that the agreement between O'Reilly Media and the Wikimedia Foundation was that this would be at /Wikipedia/ ... [do] not remove it from this site without a /lot/ more discussion among a /lot/ of other people. Did the WMF really make an agreement saying that the content should be on Wikipedia, rather than a WMF project or simply under a free license? Does anyone want to weigh in with comments on this on the talk page? Thanks, Mike Peel Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0. -- geni ___ 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] Commons and The Year of the Picture
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net 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 example, deriving revenue directly from the content could cause problems for fair use[1], let alone the prospect of users uploading copyrighted or otherwise restricted (eg trademarked) content. 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 a periodic table of elements or medical charts which would normally be subject to deletion (except that they are currently immediately available for sale!). Furthermore, while WMF *may* be safe from attack on the grounds that *it* is both non-profit and at arms length from the transaction itself, things are certainly less clear for the commercial printer who could well find themselves in serious trouble. What contract(s) are in place to cover WMF its chapter(s) in the case that such a supplier (rightly?) seeks recourse because we have made such material available to them? The WMF already takes a stricter position in fair use in its contents than I would ever consider necessary, by insisting that fair use material must be able to remain so when used by a downstream consumer. Albeit interesting, I'm unsure of the relevance. An important element of WMF's risk management is to *not* have general editorial participation in its contents. If it takes an official hand in such things it endangers the safe harbors it has as an ISP. While also true, that is more pertinent in the Flagged Revisions debate (and I have already raised it there[1]). It must respond to legal demands, but it cannot be faulted if it fails to notice an irregularity, or if it fails to accept the word of an uninterested third party that some content is a copyright violation. Of course, we must use common sense about such things, even when failing to do that would be technically legal. Previously this may have been true, but with content going 'on sale' the second it is uploaded I'm not so sure it still holds (assuming it ever did). I wouldn't take such a narrow reading of accredité. French Wikitionary, under accrediter shows Rendre crédible http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/cr%C3%A9dible, vraisemblable http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/vraisemblable, donner cours http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/cours. There's a lot of wiggle room with that word, and if I encountered it in a legal context the first thing I would ask is, What do they mean by that?. In the absence of a specific definition any of several reasonably applicable definitions can be applied. If necessary it would be easy to amend the disclaimer. Suggéré would be an even less stringent term. I just confirmed with my partner (who happens to be French) that 'accredité' is definitely a formal term like accredited. The problem with undefined terms is that it's another thing to argue about and you could find the definition ending up being something completely different to what you had intended (especially if the plaintiff has their say about it). Delivery problems are a matter of the contract between the printer and the consumer, and should not normally be a legal concern for WMF. If there is a reported history of bad service in multiple incidents we should not be recommending that printer, but even if there is such a history proving that kind of international complicity over the printing of a single book would be well beyond the capacity of a small-claims court. See now here is a significant difference between booksources and this initiative - BS if I understand well simply links our articles with the books they refer to. The books already exist and the content for them is sourced and vetted using existing processes and legal frameworks (author guarantees etc.). Here, on the other hand, we are delivering the actual content. Fortunately these issues are easily fixed via forming contracts (even clickthroughs) with the suppliers and the buyers. Questions about bias, quality, etc. can also be resolved by maintaining a transparent database of suppliers (including information about their contributions - average donation per print for example), ideally with user feedback and using techniques like random ordering, etc. This is arguably work that should be done once and made available for everyone. Sam 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection#Beware_increased_liability_.28Publisher_vs_Distributor.29 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.comwrote: 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? Agreed - the Wikipedia version will likely have to be significantly adapted/integrated so it makes sense to keep a reasonably verbatim version at Wikibooks. That is to say that I wouldn't promote the idea of posting a book, intact, to Wikipedia (even as an exception), but anything which improves the help material is worth encouraging. Sam ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net: 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 a periodic table of elements or medical charts which would normally be subject to deletion (except that they are currently immediately available for sale!). I'm a little confused - surely we would delete this stuff whether or not there's a buy a print now clickthrough button? I can't see anyone arguing to keep it because they want to run off a poster... (and to a degree this is rendered moot by that helpful lowest useful resolution requirement of the unfree material rules) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.ukwrote: 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net: 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 a periodic table of elements or medical charts which would normally be subject to deletion (except that they are currently immediately available for sale!). I'm a little confused - surely we would delete this stuff whether or not there's a buy a print now clickthrough button? I can't see anyone arguing to keep it because they want to run off a poster... (and to a degree this is rendered moot by that helpful lowest useful resolution requirement of the unfree material rules) 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 infringement, submitting said poster(s) and invoice(s) as evidence. 4. ??? 5. Profit! Note that these steps need not necessarily be completed by the same parties. I'm not sure that the courts would have much leeway here (as they might were the image not used commercially as was the case before this function was launched). Sam ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
