Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
Дана Wednesday 04 March 2009 19:00:25 Thomas Dalton написа: > maintaining what they consider adequate attribution). The options > given, in order of simplest to most difficult are: > > No credit > Credit to "Wikipedia" (or similar) > Link to article > Link to history > link online, full list of authors offline > full list of authors > > (Does anyone disagree with that ordering? I don't think it should be > very controversial. I would be interested to know how many people I disagree completely with these options. The options do not include one of the possibilities that was most mentioned here: a list of all the relevant authors. Also, the question had biased wording: "Please note that especially popular articles can have hundreds or thousands of contributors" but not "Please note that people without Internet access can not see the list of authors if it is given as a link". ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
David Gerard wrote: > 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic : > >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:28 PM, geni wrote: >> >>> 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic : >>> > > Should we treat such persons systematically or it is better to add some exceptional rules? Something like to give a mandate to WMF to solve problems of types like giving a formal permission to the government of Central African Republic (or to some NGO which operates there) to print Wikipedia editions in English and Swahili without any attribution (even they don't need it). Or for spoken editions for education of blind persons? > > >>> There is no legal way to do that nor is there any real benefit in doing so. >>> > > >> If the present options are between linking to the history of article >> at Wikipedia up to the full attribution, I don't see any reason why >> the whole range can't be applied in the ToS. (And, yes, I made a >> mistake with mentioning "no attribution at all".) >> > > > In copyright law and the terms of the CC by-sa, WMF can't actually > promise something like that in terms of what they own and don't own. > > Remember that licenses are not merely a game of Nomic, but responses > to a given legal threat model. > > In this case, the threat model is: what if some raving and/or > malicious lunatic who has copyright on a piece of this thing drags > someone into court over it? > I really think it would be worth the time spent for each person who has discussed this matter on this list to go and re-read the interview of Lawrence Lessig (the founder of the CC, for those coming in late to the game), conducted by Wikimedia Quarto a few years ago - and if there are people who have participated in this discussion who have not yet read it, it is *vital* for them to do so, to be informed. http://tinyurl.com/wmquarto > The reason for the license is so that the defendant can point at the > license and say "I can do this per the license." (And probably "and > per common practice," because law is squishier than Nomic.) > > So the aims of the suggested terms for relicensing will not be to > achieve some theoretical outcome that makes everyone as happy as > possible, but to provide sufficient results to be usable in terms of: > > 1. giving reusers confidence they can defend themselves against a > raving and/or malicious lunatic in court; > 2. not pissing off so much of the community they fork. > To clarify number 2.; you probably mean to say a pissing off a viable cross-section of the community so they fork *en masse* from the _WMF_. There have been been and will always be forks, but these are typically forks from the community as a whole, and not forks that leave the _WMF_ non-viable, or moribund. 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] Attribution survey, first results
geni wrote: > 2009/3/10 Ray Saintonge: > >> Milos Rancic wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM, geni wrote: >>> 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic: > So, they don't care about their own copyright law. > Common law is very much driven by legal precedent. Looking to see what similar legal systems have done is a fairly common approach. That said Kenya allows for up 6 years of jail time for some forms of copyright infringement (and two for others) so I suggest it is probably a good idea to take Kenyan law seriously. >>> You don't need to Serengeti and explain it to Maasai people. Try with >>> suburbs of Nairobi :) There are parts of the world which really don't >>> give a shit for the copyright law :) >>> >> Yep! The only reason they may even have such a law would be to fulfil a >> quid pro quo extorted by the World Bank as a prerequisite for foreign aid. >> Any application of such laws is seriously unrealistic unless an >> offended foreigner wants to finance the prosecution. >> > No they would have had such a law on independence due in inheriting it > from the UK. The reason they now have a law with the kind of backing > France would view as excessive (two year terms and a special state > backed body to go after copyright infingers) is US pressure. > > > I'm not sure that it's as simple as that. I agree that their first law on this was inherited, and that some US publishers will do anything to protect the turf upon which they cull their profits. At the same time the US government has provided far more wiggle room about fair use and the like. While it does provide for criminal infringement it prefers to use civil infringement provisions. Also, the evidence required for a criminal infringement is at a much higher standard than for a civil infringement. I would not single out the US as the sole pressure source; vested interests in the EU can be just as aggressive. For countries like Kenya one might rightly ask how much of these stated jail terms are all bark and no bite. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/10 Ray Saintonge : > Milos Rancic wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM, geni wrote: >> >>> 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic : >>> So, they don't care about their own copyright law. >>> Common law is very much driven by legal precedent. Looking to see what >>> similar legal systems have done is a fairly common approach. >>> >>> That said Kenya allows for up 6 years of jail time for some forms of >>> copyright infringement (and two for others) so I suggest it is >>> probably a good idea to take Kenyan law seriously. >>> >> You don't need to Serengeti and explain it to Maasai people. Try with >> suburbs of Nairobi :) There are parts of the world which really don't >> give a shit for the copyright law :) > > Yep! The only reason they may even have such a law would be to fulfil a > quid pro quo extorted by the World Bank as a prerequisite for foreign aid. > Any application of such laws is seriously unrealistic unless an > offended foreigner wants to finance the prosecution. > > Ec > No they would have had such a law on independence due in inheriting it from the UK. The reason they now have a law with the kind of backing France would view as excessive (two year terms and a special state backed body to go after copyright infingers) is US pressure. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > Sage Ross wrote: >> This is a typical pattern when a complex technology is introduced in >> the presence of a simpler one; it's not a simple matter of >> replacement, and old technologies (where the infrastructure is easy to >> maintain) can stick around and even become more significant, even >> while a complex technology spreads as well. (See David Edgerton, The >> Shock of the Old.) >> > > Results vary. Slide-rules were replaced by electronic calculators very > quickly. Certainly results vary. Slide-rules, I suggest, do not make a good ...used as they were almost exclusively by the upper educational tiers in developed countries. For something broader that serves a more fundamental role in society (like storage and transmission of knowledge), old, easy to maintain technologies are likely to co-exist and even thrive alongside higher-tech ones. It's a whole lot easier to manufacture books in a poor country than to maintain the infrastructure for robust Internet participation. From the perspectives of resources, required technical expertise, infrastructure maintainability (shelves in a dry room vs. electricity and continual replacement of short-lived hardware), there are advantages to the older technology. >> I'm speculating here, but it would not surprise me at all if amount of >> print publishing is still growing, and could continue to do so for a >> few more decades at least. > I agree that it is probably still growing, but I would not measure its > prognosis in decades. That technology had a big boost in the 1830s when > rag papers were replaced by the much cheaper wood-pulp papers. Now the > rapidly declining costs of