Re: [Foundation-l] Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship
Except google isn't asserting any kind of copyright control over these books, they're just not making it convenient to download them in your preferred format. Maybe not The Right Thing, but not as boneheaded as suing a party who reprints public domain material, as was the case in Feist v. Rural (the supreme court case you mention.) Sent from my portable e-mail unit On Jun 20, 2009 3:23 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com wrote: For some reason, I am reminded of a Supreme Court case about the information in telephone directories. Maybe because of the insanity of trying to put public domain material under copyright. From: Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 11:47:28 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship That is against the law. It violates Google's ToS. I'm mostly complaining that Google is being Ver... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] transparency or translucency?
I think there's two parallel conversations going on here, which is making it hard for anybody to come to an understanding. James, it seems like you're saying that Wikimedia (apparently) espouses absolute transparency and equality, and in fact only practices those virtues to the boundaries of common sense. That difference, between the absolute and the common sense, strikes you as disingenuous. Everybody else seems to be saying that Wikimedia only ever intended to run an organization in a manner consistent with common sense, and that realities of how Wikimedia is run are not, in fact, at odds with the founding principles, nor have the founding principles been abandoned. I will acknowledge that it seems your point hasn't been fully acknowledged, but I don't think it's a very strong point. Perhaps the phrase, to the extent possible has been omitted from some explanations of Wikimedia's commitment to transparency and equality, but I don't think that has decreased the overall clarity. Yes, Wikimedia is not absolutely transparent, and yes, I know you know that. But considering that nobody realistically expected or expects the organization to be absolutely transparent and equal, as that would come at the cost of functionality, it doesn't really make sense to complain about that. And it doesn't represent a deviation from founding principles. Best, parker On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM, James Rigg jamesrigg1...@googlemail.comwrote: I do not describe how - in your opinion - the conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up to those principles. I'm actually simply pointing-out that the *stated* semi-transparency, and hierarchical structure, of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is contrary to the *stated* principles of transparency and no hierarchy. Nowhere in this thread have I stated that this is a good or bad thing in relation to Wikipedia/Wikimedia. James On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see the conflict James Riggs is describing. You point to statements of principles by Jimmy Wales, and then describe how - in your opinion - the conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up to those principles. Well, that doesn't shock me and it shouldn't shock you. The English Wikipedia is quite transparent, more so than perhaps any community or organizational structure I've encountered. Only mailing lists that regularly deal with personal, private information are closed to the community. Nearly all decision making of any weight is done on-wiki, with complete access for anyone who wants it to all or mostly all discussion precursors. The Wikimedia Foundation is a business, and by the standards of modern business it is also quite transparent. Its financial information, its plans, its employee roster, its job descriptions, its revenue and fund raising model and its long term goals are all available for your discovery. Every major decision that impacts the projects is discussed publicly ahead of time. That *is* transparency, in my opinion. When someone who self describes as a newbie that has not joined in working on the Wikimedia projects posts to the Foundation mailing list describing what he believes to be a material mischaracterisation, he gets a response from the founder and the deputy director (and former board member) in short order. Try doing that with General Electric, or really nearly any other corporation in the world. Your e-mails indicate that you concluded first and asked second, so hopefully you will now reconsider. Nathan ___ 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] transparency or translucency?
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:39 PM, James Rigg jamesrigg1...@googlemail.comwrote: But the problem is that Wikipedia is *today* proudly portrayed to the general public as being transparent and non-hierarchical, when it is semi-transparent and hierarchical. Right. Wikipedia (and Wikimedia) is today being portrayed as transparent and non-hierarchical. Some of that is Wikimedia's PR, a lot of that is just public perception. Most people look at the claim of transparency and non-hierarchical and presume it to mean within the boundaries of reason. If you're not willing to make that jump, then no amount of people telling you that they made it will help. And I expect that you'll be similarly disappointed by many other products and organizations that don't explicitly add the caveat of reasonability to their attributes. Obviously, this thread is not going anywhere, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree! And perhaps this is the best solution! Best, Parker James On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Parker Higgins parkerhigg...@gmail.com wrote: I think there's two parallel conversations going on here, which is making it hard for anybody to come to an understanding. James, it seems like you're saying that Wikimedia (apparently) espouses absolute transparency and equality, and in fact only practices those virtues to the boundaries of common sense. That difference, between the absolute and the common sense, strikes you as disingenuous. Everybody else seems to be saying that Wikimedia only ever intended to run an organization in a manner consistent with common sense, and that realities of how Wikimedia is run are not, in fact, at odds with the founding principles, nor have the founding principles been abandoned. I will acknowledge that it seems your point hasn't been fully acknowledged, but I don't think it's a very strong point. Perhaps the phrase, to the extent possible has been omitted from some explanations of Wikimedia's commitment to transparency and equality, but I don't think that has decreased the overall clarity. Yes, Wikimedia is not absolutely transparent, and yes, I know you know that. But considering that nobody realistically expected or expects the organization to be absolutely transparent and equal, as that would come at the cost of functionality, it doesn't really make sense to complain about that. And it doesn't represent a deviation from founding principles. Best, parker On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM, James Rigg jamesrigg1...@googlemail.comwrote: I do not describe how - in your opinion - the conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up to those principles. I'm actually simply pointing-out that the *stated* semi-transparency, and hierarchical structure, of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is contrary to the *stated* principles of transparency and no hierarchy. Nowhere in this thread have I stated that this is a good or bad thing in relation to Wikipedia/Wikimedia. James On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see the conflict James Riggs is describing. You point to statements of principles by Jimmy Wales, and then describe how - in your opinion - the conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up to those principles. Well, that doesn't shock me and it shouldn't shock you. The English Wikipedia is quite transparent, more so than perhaps any community or organizational structure I've encountered. Only mailing lists that regularly deal with personal, private information are closed to the community. Nearly all decision making of any weight is done on-wiki, with complete access for anyone who wants it to all or mostly all discussion precursors. The Wikimedia Foundation is a business, and by the standards of modern business it is also quite transparent. Its financial information, its plans, its employee roster, its job descriptions, its revenue and fund raising model and its long term goals are all available for your discovery. Every major decision that impacts the projects is discussed publicly ahead of time. That *is* transparency, in my opinion. When someone who self describes as a newbie that has not joined in working on the Wikimedia projects posts to the Foundation mailing list describing what he believes to be a material mischaracterisation, he gets a response from the founder and the deputy director (and former board member) in short order. Try doing that with General Electric, or really nearly any other corporation in the world. Your e-mails indicate that you concluded first and asked second, so hopefully you will now reconsider. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe