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=Wikibooks:Reading_room/ Generaloldid=1390269#Editing_Grant While there could conceivably be problems in doing so, we couldn't find any in this case. I'd be interested whether that would also be true of having John write about using Wikipedia in an educational context. I suppose if the WMF is paying him then they could be considered a publisher instead of a service provider, however I would think that can be easily taken care of in the contract, no? -Mike Erik Möller wronte: The guide won't be directly developed on a Wikimedia wiki to avoid an icky paying-for-content situation, but once it's ready we'll publicize it widely and hope it'll find a home on Wikibooks or elsewhere for future development. For those who want to get a first glimpse behind the scenes, John is working on at it at howto.pediapress.com. He is happy to collaborate, but it's his baby and he'll build it however he wishes. Mike.lifeguard mikelifegu...@fastmail.fm ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
Hi Gerard, pls remain polite and dont call names. teun On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com 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 geni...@gmail.com 2009/1/28 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net: 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's response to this was that the agreement between O'Reilly Media and the Wikimedia Foundation was that this would be at /Wikipedia/ ... [do] not remove it from this site without a /lot/ more discussion among a /lot/ of other people. Did the WMF really make an agreement saying that the content should be on Wikipedia, rather than a WMF project or simply under a free license? Does anyone want to weigh in with comments on this on the talk page? Thanks, Mike Peel Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0. -- geni ___ 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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
2009/1/28 geni geni...@gmail.com: 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 enough without inventing extra problems! It is imported GFDL material. Which is a problem. Normaly we have very little imported stuff so not something I worry about overmuch but someone might want to give a heads up to the publishing company and author that we will be looking to switch it (and since it is imported we can't do that automagicaly). This is pretty silly. The author is... an active Wikipedia user, and has been for three and a half years. All his GDFL contributions made to Wikipedia can be relicensed without any fuss, but his writing first published elsewhere under *exactly the same license* and then re-uploaded, by himself, licensing his own intellectual property and ticking all the implicit boxes in exactly the same way as if he had first written it here, can't be? But even if it weren't, I'm stull confused over how we have the right to use one set of GFDL v.1.2 or later contributions, and not the other. It is, after all, *exactly the same license*... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: 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. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: 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. Did you consider asking him? -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
2009/1/28 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com: On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: 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. Did you consider asking him? No, we haven't even decided if we are going to switch yet. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net 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 infringement, submitting said poster(s) and invoice(s) as evidence. 4. ??? 5. Profit! But this is not that different from an anonymous user writing something illegal on Wikipedia, make a screenshot of it, and then blaming Wikipedia for having illegal material, is it? Best wishes, Lennart -- Lennart Guldbrandsson, chair of Wikimedia Sverige and press contact for Swedish Wikipedia // ordförande för Wikimedia Sverige och presskontakt för svenskspråkiga Wikipedia ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
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 has been previously covered in these threads or not), that would be quite significant, in particular in those jurisdictions where moral rights are defined in law. I don't think there's much dispute that attribution is highly medium specific. A URL printed in a textbook is clearly much different from a URL encoded into a web page. The only question is whether the specifics should focus on the rights of the author, or on maximizing ease of redistribution. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
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 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com 2009/1/28 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com: On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: 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. Did you consider asking him? No, we haven't even decided if we are going to switch yet. ___ 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
[Foundation-l] Help-book made available in en Wikipedia against Licensing Policy