electronic storage are in conflict with > increasing costs of paper production and shipping. When environmental > factors are brought in the costs go up even more. Perhaps the tipping > point is reached when the new technology becomes accessible and > affordable to a high percentage of the world's population. > Certainly, things are looking up for continued expansion of electronic communication (dependent, of course, on economic developments). But with broad classes of technologies like printing and electronic communication, I suggest that there are not global tipping points, because of the drastic economic inequalities of the modern world. Some or many cultures may reach a tipping point (even here, I'm skeptical, given the widely acknowledge virtues of traditional print even in rich cultures; the Internet has not brought a significant decline in US printing, even though the Internet is now very widely available to Americans). But a global tipping point? Globalization is powerful, but not all-powerful. Will poor countries develop electronic communication instead of printing industries, or alongside them, or first print and only later electronic? The last two seem more likely, to me. Print-on-demand, especially, means that printed distribution of Wikimedia project material is probably going to be on the rise for quite a while. I don't think anyone can predict with certainty what the trajectory of print vs. electronic communication will be. But I do think it would be myopic NOT to consider print among the likely significant ways material will get reused. -Sage (User:Ragesoss) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote: > p.s. Personally, discussions of "offline" here and everywhere (say, > accessibility of educational materials) are absurdly myopic. > Consideration of offline use is about as relevant now as consideration > of horse stables in urban planning 100 years ago. Substitute "print" for "offline" and I think the market is fairly limited (maybe I'm wrong, though, does anyone from the German Wikimedia know how many copies of "The One-Volume Wikipedia Encyclopedia" have sold?). But there are plenty of uses for an "offline" encyclopedia - CD/DVD and iPod Touch come to mind immediately. I can't say I understand your horse stable planning analogy, but the Wikipedia we write today will surely be useless 100 years from now except for archaeological-type purposes, just like the Britannica from 100 years ago is today. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
David Gerard wrote: > Remember that licenses are not merely a game of Nomic, but responses > to a given legal threat model. > Not necessarily a "given" legal threat, but an even weaker "perceived" legal threat. > In this case, the threat model is: what if some raving and/or > malicious lunatic who has copyright on a piece of this thing drags > someone into court over it? > Copyright paranoia exists as a socially acceptable response to raving lunatics. > The reason for the license is so that the defendant can point at the > license and say "I can do this per the license." (And probably "and > per common practice," because law is squishier than Nomic.) > That, but also it gives a legal right of action as plaintiffs to the lunatics. > So the aims of the suggested terms for relicensing will not be to > achieve some theoretical outcome that makes everyone as happy as > possible, but to provide sufficient results to be usable in terms of: > > 1. giving reusers confidence they can defend themselves against a > raving and/or malicious lunatic in court; > 2. not pissing off so much of the community they fork. > > That makes sense. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
Milos Rancic wrote: > On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM, geni wrote: > >> 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic : >> >>> So, they don't care about their own copyright law. >>> >> Common law is very much driven by legal precedent. Looking to see what >> similar legal systems have done is a fairly common approach. >> >> That said Kenya allows for up 6 years of jail time for some forms of >> copyright infringement (and two for others) so I suggest it is >> probably a good idea to take Kenyan law seriously. >> > You don't need to Serengeti and explain it to Maasai people. Try with > suburbs of Nairobi :) There are parts of the world which really don't > give a shit for the copyright law :) Yep! The only reason they may even have such a law would be to fulfil a quid pro quo extorted by the World Bank as a prerequisite for foreign aid. Any application of such laws is seriously unrealistic unless an offended foreigner wants to finance the prosecution. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
Milos Rancic wrote: > On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Sage Ross > wrote: > >> This is a typical pattern when a complex technology is introduced in >> the presence of a simpler one; it's not a simple matter of >> replacement, and old technologies (where the infrastructure is easy to >> maintain) can stick around and even become more significant, even >> while a complex technology spreads as well. (See David Edgerton, The >> Shock of the Old.) >> > And Kenyans would care about US and European copyright laws? :))) And > we would care why they didn't attribute us? In such cases, those who > care from both sides are maybe ignorants, maybe idealists, but they > are definitely stupid. > Why should Kenyans care? Even more, why should Kenyans care about patents? If the purpose of intellectual property was to promote useful sciences it's not in the national interest to be exporting royalties abroad to high cost nations. > I am seeing more and more old people who are using Gmail, Facebook, > Wikipedia every day around me, as well as I am seeing, from time to > time, young people who are still afraid of computers. Kim Jong Il is > afraid of traveling by airplane, so he traveled by car 1/3 of the > world to come to Moscow (a couple of months ago). > The fearful children and Kim Jong Il are edge cases anyway, but I'm glad to hear that the Siberian system of roads has improved enough to make this posible. The oldsters are adapting ... as long as significant technical knowledge is not required. > Should we treat such persons systematically or it is better to add > some exceptional rules? Something like to give a mandate to WMF to > solve problems of types like giving a formal permission to the > government of Central African Republic (or to some NGO which operates > there) to print Wikipedia editions in English and Swahili without any > attribution (even they don't need it). Or for spoken editions for > education of blind persons? > Anything but implicit permissions would be a drain on people's time. > The main story here is about well defined judicial systems. And in > such systems weaker generic solutions have much bigger potential for > generic abuse. I may imagine tons of sites with copyright notice: > "This article had been made by OurGreatNetCompany and article history>Wikipedia authors." Even 1000 of Wikipedia > authors made more significant contribution than TheirGreatNetCompany. How much more than that is enforceable? If OGNC does that, who takes it to the next level when a New Great Company only credits the link to OGNC? The concept needs to be workable beyond first-generation re-users. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
Sage Ross wrote: > On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Chad wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote: >> >>> p.s. Personally, discussions of "offline" here and everywhere (say, >>> accessibility of educational materials) are absurdly myopic. >>> Consideration of offline use is about as relevant now as consideration >>> of horse stables in urban planning 100 years ago >> One would argue that putting in horse stables 100 years ago was a smart >> move, as people use horses. You can't know that someone's going to up >> and invent the car. >> > Furthermore, horse populations continued to grow well into the 20th > century. Horses peaked in the US in the 1910s, and in Finland in the > 1950s, and horse-drawn equipment was the core transportation > technology of World War I and played a key role even in World War II. > I continue to admire my great-grandfather's prescience. He was a harness-maker in small-town Saskatchewan when in 1922 he was seen driving away from town forever on the day that his shop burned to the ground. > This is a typical pattern when a complex technology is introduced in > the presence of a simpler one; it's not a simple matter of > replacement, and old technologies (where the infrastructure is easy to > maintain) can stick around and even become more significant, even > while a complex technology spreads as well. (See David Edgerton, The > Shock of the Old.) > Results vary. Slide-rules were replaced by electronic calculators very quickly. > I'm speculating here, but it would not surprise me at all if amount of > print publishing is still growing, and could continue to do so for a > few more decades at least. I agree that it is probably still growing, but I would not measure its prognosis in decades. That technology had a big boost in the 1830s when rag papers were replaced by the much cheaper wood-pulp papers. Now the rapidly declining costs of electronic storage are in conflict with increasing costs of paper production and shipping. When environmental factors are brought in the costs go up even more. Perhaps the tipping point is reached when the new technology becomes accessible and affordable to a high percentage of the world's population. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/3/4 Anthony: > >> What constitutes a significant majority? What if the survey results had >> said that a significant majority was happy with their work being released >> into the public domain. Would you then find it reasonable to release >> *everyone's* work into the public domain? >> > No, because that wouldn't be legal. I think I've made it quite clear > that community opinion is only relevant when it comes to legal > options. One needs to distinguish between considering an option and implementing it. Shutting off a possible solution, on the basis of mere speculation about its illegality is not characteristic of frank and open discussion. If the "illegal" option does not otherwise have any support the question is moot. If it does have support we move to finding ways to reconcile the proposal with the legal restrictions. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM, geni wrote: > 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic : >> So, they don't care about their own copyright law. > > Common law is very much driven by legal precedent. Looking to see what > similar legal systems have done is a fairly common approach. > > That said Kenya allows for up 6 years of jail time for some forms of > copyright infringement (and two for others) so I suggest it is > probably a good idea to take Kenyan law seriously. You don't need to Serengeti and explain it to Maasai people. Try with suburbs of Nairobi :) There are parts of the world which really don't give a shit for the copyright law :) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/9 Brian : > "horrificly bad question?" > > Surely you can't be serious? This is just sensationalism. 1)It isn't actually a question so pretty much by definition a bad question 2)It's a rather vague pseudo question about a legal matter which is always a bad idea which kicks it into horrific territory. An answer either way on the pseudo question is meaningless since we don't know what question was being answered. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
"horrificly bad question?" Surely you can't be serious? This is just sensationalism. On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:40 AM, geni wrote: > 2009/3/9 Mike Linksvayer : >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM, geni wrote: >>> 2009/3/6 Mike Linksvayer : Yes. Mike (not the CC counsel but just spoke to her) >>> >>> And what was the exact wording of the question asked and what was the >>> line of reasoning? >> >> The question was whether attribution by URL works offline as well as on. >> >> It was a very simple question (though she's read this thread) and >> answer, didn't go into reasoning. >> > > No it's a horrifically bad question. "whether attribution by URL works > offline as well as on" isn't even a question. A halfway reasonable way > to ask something similar would be along the line of "In a case where > there can be no Attribution Parties would providing credit via URL be > considered reasonable to the medium or means for offline use?" > > And the answer varies between "no", "no one knows" and "it depends". > Heh "it depends" is rather important since I can come up with cases > where it would probably be reasonable to the medium or means to credit > via QR Code but not via a conventional URL. > > -- > 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] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic : > On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:28 PM, geni wrote: >> 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic : >>> Should we treat such persons systematically or it is better to add >>> some exceptional rules? Something like to give a mandate to WMF to >>> solve problems of types like giving a formal permission to the >>> government of Central African Republic (or to some NGO which operates >>> there) to print Wikipedia editions in English and Swahili without any >>> attribution (even they don't need it). Or for spoken editions for >>> education of blind persons? >> There is no legal way to do that nor is there any real benefit in doing so. > If the present options are between linking to the history of article > at Wikipedia up to the full attribution, I don't see any reason why > the whole range can't be applied in the ToS. (And, yes, I made a > mistake with mentioning "no attribution at all".) In copyright law and the terms of the CC by-sa, WMF can't actually promise something like that in terms of what they own and don't own. Remember that licenses are not merely a game of Nomic, but responses to a given legal threat model. In this case, the threat model is: what if some raving and/or malicious lunatic who has copyright on a piece of this thing drags someone into court over it? The reason for the license is so that the defendant can point at the license and say "I can do this per the license." (And probably "and per common practice," because law is squishier than Nomic.) So the aims of the suggested terms for relicensing will not be to achieve some theoretical outcome that makes everyone as happy as possible, but to provide sufficient results to be usable in terms of: 1. giving reusers confidence they can defend themselves against a raving and/or malicious lunatic in court; 2. not pissing off so much of the community they fork. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic : > So, they don't care about their own copyright law. Common law is very much driven by legal precedent. Looking to see what similar legal systems have done is a fairly common approach. That said Kenya allows for up 6 years of jail time for some forms of copyright infringement (and two for others) so I suggest it is probably a good idea to take Kenyan law seriously. > If the present options are between linking to the history of article > at Wikipedia up to the full attribution, I don't see any reason why > the whole range can't be applied in the ToS. (And, yes, I made a > mistake with mentioning "no attribution at all".) Because as of this moment wikipedia has 291,172,469 edits what were not made under any such term of service and could not have their copyright situation impacted by such a TOS. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:28 PM, geni wrote: > 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic : >> And Kenyans would care about US and European copyright laws? :))) And >> we would care why they didn't attribute us? In such cases, those who >> care from both sides are maybe ignorants, maybe idealists, but they >> are definitely stupid. > > Kenyan copyright law is ultimately derived from English law . So, they don't care about their own copyright law. >> Should we treat such persons systematically or it is better to add >> some exceptional rules? Something like to give a mandate to WMF to >> solve problems of types like giving a formal permission to the >> government of Central African Republic (or to some NGO which operates >> there) to print Wikipedia editions in English and Swahili without any >> attribution (even they don't need it). Or for spoken editions for >> education of blind persons? > > There is no legal way to do that nor is there any real benefit in doing so. If the present options are between linking to the history of article at Wikipedia up to the full attribution, I don't see any reason why the whole range can't be applied in the ToS. (And, yes, I made a mistake with mentioning "no attribution at all".) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic : > And Kenyans would care about US and European copyright laws? :))) And > we would care why they didn't attribute us? In such cases, those who > care from both sides are maybe ignorants, maybe idealists, but they > are definitely stupid. > Kenyan copyright law is ultimately derived from English law . > Should we treat such persons systematically or it is better to add > some exceptional rules? Something like to give a mandate to WMF to > solve problems of types like giving a formal permission to the > government of Central African Republic (or to some NGO which operates > there) to print Wikipedia editions in English and Swahili without any > attribution (even they don't need it). Or for spoken editions for > education of blind persons? There is no legal way to do that nor is there any real benefit in doing so. