Re: [Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
2009/2/1 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com: Thomas Dalton wrote: The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki before the new license was announced. Since this was published in a book first and added to Wikipedia since the new license was announced, it isn't eligible (without explicit permission from the copyright owner - which shouldn't be difficult to get). I think this merits the question: would it be only necessary to accede to the relicensing? Or would it be necessary to also ask them to abide by any new terms of use of the site that would exceed the minimal requirements of the CC-BY-SA license? If there are additional terms then the whole relicensing is null and void, so this book would be the least of our worries. Any other content brought in from other sources would have to be deleted or the copyright owner contacted to give permission. ___ 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?
Thomas Dalton wrote: The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki before the new license was announced. Since this was published in a book first and added to Wikipedia since the new license was announced, it isn't eligible (without explicit permission from the copyright owner - which shouldn't be difficult to get). I think this merits the question: would it be only necessary to accede to the relicensing? Or would it be necessary to also ask them to abide by any new terms of use of the site that would exceed the minimal requirements of the CC-BY-SA license? 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] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
2009/1/30 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk: 2009/1/28 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki before the new license was announced. Since this was published in a book first and added to Wikipedia since the new license was announced, it isn't eligible (without explicit permission from the copyright owner - which shouldn't be difficult to get). Ha, that clause. I'd forgotten about it. Even so, I think we can reasonably not worry ourselves overly. The author has consented to publish it under the GFDL as normal when he uploaded it to enwp, right? You have to split hairs very fine to distinguish between: a) Author uploads own work, chooses to license the new copy of it under license X. b) Author uploads own work *as licensed copy* of material previously published elsewhere, and must be treated as such. Which is to say, if you look hard you have a point, but there's a perfectly legitimate interpretation going the other way, which complies with the letter just as well and the spirit perhaps better! While the spirit is clearly would allow us to relicense it (assuming the person that actually uploaded it is the sole copyright owner - the publishing company/editor might own some of the rights, I don't know how such things work), my reading of the letter of the license would say it's very clearly not allowed. ___ 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?
As a note, the images are watermarked, and I have notified the user. IUP states that this should not occur. - Chris On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com: Wikipedia would have to write some kind of special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there. We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!) ___ 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?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-The_Missing_Manual_I_mediaobject_d1e29885.png -Robert Rohde On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Mark (Markie) newsmar...@googlemail.com wrote: i must admit i havent looked closely, but could you give us an example of an image where the watermark can be clearly seen and is an issue? regards mark On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Chris Down neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.comwrote: Well, either way, there's no harm in asking him to upload ones without the watermark. - Chris On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, As far as I know, Commons has no such thing on watermarking. As always, come up with better illustrations and you can replace them. This is an extraordinary situation anyway... Wikipedia has also this other rule; Ignore all rules.. A good one to apply for now. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/29 Chris Down neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.com As a note, the images are watermarked, and I have notified the user. IUP states that this should not occur. - Chris On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com: Wikipedia would have to write some kind of special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there. We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!) ___ 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 ___ 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?
thanks seems to me that they are on images which they own copyright on, so maybe its just that the files theyve used were from an online version or something? On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-The_Missing_Manual_I_mediaobject_d1e29885.png -Robert Rohde On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Mark (Markie) newsmar...@googlemail.com wrote: i must admit i havent looked closely, but could you give us an example of an image where the watermark can be clearly seen and is an issue? regards mark On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Chris Down neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.comwrote: Well, either way, there's no harm in asking him to upload ones without the watermark. - Chris On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, As far as I know, Commons has no such thing on watermarking. As always, come up with better illustrations and you can replace them. This is an extraordinary situation anyway... Wikipedia has also this other rule; Ignore all rules.. A good one to apply for now. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/29 Chris Down neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.com As a note, the images are watermarked, and I have notified the user. IUP states that this should not occur. - Chris On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com: Wikipedia would have to write some kind of special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there. We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!) ___ 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 ___ 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?
That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either. - Chris On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-The_Missing_Manual_I_mediaobject_d1e29885.png -Robert Rohde On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Mark (Markie) newsmar...@googlemail.com wrote: i must admit i havent looked closely, but could you give us an example of an image where the watermark can be clearly seen and is an issue? regards mark On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Chris Down neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.comwrote: Well, either way, there's no harm in asking him to upload ones without the watermark. - Chris On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, As far as I know, Commons has no such thing on watermarking. As always, come up with better illustrations and you can replace them. This is an extraordinary situation anyway... Wikipedia has also this other rule; Ignore all rules.. A good one to apply for now. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/29 Chris Down neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.com As a note, the images are watermarked, and I have notified the user. IUP states that this should not occur. - Chris On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com: Wikipedia would have to write some kind of special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there. We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!) ___ 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 ___ 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?
well if they/john bought the image rights then they would own it, meaning that the credit is sufficient as it is. On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Chris Down neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.comwrote: That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either. - Chris On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-The_Missing_Manual_I_mediaobject_d1e29885.png -Robert Rohde On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Mark (Markie) newsmar...@googlemail.com wrote: i must admit i havent looked closely, but could you give us an example of an image where the watermark can be clearly seen and is an issue? regards mark On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Chris Down neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.comwrote: Well, either way, there's no harm in asking him to upload ones without the watermark. - Chris On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, As far as I know, Commons has no such thing on watermarking. As always, come up with better illustrations and you can replace them. This is an extraordinary situation anyway... Wikipedia has also this other rule; Ignore all rules.. A good one to apply for now. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/29 Chris Down neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.com As a note, the images are watermarked, and I have notified the user. IUP states that this should not occur. - Chris On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com: Wikipedia would have to write some kind of special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there. We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!) ___ 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 ___ 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] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Chris Down neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.com wrote: That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either. - Chris The original is however referenced in the image caption on the page where it is used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Appendixes/Reader%E2%80%99s_Guide_to_Wikipedia#Picture_of_the_Day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fujisan_from_Motohakone.jpg -Robert ___ 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?
Okay, I'll move it to the image description page soon if someone hasn't done it already. - Chris On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Chris Down neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.com wrote: That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either. - Chris The original is however referenced in the image caption on the page where it is used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Appendixes/Reader%E2%80%99s_Guide_to_Wikipedia#Picture_of_the_Day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fujisan_from_Motohakone.jpg -Robert ___ 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?
Thomas Dalton wrote: 2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com: Wikipedia would have to write some kind of special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there. We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!) I don't think that IAR is even needed for this when you take into account that it's going into the Help: namespace. Ec ___ 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?
Thomas Dalton wrote: 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. I suppose it could also be copied into Wikisource as a static copy where changes would not be allowed. Ec ___ 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?
Andrew Gray wrote: 2009/1/28 geni: Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0. Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait, sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to license under GFDL 1.2 or later... oh, wait. How is this a special case? The CC switch, when and if it happens, will be complex enough without inventing extra problems! LOL. I sometimes think that we have some people who live and breathe for the sole purpose of inventing extra problems. :-) 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] 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] 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] 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
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] 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