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 Software Foundation; with the Invariant Section being the Author and Publisher Information and no Front-Cover Texts and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License. This is clearly not compatible with the official policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). On the same page there is a self-contradiction to these clear words: Under Wikipedia's current copyright conditions, and with the current facilities of the MediaWiki software, it is only possible to include in Wikipedia external GFDL materials that contain invariant sections or cover texts, if all of the following apply, You are the copyright holder of these external GFDL materials (or: you have the explicit, i.e. written, permission of the copyright holder to do what follows); The length and nature of these invariant sections and cover texts does not exceed what can be placed in an edit summary; You are satisfied that these invariant sections and cover texts are not listed elsewhere than in the page history of the page where these external materials are placed; You are satisfied that further copies of Wikipedia content are distributed under the standard GFDL application of with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts (in other words, for the copies derived from wikipedia, you agree that these parts of the text contributed by you will no longer be considered as invariant sections or cover texts in the GFDL sense); The original invariant sections and/or cover texts are contained in the edit summary of the edit with which you introduce the thus GFDLed materials in wikipedia (so, that if permanent deletion would be applied to that edit, both the thus GFDLed material and its invariant sections and cover texts are jointly deleted). Seen the stringent conditions above, it is very desirable to replace GFDL texts with invariant sections (or with cover texts) by original content without invariant sections (or cover texts) whenever possible. I cannot see that the quoted copyright notice fits these conditions. Klaus Graf ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
2009/1/28 effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.com: 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? While it could be copied, I'm not sure there is much point having it duplicated - it just means any improvements need to be made twice. It could be moved to Wikibooks and then Wikipedia could link/redirect to it, that might make the most sense. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Help-book made available in en Wikipedia against Licensing Policy
I don't think that either the Foundation or Mr. Broughton will be complaining. Drop it. From: Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com 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 Licensing Policy 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 Software Foundation; with the Invariant Section being the Author and Publisher Information and no Front-Cover Texts and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License. This is clearly not compatible with the official policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). On the same page there is a self-contradiction to these clear words: Under Wikipedia's current copyright conditions, and with the current facilities of the MediaWiki software, it is only possible to include in Wikipedia external GFDL materials that contain invariant sections or cover texts, if all of the following apply, You are the copyright holder of these external GFDL materials (or: you have the explicit, i.e. written, permission of the copyright holder to do what follows); The length and nature of these invariant sections and cover texts does not exceed what can be placed in an edit summary; You are satisfied that these invariant sections and cover texts are not listed elsewhere than in the page history of the page where these external materials are placed; You are satisfied that further copies of Wikipedia content are distributed under the standard GFDL application of with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts (in other words, for the copies derived from wikipedia, you agree that these parts of the text contributed by you will no longer be considered as invariant sections or cover texts in the GFDL sense); The original invariant sections and/or cover texts are contained in the edit summary of the edit with which you introduce the thus GFDLed materials in wikipedia (so, that if permanent deletion would be applied to that edit, both the thus GFDLed material and its invariant sections and cover texts are jointly deleted). Seen the stringent conditions above, it is very desirable to replace GFDL texts with invariant sections (or with cover texts) by original content without invariant sections (or cover texts) whenever possible. I cannot see that the quoted copyright notice fits these conditions. Klaus Graf ___ 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] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
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 policies and structures in place already to manage books like this, Wikipedia would have to write some kind of special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there. Of course, we have to ask what the authors want too, even if we can move the book to Wikibooks under the GFDL, I don't want to do that if the authors or copyright owners are unhappy with it. --Andrew Whitworth On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:57 AM, effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.com wrote: 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 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com 2009/1/28 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com: On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: 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. Did you consider asking him? No, we haven't even decided if we are going to switch yet. ___ 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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
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 happens to in fact be correct (never mind if it has been previously covered in these threads or not), that would be quite significant, in particular in those jurisdictions where moral rights are defined in law. I don't think there's much dispute that attribution is highly medium specific. I don't think anybody can dispute you just quoted me highly out of context. A URL printed in a textbook is clearly much different from a URL encoded into a web page. The only question is whether the specifics should focus on the rights of the author, or on maximizing ease of redistribution. No, that is precisely a false dilemma. there are a whole range of issues to consider, and those aren't even the necessarily most cogent ones. In some circumstances maximizing ease of redistribution and the rights of the author go hand in hand. And in some corner cases, idiots (and I am not meaning you but specifically some of your less clueful opponents) will argue that sacrificing the authors pride of doing good in a copyleft context is a necessary price to pay to make it easier to redistribute. This is false, and I am willing to argue against this statement when posited at any forum in any fashion, if I am given my right to express my arguments. 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] Help-book made available in en Wikipedia against Licensing Policy