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Sage Ross wrote: > On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Chad wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer >> wrote: >>> p.s. Personally, discussions of "offline" here and everywhere (say, >>> accessibility of educational materials) are absurdly myopic. >>> Consideration of offline use is about as relevant now as consideration >>> of horse stables in urban planning 100 years ago. >>> >> >> One would argue that putting in horse stables 100 years ago was a smart >> move, as people use horses. You can't know that someone's going to up >> and invent the car. >> > > Furthermore, horse populations continued to grow well into the 20th > century. Horses peaked in the US in the 1910s, and in Finland in the > 1950s, and horse-drawn equipment was the core transportation > technology of World War I and played a key role even in World War II. > > This is a typical pattern when a complex technology is introduced in > the presence of a simpler one; it's not a simple matter of > replacement, and old technologies (where the infrastructure is easy to > maintain) can stick around and even become more significant, even > while a complex technology spreads as well. (See David Edgerton, The > Shock of the Old.) > > I'm speculating here, but it would not surprise me at all if amount of > print publishing is still growing, and could continue to do so for a > few more decades at least. And Kenyans would care about US and European copyright laws? :))) And we would care why they didn't attribute us? In such cases, those who care from both sides are maybe ignorants, maybe idealists, but they are definitely stupid. I am seeing more and more old people who are using Gmail, Facebook, Wikipedia every day around me, as well as I am seeing, from time to time, young people who are still afraid of computers. Kim Jong Il is afraid of traveling by airplane, so he traveled by car 1/3 of the world to come to Moscow (a couple of months ago). Should we treat such persons systematically or it is better to add some exceptional rules? Something like to give a mandate to WMF to solve problems of types like giving a formal permission to the government of Central African Republic (or to some NGO which operates there) to print Wikipedia editions in English and Swahili without any attribution (even they don't need it). Or for spoken editions for education of blind persons? The main story here is about well defined judicial systems. And in such systems weaker generic solutions have much bigger potential for generic abuse. I may imagine tons of sites with copyright notice: "This article had been made by OurGreatNetCompany and Wikipedia authors." Even 1000 of Wikipedia authors made more significant contribution than TheirGreatNetCompany. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Chad wrote: > On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer > wrote: >> p.s. Personally, discussions of "offline" here and everywhere (say, >> accessibility of educational materials) are absurdly myopic. >> Consideration of offline use is about as relevant now as consideration >> of horse stables in urban planning 100 years ago. >> > > One would argue that putting in horse stables 100 years ago was a smart > move, as people use horses. You can't know that someone's going to up > and invent the car. > Furthermore, horse populations continued to grow well into the 20th century. Horses peaked in the US in the 1910s, and in Finland in the 1950s, and horse-drawn equipment was the core transportation technology of World War I and played a key role even in World War II. This is a typical pattern when a complex technology is introduced in the presence of a simpler one; it's not a simple matter of replacement, and old technologies (where the infrastructure is easy to maintain) can stick around and even become more significant, even while a complex technology spreads as well. (See David Edgerton, The Shock of the Old.) I'm speculating here, but it would not surprise me at all if amount of print publishing is still growing, and could continue to do so for a few more decades at least. -Sage (User:Ragesoss) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/9 Mike Linksvayer : > On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM, geni wrote: >> 2009/3/6 Mike Linksvayer : >>> Yes. >>> >>> Mike (not the CC counsel but just spoke to her) >> >> And what was the exact wording of the question asked and what was the >> line of reasoning? > > The question was whether attribution by URL works offline as well as on. > > It was a very simple question (though she's read this thread) and > answer, didn't go into reasoning. > No it's a horrifically bad question. "whether attribution by URL works offline as well as on" isn't even a question. A halfway reasonable way to ask something similar would be along the line of "In a case where there can be no Attribution Parties would providing credit via URL be considered reasonable to the medium or means for offline use?" And the answer varies between "no", "no one knows" and "it depends". Heh "it depends" is rather important since I can come up with cases where it would probably be reasonable to the medium or means to credit via QR Code but not via a conventional URL. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote: > p.s. Personally, discussions of "offline" here and everywhere (say, > accessibility of educational materials) are absurdly myopic. > Consideration of offline use is about as relevant now as consideration > of horse stables in urban planning 100 years ago. > One would argue that putting in horse stables 100 years ago was a smart move, as people use horses. You can't know that someone's going to up and invent the car. Likewise: making content available offline is a smart move because, surprise, not everybody is online. Nor does it seem like the whole world will be in our lifetimes, barring someone inventing "the internet that anyone can access." -Chad -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM, geni wrote: > 2009/3/6 Mike Linksvayer : >> Yes. >> >> Mike (not the CC counsel but just spoke to her) > > And what was the exact wording of the question asked and what was the > line of reasoning? The question was whether attribution by URL works offline as well as on. It was a very simple question (though she's read this thread) and answer, didn't go into reasoning. Others have expressed since then what makes sense to me, eg Moeller and Snow at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-March/050727.html ... indeed, CC licenses have been written to be medium agnostic to the extent possible. Mike p.s. Personally, discussions of "offline" here and everywhere (say, accessibility of educational materials) are absurdly myopic. Consideration of offline use is about as relevant now as consideration of horse stables in urban planning 100 years ago. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/6 Mike Linksvayer : > Yes. > > Mike (not the CC counsel but just spoke to her) And what was the exact wording of the question asked and what was the line of reasoning? -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/3/4 Erik Moeller : >> 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton : >>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important. >>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the >>> CC lawyers? >> >> We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible >> attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that >> attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is >> consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*. > > And that explicitly included offline reuse? If so, it looks like we're > ready to present a final proposal for the community to vote on. Even > with such a small sample size, those numbers are pretty conclusive. Yes. Mike (not the CC counsel but just spoke to her) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:18 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > Part of my questioning the survey is because > its design explicitly excludes the opinions of > people like my friend, who edits under an IP afaik. If they didn't include *all* visitors to the site then it really is a biased sample. Collect from everyone, but also collect demographics. Its the only way to do this right. > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Nathan wrote: >> Is this survey sufficiently accurate (i.e., accurate in a very broad >> way) to serve its purpose? How much will problems with methodology (which >> I'm sure Erik knew would be pointed out immediately) distort the results? Being informal about a survey is a slippery slope. The risk is that your conclusions simply do not follow from the premises, and thus that you haven't actually gauged community opinion. Since, 1) creating unbiased survey software is a one time cost 2) the importance of the decisions being made based on the survey is very high 3) nobody wishes to distort community opinion it must be worth it to do it correctly. Isn't Mike Godwin an ex-statistician? Pair him up with a developer and they'll be done in a day. Probably doesn't fit the job description though :) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