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:Philippe]] On Jan 28, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote: I don't think that either the Foundation or Mr. Broughton will be complaining. Drop it. From: Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com 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 Licensing Policy 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 Software Foundation; with the Invariant Section being the Author and Publisher Information and no Front-Cover Texts and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License. This is clearly not compatible with the official policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). On the same page there is a self-contradiction to these clear words: Under Wikipedia's current copyright conditions, and with the current facilities of the MediaWiki software, it is only possible to include in Wikipedia external GFDL materials that contain invariant sections or cover texts, if all of the following apply, You are the copyright holder of these external GFDL materials (or: you have the explicit, i.e. written, permission of the copyright holder to do what follows); The length and nature of these invariant sections and cover texts does not exceed what can be placed in an edit summary; You are satisfied that these invariant sections and cover texts are not listed elsewhere than in the page history of the page where these external materials are placed; You are satisfied that further copies of Wikipedia content are distributed under the standard GFDL application of with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts (in other words, for the copies derived from wikipedia, you agree that these parts of the text contributed by you will no longer be considered as invariant sections or cover texts in the GFDL sense); The original invariant sections and/or cover texts are contained in the edit summary of the edit with which you introduce the thus GFDLed materials in wikipedia (so, that if permanent deletion would be applied to that edit, both the thus GFDLed material and its invariant sections and cover texts are jointly deleted). Seen the stringent conditions above, it is very desirable to replace GFDL texts with invariant sections (or with cover texts) by original content without invariant sections (or cover texts) whenever possible. I cannot see that the quoted copyright notice fits these conditions. Klaus Graf ___ 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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
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, attribution is highly medium specific. [snip] However, if what you say happens to in fact be correct (never mind if it has been previously covered in these threads or not), that would be quite significant, in particular in those jurisdictions where moral rights are defined in law. I don't think there's much dispute that attribution is highly medium specific. I don't think anybody can dispute you just quoted me highly out of context. If so, I must not have understood your original comment, and I apologize. A URL printed in a textbook is clearly much different from a URL encoded into a web page. The only question is whether the specifics should focus on the rights of the author, or on maximizing ease of redistribution. No, that is precisely a false dilemma. there are a whole range of issues to consider, and those aren't even the necessarily most cogent ones. In some circumstances maximizing ease of redistribution and the rights of the author go hand in hand. And in some corner cases, idiots (and I am not meaning you but specifically some of your less clueful opponents) will argue that sacrificing the authors pride of doing good in a copyleft context is a necessary price to pay to make it easier to redistribute. This is false, and I am willing to argue against this statement when posited at any forum in any fashion, if I am given my right to express my arguments. 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] Commons and The Year of the Picture
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 you there is a problem, so I'm going to add you to a large (and growing) list of trolls and ignore your 'contributions' from now on. Presumably WMF has lawyer(s) somewhere. What would be the process of getting them to take a look at this with a view to having the French chapter put into place the requisite disclaimers? Sam Lennart: Illegal content results in individuals being pursued, arrested and charged and snarky articles being written by old media, not outrageous (albeit largely unjustified) claims for damages (and leverage via commercial third parties): http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/01/statutory-damages-not-high-enough.ars On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, What WMF server allows anonymous uploads of images ? Do you know if this makes any difference any way ? Who do you think you get an invoice from? Not the WMF not its chapters. So please THINK Why bother us with such tripe that is irrelevant to the thread anyway ? Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net: 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 a periodic table of elements or medical charts which would normally be subject to deletion (except that they are currently immediately available for sale!). I'm a little confused - surely we would delete this stuff whether or not there's a buy a print now clickthrough button? I can't see anyone arguing to keep it because they want to run off a poster... (and to a degree this is rendered moot by that helpful lowest useful resolution requirement of the unfree material rules) 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 infringement, submitting said poster(s) and invoice(s) as evidence. 4. ??? 5. Profit! Note that these steps need not necessarily be completed by the same parties. I'm not sure that the courts would have much leeway here (as they might were the image not used commercially as was the case before this function was launched). Sam ___ 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] Commons and The Year of the Picture
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 products are free to use but that we do not guarantee this. As to convincing me that there is a problem, first make plain what the problem is and when a little bit of analysis shows that you did not make it plain, you indeed have no chance in hell of convincing me. If you know anything at all of the WMF you would know the number of lawyers it employs. He is a busy man and I am sure that he knows when to keep his powder dry. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net 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 you there is a problem, so I'm going to add you to a large (and growing) list of trolls and ignore your 'contributions' from now on. Presumably WMF has lawyer(s) somewhere. What would be the process of getting them to take a look at this with a view to having the French chapter put into place the requisite disclaimers? Sam Lennart: Illegal content results in individuals being pursued, arrested and charged and snarky articles being written by old media, not outrageous (albeit largely unjustified) claims for damages (and leverage via commercial third parties): http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/01/statutory-damages-not-high-enough.ars On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, What WMF server allows anonymous uploads of images ? Do you know if this makes any difference any way ? Who do you think you get an invoice from? Not the WMF not its chapters. So please THINK Why bother us with such tripe that is irrelevant to the thread anyway ? Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net: 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 a periodic table of elements or medical charts which would normally be subject to deletion (except that they are currently immediately available for sale!). I'm a little confused - surely we would delete this stuff whether or not there's a buy a print now clickthrough button? I can't see anyone arguing to keep it because they want to run off a poster... (and to a degree this is rendered moot by that helpful lowest useful resolution requirement of the unfree material rules) 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 infringement, submitting said poster(s) and invoice(s) as evidence. 4. ??? 5. Profit! Note that these steps need not necessarily be completed by the same parties. I'm not sure that the courts would have much leeway here (as they might were the image not used commercially as was the case before this function was launched). Sam ___ 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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: 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* is both non-profit and at arms length from the transaction itself, things are certainly less clear for the commercial printer who could well find themselves in serious trouble. What contract(s) are in place to cover WMF its chapter(s) in the case that such a supplier (rightly?) seeks recourse because we have made such material available to them? Sam ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Wikimedia IdeaTorrent?
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 something like brainstorm.wikimedia.org using this software, or would it be too duplicative of BugZilla and listservs? The benefit of IdeaTorrent is that it's very straightforward for non-technical users to contribute ideas and solutions. And, of course, it could be used for non-technical problems as well. -- 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] Wikimedia IdeaTorrent?
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 e...@wikimedia.org 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 people consider it useful to set up something like brainstorm.wikimedia.org using this software, or would it be too duplicative of BugZilla and listservs? The benefit of IdeaTorrent is that it's very straightforward for non-technical users to contribute ideas and solutions. And, of course, it could be used for non-technical problems as well. -- 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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia IdeaTorrent?
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 system, it is susceptible to canvasing. Even still, It would be a great tool. -Jon [[User:ShakataGaNai]] On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:28, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu 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 Wikimedia projects. ___ 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] Wikimedia IdeaTorrent?
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 people consider it useful to set up something like brainstorm.wikimedia.org using this software, or would it be too duplicative of BugZilla and listservs? The benefit of IdeaTorrent is that it's very straightforward for non-technical users to contribute ideas and solutions. And, of course, it could be used for non-technical problems as well. Seems like bugzilla, but with a separated solutions section, where proposed solutions can get votes. I don't think it should be added, but moving bugzilla to brainstorm could be considered. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia IdeaTorrent?
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 e...@wikimedia.org 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 people consider it useful to set up something like brainstorm.wikimedia.org using this software, or would it be too duplicative of BugZilla and listservs? The benefit of IdeaTorrent is that it's very straightforward for non-technical users to contribute ideas and solutions. And, of course, it could be used for non-technical problems as well. -- 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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia IdeaTorrent?
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.ideatorrent.org/ I wonder - would people consider it useful to set up something like brainstorm.wikimedia.org using this software, or would it be too duplicative of BugZilla and listservs? The benefit of IdeaTorrent is that it's very straightforward for non-technical users to contribute ideas and solutions. And, of course, it could be used for non-technical problems as well. Seems like bugzilla, but with a separated solutions section, where proposed solutions can get votes. I don't think it should be added, but moving bugzilla to brainstorm could be considered. It's worth the experiment. Bugzilla seems more related to technical issues and questions, in which I presume it does a good job. We need better processes to arrive at solutions to social and governance problems. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia IdeaTorrent?