For what it's worth, what Nathan says basically sums up my concerns as well. I think for a (relatively informal, community-opinion) survey it's less important to have an absolutely rigorous methodology (not what I was asking for) than it is to ask the question: is this good enough for our purposes? (and indeed, what *are* our purposes, and how does that influence what we ask?) Saying that community opinion should be taken into account on this question is wonderful, and crucial -- but as we all know it's damn hard to determine community opinion with any degree of reliability. Devoting some thought to this non-trivial matter has useful implications for determining *all sorts* of controversial, broad-scale questions, however, and getting it right means that we are one step closer to better community governance. Or if we can't get it "right", let's acknowledge what the biases are, and be very clear on the kinds of input that did go into this conversation. For instance, many of the people who have participated in the GFDL rewrite and the discussion so far are some of the preeminent free-content, free-culture, open-knowledge experts in the world: that should be acknowledged. There are many more potential constituencies that haven't had a say, however. For instance, a while back I polled a handful of librarian colleagues who are occasional Wikipedia contributors about their thoughts on attribution, just for my own edification. Obviously, the plural of anecdote is not data, but I still found their anecdotes interesting. These are all people who know something about copyright and quite a bit about 'attribution' in the academic world (our job, as librarians, is often to advise people on how to provide proper credit to sources). They were all firmly against the list-all-authors method of attribution. One said: "I expect no personal attribution whatsoever for work on WP. The point of WP is that it is a communal/communitarian encyclopedia. To give credit to individual author defeats that aim. Further, pages evolve, even if some given selection of articles wind up printed. To identify authors as of 2009 ignores the work that will almost certainly come later, and it implicitly devalues that later work by giving primacy to the people who got the ball rolling on an article." This is a strong and interesting opinion that as far as I know hasn't even been expressed in quite that way on this mailing list. Part of my questioning the survey is because its design explicitly excludes the opinions of people like my friend, who edits under an IP afaik. -- Phoebe On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Nathan wrote: > As a non-statistician (and, from this list, you'd think there are lots of > professional statisticians participating...), can one of the experts explain > the practical implications of the bias of this survey? It seems fairly > informal, intended perhaps to be food for thought but not a definitive > answer. Is this survey sufficiently accurate (i.e., accurate in a very broad > way) to serve its purpose? How much will problems with methodology (which > I'm sure Erik knew would be pointed out immediately) distort the results? > > Nathan > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
The official results of the survey haven't even been announced yet, and already it is being accused of bias. Have any of you actually looked at the survey? It does include demographic questions and it's a ranked preference poll. If someone were trying to skew the results in a particular way, this survey would be a pretty poor way to attempt it. Ryan Kaldari On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Nathan wrote: > As a non-statistician (and, from this list, you'd think there are lots of > professional statisticians participating...), can one of the experts explain > the practical implications of the bias of this survey? It seems fairly > informal, intended perhaps to be food for thought but not a definitive > answer. Is this survey sufficiently accurate (i.e., accurate in a very broad > way) to serve its purpose? How much will problems with methodology (which > I'm sure Erik knew would be pointed out immediately) distort the results? > > Nathan > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Brian wrote: > >> This entire field has been formalized but in my experience the key >> things to worry about are experimenter and subject bias. >> >> Experimenter bias in a survey context means that the survey writer >> (Erik) has expectations about the likely community answers. This has >> been clearly demonstrated, as he already has a feeling about what the >> German survey results will be even though it hasn't been written. >> Writing an unbiased survey requires very careful wording and is a >> tough job. If the entire point of the survey is to find out what the >> community thinks then the survey should be unbiased. >> >> A variety of types of subject bias are overcome by taking a random >> sample. The claim that the survey takers are self selected is overcome >> by also recording various demographic information and normalizing the >> number of responses from demographics, or some other kind of filter. >> >> You essentially need to employ psychometric techniques in order to >> verify the construct validity of the survey (that you can really draw >> those inferences from those questions). >> >> Erik's survey, in my opinion, is likely to have low construct validity >> and should have been created by a blind, relatively unbiased 3rd party >> instead. Creating a survey in which the subjects are non-self-selected >> is a practical impossibility. I can think of some software methods >> that might help but the better solution is to gather rich demographics >> and then filter. >> >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote: >> > *phoebe ayers* phoebe.wiki at gmail.com writes: >> > >> > ++ >> > I'm not sure there's any way to get a non-self-selected survey about >> anything >> > on the projects due to anonymity concerns. >> > ++ >> > >> > I'm a 17-year veteran of implementing professional quantitative survey >> > research. Self-selection bias is a very complicated study, but there are >> > some fairly accessible and intuitive techniques one may implement to >> create >> > a thoughtful survey of a target population which minimizes self-selection >> > bias concerns. This allows the stakeholders to focus on the challenge of >> > deriving meaning from the response data rather than feeling nausea over >> the >> > sampling methodology. >> > >> > I am willing to give, pro bono, 45 minutes of telephone consulting time >> to >> > any Wikimedia Foundation staff member who is attached to this particular >> > survey project, on the condition that they will be open and attentive to >> the >> > possibility that a properly-designed and fairly-executed survey may not >> > return results that foster their preconceived desires to railroad through >> a >> > license migration (which, unfortunately, is my key takeaway from >> observing >> > this discussion). >> > >> > -- >> > Gregory Kohs >> > Cell: 302.463.1354 >> > ___ >> > 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 >> > > > > -- > Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation > today: http://www.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] Attribution survey, first results
Gregory Kohs wrote: >> *Phil Nash* pn007a2145 at blueyonder.co.uk said: >> >> ++ >> Except of course, that such a survey would arguably not have >> "preconceived desires". So much for empiricism! >> ++ >> >> I offered to give some pro bono guidance on overcoming (to a degree) >> self-selection bias, even among an anonymity-heightened population. >> I didn't say that I would be involved in the actual design and >> execution of the survey. So much for civility! I was not intending to be uncivil, merely to point out that surveys are often designed to elicit a particular response rather than cold, hard, facts. Apologies if I conveyed a contrary impression, but having been a serious victim of such a survey, I am somewhat sensitive to the weaknesses therein. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