2009/1/29 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org: 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 something like brainstorm.wikimedia.org using this software, or would it be too duplicative of BugZilla and listservs? The benefit of IdeaTorrent is that it's very straightforward for non-technical users to contribute ideas and solutions. And, of course, it could be used for non-technical problems as well. Sounds wonderful. I would strongly support it. I did not yet notice an accepted procedure for MW feature requests or roadmap type stuff. 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. /me has a look at the demo... when you submit a request, you can choose a category... and you can view by category as well, cool. Well that is my suggestion for that. :) cheers Brianna -- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Help-book made available in en Wikipedia against Licensing Policy
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Philippe|Wiki philippe.w...@gmail.comwrote: 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/years/ -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
Sam Johnston wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.ukwrote: 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net: 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 a periodic table of elements or medical charts which would normally be subject to deletion (except that they are currently immediately available for sale!). I'm a little confused - surely we would delete this stuff whether or not there's a buy a print now clickthrough button? I can't see anyone arguing to keep it because they want to run off a poster... (and to a degree this is rendered moot by that helpful lowest useful resolution requirement of the unfree material rules) 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 infringement, submitting said poster(s) and invoice(s) as evidence. 4. ??? 5. Profit! Note that these steps need not necessarily be completed by the same parties. I'm not sure that the courts would have much leeway here (as they might were the image not used commercially as was the case before this function was launched). I find your scenario too conspiratorial to be believable. A person who attempted this kind of thing would be in contempt for trying to subvert the legal process by making the court complicit in an extortion scheme. The scheme, which depends on speculative profits from law suits, doesn't make economic sense. A plaintiff would need to make a considerable expense himself just to get the mater to court ... and that's without even considering jurisdictional issues. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
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 permission, but this is not always the case. Selling prints of these photos might violate copyrights. It would be irresponsible of us to to implement a poster sale without laying down guidelines to prevent boo boos. That being said, I would be surprised if Wikimedia France doesn't have a procedure and method set up, especially when EU copright laws are considered. From: Sam Johnston s...@samj.net To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 7:12:34 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net 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 sized damages for copyright and trademark infringement, submitting said poster(s) and invoice(s) as evidence. 4. ??? 5. Profit! I find your scenario too conspiratorial to be believable. The first two steps are likely already done (actually step #2 is optional anyway if the file sharing lawsuits are any metric). All we need now is for a copyright/trademark holder (like Hanks Pediatric Eye Charts[1], concurrently listed for sale[2] and as a copyright violation for speedy deletion[3]) to get their nose out of joint and we're at #3 without any conspiring whatsoever. I'll put it another way for you: Can anyone guarantee that the French chapter are not offering copyrighted and/or trademarked material for sale, (indirectly) for profit? It's amazing that people are carrying on about relicensing work that authors intended to be free while turning a blind eye to commercial use of protected IP. Sam 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanks_Paediatric_Eye_Charts 2. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Paed07_C7.jpg 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Copyright_violations_for_speedy_deletion ___ 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] Commons and The Year of the Picture
What he is pointing out is that the chapter set up the whole process, thus making them culpable. From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 12:14:45 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture 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 products are free to use but that we do not guarantee this. As to convincing me that there is a problem, first make plain what the problem is and when a little bit of analysis shows that you did not make it plain, you indeed have no chance in hell of convincing me. If you know anything at all of the WMF you would know the number of lawyers it employs. He is a busy man and I am sure that he knows when to keep his powder dry. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net 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 you there is a problem, so I'm going to add you to a large (and growing) list of trolls and ignore your 'contributions' from now on. Presumably WMF has lawyer(s) somewhere. What would be the process of getting them to take a look at this with a view to having the French chapter put into place the requisite disclaimers? Sam Lennart: Illegal content results in individuals being pursued, arrested and charged and snarky articles being written by old media, not outrageous (albeit largely unjustified) claims for damages (and leverage via commercial third parties): http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/01/statutory-damages-not-high-enough.ars On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, What WMF server allows anonymous uploads of images ? Do you know if this makes any difference any way ? Who do you think you get an invoice from? Not the WMF not its chapters. So please THINK Why bother us with such tripe that is irrelevant to the thread anyway ? Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: 2009/1/28 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net: 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 a periodic table of elements or medical charts which would normally be subject to deletion (except that they are currently immediately available for sale!). I'm a little confused - surely we would delete this stuff whether or not there's a buy a print now clickthrough button? I can't see anyone arguing to keep it because they want to run off a poster... (and to a degree this is rendered moot by that helpful lowest useful resolution requirement of the unfree material rules) 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 infringement, submitting said poster(s) and invoice(s) as evidence. 4. ??? 5. Profit! Note that these steps need not necessarily be completed by the same parties. I'm not sure that the courts would have much leeway here (as they might were the image not used commercially as was the case before this function was launched). Sam ___ 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 ___ 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] Wikimedia IdeaTorrent?
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 catches on similar efforts for the other projects should follow soon after. Wondering, does the software allow those who have voted to change their minds? Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