As a non-statistician (and, from this list, you'd think there are lots of professional statisticians participating...), can one of the experts explain the practical implications of the bias of this survey? It seems fairly informal, intended perhaps to be food for thought but not a definitive answer. Is this survey sufficiently accurate (i.e., accurate in a very broad way) to serve its purpose? How much will problems with methodology (which I'm sure Erik knew would be pointed out immediately) distort the results? Nathan On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Brian wrote: > This entire field has been formalized but in my experience the key > things to worry about are experimenter and subject bias. > > Experimenter bias in a survey context means that the survey writer > (Erik) has expectations about the likely community answers. This has > been clearly demonstrated, as he already has a feeling about what the > German survey results will be even though it hasn't been written. > Writing an unbiased survey requires very careful wording and is a > tough job. If the entire point of the survey is to find out what the > community thinks then the survey should be unbiased. > > A variety of types of subject bias are overcome by taking a random > sample. The claim that the survey takers are self selected is overcome > by also recording various demographic information and normalizing the > number of responses from demographics, or some other kind of filter. > > You essentially need to employ psychometric techniques in order to > verify the construct validity of the survey (that you can really draw > those inferences from those questions). > > Erik's survey, in my opinion, is likely to have low construct validity > and should have been created by a blind, relatively unbiased 3rd party > instead. Creating a survey in which the subjects are non-self-selected > is a practical impossibility. I can think of some software methods > that might help but the better solution is to gather rich demographics > and then filter. > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote: > > *phoebe ayers* phoebe.wiki at gmail.com writes: > > > > ++ > > I'm not sure there's any way to get a non-self-selected survey about > anything > > on the projects due to anonymity concerns. > > ++ > > > > I'm a 17-year veteran of implementing professional quantitative survey > > research. Self-selection bias is a very complicated study, but there are > > some fairly accessible and intuitive techniques one may implement to > create > > a thoughtful survey of a target population which minimizes self-selection > > bias concerns. This allows the stakeholders to focus on the challenge of > > deriving meaning from the response data rather than feeling nausea over > the > > sampling methodology. > > > > I am willing to give, pro bono, 45 minutes of telephone consulting time > to > > any Wikimedia Foundation staff member who is attached to this particular > > survey project, on the condition that they will be open and attentive to > the > > possibility that a properly-designed and fairly-executed survey may not > > return results that foster their preconceived desires to railroad through > a > > license migration (which, unfortunately, is my key takeaway from > observing > > this discussion). > > > > -- > > Gregory Kohs > > Cell: 302.463.1354 > > ___ > > 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 > -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.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] Attribution survey, first results
Gregory Kohs wrote: >> *phoebe ayers* phoebe.wiki at gmail.com writes: >> >> ++ >> I'm not sure there's any way to get a non-self-selected survey about >> anything on the projects due to anonymity concerns. >> ++ >> >> I'm a 17-year veteran of implementing professional quantitative >> survey research. Self-selection bias is a very complicated study, >> but there are some fairly accessible and intuitive techniques one >> may implement to create a thoughtful survey of a target population >> which minimizes self-selection bias concerns. This allows the >> stakeholders to focus on the challenge of deriving meaning from the >> response data rather than feeling nausea over the sampling >> methodology. >> >> I am willing to give, pro bono, 45 minutes of telephone consulting >> time to any Wikimedia Foundation staff member who is attached to >> this particular survey project, on the condition that they will be >> open and attentive to the possibility that a properly-designed and >> fairly-executed survey may not return results that foster their >> preconceived desires Except of course, that such a survey would arguably not have "preconceived desires". So much for empiricism! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
This entire field has been formalized but in my experience the key things to worry about are experimenter and subject bias. Experimenter bias in a survey context means that the survey writer (Erik) has expectations about the likely community answers. This has been clearly demonstrated, as he already has a feeling about what the German survey results will be even though it hasn't been written. Writing an unbiased survey requires very careful wording and is a tough job. If the entire point of the survey is to find out what the community thinks then the survey should be unbiased. A variety of types of subject bias are overcome by taking a random sample. The claim that the survey takers are self selected is overcome by also recording various demographic information and normalizing the number of responses from demographics, or some other kind of filter. You essentially need to employ psychometric techniques in order to verify the construct validity of the survey (that you can really draw those inferences from those questions). Erik's survey, in my opinion, is likely to have low construct validity and should have been created by a blind, relatively unbiased 3rd party instead. Creating a survey in which the subjects are non-self-selected is a practical impossibility. I can think of some software methods that might help but the better solution is to gather rich demographics and then filter. On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote: > *phoebe ayers* phoebe.wiki at gmail.com writes: > > ++ > I'm not sure there's any way to get a non-self-selected survey about anything > on the projects due to anonymity concerns. > ++ > > I'm a 17-year veteran of implementing professional quantitative survey > research. Self-selection bias is a very complicated study, but there are > some fairly accessible and intuitive techniques one may implement to create > a thoughtful survey of a target population which minimizes self-selection > bias concerns. This allows the stakeholders to focus on the challenge of > deriving meaning from the response data rather than feeling nausea over the > sampling methodology. > > I am willing to give, pro bono, 45 minutes of telephone consulting time to > any Wikimedia Foundation staff member who is attached to this particular > survey project, on the condition that they will be open and attentive to the > possibility that a properly-designed and fairly-executed survey may not > return results that foster their preconceived desires to railroad through a > license migration (which, unfortunately, is my key takeaway from observing > this discussion). > > -- > Gregory Kohs > Cell: 302.463.1354 > ___ > 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] Attribution survey, first results
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Mike Godwin wrote: > Phoebe writes: > > This is a very small, self-selected sample; there would be >> no harm or cost associated with turning it on for a much larger >> percentage (or all) of logged-in users on the top-ten languages, not >> just English or German alone, which both have peculiarities associated >> with being the largest Wikipedia communities. > > > Is there a version of the survey that does *not* entail a self-selected > sample? The methodologist in me wants to know, because it seems to me that > selection bias is inherent in any survey of this sort. (What's more, it > seems fairly predictable in which direction that bias would skew results.) > > > --Mike This is true -- though I'm no statistician and I'd love to hear from those who are (Robert?) I have wrestled with this question before and I'm not sure there's any way to get a non-self-selected survey about anything on the projects due to anonymity concerns. However, I'm mostly concerned with: * getting responses from more language communities * it seems there may be a difference between those who see the notice popup on their watchlists (the 5%) and those who chose to go to the survey to take it (people like me, who really care about this issue). For instance, we ran an item about the survey in yesterday's English-Wikipedia signpost; enough people read this that could cause a spike in responses. I'm not sure if this is a valid methodological concern or not -- or perhaps we are mostly interested in getting responses from people who really care? I'm not sure. * the short time frame arguably leaves out the class of editors who only log in occasionally; their responses may be different from the editing-every-day crowd due to a qualitative difference in participation. (Or not! Who knows). Also, some clarity in what each of the options means would be good; the question about participation in foundation activities in particular seemed a bit vague. More to the point, while I agree it's interesting to know what infrequent-editors versus heavy-editors think about the question, how is participation level and thoughts on attribution going to be correlated? Do one's thoughts matter less if one is an infrequent editor? Etc. One quick way to get some expert feedback about all these questions would be to submit the survey design to wiki-research-l, where the researchers hang out. -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/4 Mike Godwin : > Phoebe writes: > > This is a very small, self-selected sample; there would be >> no harm or cost associated with turning it on for a much larger >> percentage (or all) of logged-in users on the top-ten languages, not >> just English or German alone, which both have peculiarities associated >> with being the largest Wikipedia communities. > > > > Is there a version of the survey that does *not* entail a self-selected > sample? The methodologist in me wants to know, because it seems to me that > selection bias is inherent in any survey of this sort. (What's more, it > seems fairly predictable in which direction that bias would skew results.) Well, you could block access to all Wikimedia sites until someone from your IP address has completely the survey. I wouldn't recommend it, though! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
Phoebe writes: This is a very small, self-selected sample; there would be > no harm or cost associated with turning it on for a much larger > percentage (or all) of logged-in users on the top-ten languages, not > just English or German alone, which both have peculiarities associated > with being the largest Wikipedia communities. Is there a version of the survey that does *not* entail a self-selected sample? The methodologist in me wants to know, because it seems to me that selection bias is inherent in any survey of this sort. (What's more, it seems fairly predictable in which direction that bias would skew results.) --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Robert Rohde wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: > > I'm not a statistician, someone else can work out how large a majority > > is needed from a sample size of 570 to be confident (at the 95% level, > > say?) that a majority of the population as a whole agrees. > > If the 570 people are a RANDOM sampling of the underlying population: > 307 people (53.5%) > If 307 out of 570 people (53.5%) agree with statement X, you can be > confident at the 95% level that at least 50% of the underlying > population would agree with X. > Thanks for the specific number. I was under the impression it was something like that, but it's far outside my area of expertise. > Of course the current sample is not random Far from it, though it pretty much confirms my suspicions (actually, I thought the number of people who wanted their name listed would be lower, around 5-10%, not 20%). > and I don't think rights should be apportioned by simple majority either. Thomas's latest statement suggests that he doesn't either, but then, that brings back up my question as to what *does* constitute a sufficient majority. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > I'm not a statistician, someone else can work out how large a majority > is needed from a sample size of 570 to be confident (at the 95% level, > say?) that a majority of the population as a whole agrees. If the 570 people are a RANDOM sampling of the underlying population: 307 people (53.5%) If 307 out of 570 people (53.5%) agree with statement X, you can be confident at the 95% level that at least 50% of the underlying population would agree with X. Of course the current sample is not random, and I don't think rights should be apportioned by simple majority either. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
(Last email, since I received this I was I was typing what was meant to be the last one. Then I'll really stop.) 2009/3/4 Anthony : > What if the FSF could be convinced to come up with a GFDL 1.4 which makes it > legal? They can't. The GFDL requires future versions to be in the same spirit. >> I'm not a statistician, someone else can work out how large a majority >> is needed from a sample size of 570 to be confident (at the 95% level, >> say?) that a majority of the population as a whole agrees. > > > So if 51% of Wikipedians wanted no attribution (say everyone was polled), > and the government made it legal, then the other 49% should lose their right > to attribution? If the government (or governments, depending on if you care about non-US jurisdictions) makes it legal, then they have no (legal) right to attribution. Moral rights (in the sense of the dictionary definitions of the individual words, not the legalistic sense of the phrase - let's not get into *that* argument again!) are completely subjective and are very difficult to have a meaningful debate about. That said, I'm not sure I would consider 51% sufficient for such a decision (I know that somewhat contradicts my previous statement). >> Order of difficulty is not the same as order of happiness. I would be >> > happier with "no credit" than "credit to Wikipedia". >> >> Could you explain your reasons for that? > > Probably not easily. We'd have to get way off topic for this list (and I'd > have to make statements that would hurt people's feelings and be seen as > inappropriate). In other words, you've had a falling out with the Wikimedia movement and don't feel it deserves the credit for your work, even if that means no-one gets the credit. Fair enough. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/3/4 Anthony : > >> How are you going to define "ethical"? It's an entirely subjective > >> concept, a vote is pretty much the only way we can handle it. > > > > > > I define ethical as that which promotes "the good life". I don't think > it's > > subjective at all. > > Are you serious? > Yes, I'm serious, but considering the historical actions of the moderators with regard to discussions which they consider "off topic", I should probably leave it at that. I think I've made my opinions perfectly clear (several times), you are > clearly aren't actually listening, so I'll stop banging my head > against a brick wall now. What makes you think I'm not listening? I've read your opinions. That doesn't mean I agree with them. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/4 Anthony : > This is more than just an "argument" if it's being used to purport to give > copyright licenses away. In fact, it's not much of an "argument" at all - > arguments aren't won by voting, unless you're defining the "argument" as > which position more people agree with. I've made my views on the legality clear, I'm just talking about the legal options and then it is simply an argument about personal opinions. >> How are you going to define "ethical"? It's an entirely subjective >> concept, a vote is pretty much the only way we can handle it. > > > I define ethical as that which promotes "the good life". I don't think it's > subjective at all. Are you serious? I think I've made my opinions perfectly clear (several times), you are clearly aren't actually listening, so I'll stop banging my head against a brick wall now. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/3/4 Anthony : > > What constitutes a significant majority? What if the survey results had > > said that a significant majority was happy with their work being released > > into the public domain. Would you then find it reasonable to release > > *everyone's* work into the public domain? > > No, because that wouldn't be legal. What if the FSF could be convinced to come up with a GFDL 1.4 which makes it legal? > I'm not a statistician, someone else can work out how large a majority > is needed from a sample size of 570 to be confident (at the 95% level, > say?) that a majority of the population as a whole agrees. So if 51% of Wikipedians wanted no attribution (say everyone was polled), and the government made it legal, then the other 49% should lose their right to attribution? > Order of difficulty is not the same as order of happiness. I would be > > happier with "no credit" than "credit to Wikipedia". > > Could you explain your reasons for that? Probably not easily. We'd have to get way off topic for this list (and I'd have to make statements that would hurt people's feelings and be seen as inappropriate). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/3/4 Anthony : > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote: > > I imagine > >> most Wikimedians are sufficiently mature to accept it if the majority > >> disagree with them. > >> > > > > Accept what, that the majority disagrees with them? If that's what you > > mean, yeah, most Wikimedians are. > > Accept that they've lost the argument and move on. > This is more than just an "argument" if it's being used to purport to give copyright licenses away. In fact, it's not much of an "argument" at all - arguments aren't won by voting, unless you're defining the "argument" as which position more people agree with. > > > (This is assuming only options actually legal > >> under the license are considered.) > >> > > > > I don't think that caveat has been met, though I'd present a higher one > > either. Only ethical options should be considered. Mere legality isn't > > sufficient. > > How are you going to define "ethical"? It's an entirely subjective > concept, a vote is pretty much the only way we can handle it. I define ethical as that which promotes "the good life". I don't think it's subjective at all. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/4 phoebe ayers : > I know there's time pressure on this... but on the other hand, we've > waited years :) It would be worthwhile to get better stats before > making sweeping generalizations about the community's desires. That we've waited years is irrelevant. We make a decision soon, or the decision is made for us. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/4 Anthony : > Order of difficulty is not the same as order of happiness. I would be > happier with "no credit" than "credit to Wikipedia". You have declared previously on this list that you do not contribute and in fact have tried to repudiate all your past contributions. As such, it's entirely unclear how your opinion has any relevance whatsoever, even anecdotally. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Marco Chiesa wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony wrote: >> > And yes, 80% of people ranked one of 4 options which I consider >> > unacceptable >> > first. But then, 67% of people would have done so even if everyone chose >> > their answers randomly. >> >> Now, how many of the 20% who wants their name cited would have given the >> same response to something like: "Would you be happy to piss everyone off >> if >> your name does not appear in a list of about 100 authors of a Wikipedia >> article cited by Xyz?" >> > > Not clear. That question wasn't asked. > > In fact, it's not clear that only 20% want their name cited. If you ranked > "full list of authors must always be copied" second, does that mean that you > expect all authors to be listed, but just that you expect something else > more, or does it mean that you don't expect all authors to be listed at > all? It's not clear. The survey methodology was horrible. Far be it for me to disagree with survey results that back up my position on attribution :) ... but I actually agree with Anthony on this one. This is a very small, self-selected sample; there would be no harm or cost associated with turning it on for a much larger percentage (or all) of logged-in users on the top-ten languages, not just English or German alone, which both have peculiarities associated with being the largest Wikipedia communities. I agree also there was not a middle-ground option for those who think only the top (no matter how that gets determined) authors should be attributed. On the other hand, I can't recall for sure what the questions said, because I can't see them, having already taken the survey... is there a meta page with the questions somewhere? I know there's time pressure on this... but on the other hand, we've waited years :) It would be worthwhile to get better stats before making sweeping generalizations about the community's desires. -- Phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Anthony wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote: > > > >> Do we really want to only listen to the opinions of those people > >> actually willing to make a fuss if they don't get their way? > > > > We should. If someone isn't willing to make a fuss if they don't get > their > > way, they don't really care in the first place, do they? > > Ah, so the only people who matter are the immature children who throw > temper tantrums while the adults are busy with important work? Not what I said at all, and in fact I was interpreting "make a fuss" as making any positive action to express their displeasure with the situation. The people who matter here the most are those that are hard-working, > productive, helpful. If that's the axis you want to measure based on, sure, that's true, although I'd say that anyone who is productive matters, and "mattering more" doesn't have much meaning. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/4 Anthony : > What constitutes a significant majority? What if the survey results had > said that a significant majority was happy with their work being released > into the public domain. Would you then find it reasonable to release > *everyone's* work into the public domain? No, because that wouldn't be legal. I think I've made it quite clear that community opinion is only relevant when it comes to legal options. I'm not a statistician, someone else can work out how large a majority is needed from a sample size of 570 to be confident (at the 95% level, say?) that a majority of the population as a whole agrees. > If we look at just people's first choices (assuming they ranked the >> options in way compatible with my ordering, first choices are >> sufficient) then: >> >> 12.11% would be happy with no credit >> 39.48% would be happy with credit to "Wikipedia" >> 69.66% would be happy with linking to the article >> 80.89% would be happy with linking to the version history >> >> That clearly shows that a significant majority would be happy with >> attribution-by-URL (you can argue over where the URL should point). > > > Order of difficulty is not the same as order of happiness. I would be > happier with "no credit" than "credit to Wikipedia". Could you explain your reasons for that? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/4 Anthony : > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> Do we really want to only listen to the opinions of those people >> actually willing to make a fuss if they don't get their way? >> > > We should. If someone isn't willing to make a fuss if they don't get their > way, they don't really care in the first place, do they? It's a matter of priorities. If a decision is made that I don't agree with I have to weigh up how bad it is that this bad decision has been made, how much harm me making a fuss will cause and how likely it is that me making a fuss will make any difference. (This varies depending on your definition of "fuss", obviously.) I think it this situation making a fuss is very unlikely to make any difference once a decision is made, and the pointless drama will detract from people improving the projects, so I am unlikely to make a fuss as long as I am confident the decision is a legal one. > I imagine >> most Wikimedians are sufficiently mature to accept it if the majority >> disagree with them. >> > > Accept what, that the majority disagrees with them? If that's what you > mean, yeah, most Wikimedians are. Accept that they've lost the argument and move on. > (This is assuming only options actually legal >> under the license are considered.) >> > > I don't think that caveat has been met, though I'd present a higher one > either. Only ethical options should be considered. Mere legality isn't > sufficient. How are you going to define "ethical"? It's an entirely subjective concept, a vote is pretty much the only way we can handle it. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> Do we really want to only listen to the opinions of those people >> actually willing to make a fuss if they don't get their way? > > We should. If someone isn't willing to make a fuss if they don't get their > way, they don't really care in the first place, do they? Ah, so the only people who matter are the immature children who throw temper tantrums while the adults are busy with important work? Interesting concept, although I can see how people who believe this would be tempted to act like immature little children, because there's the expectation that such behavior should yield good results. The people who matter here the most are those that are hard-working, productive, helpful. The people who aren't whining like a tired baby on every mailinglist thread that they find disagreeable. This is a group of people that tend not to make their opinions well-known, but scarcity is directly proportional to importance here. --Andrew Whitworth ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > Do we really want to only listen to the opinions of those people > actually willing to make a fuss if they don't get their way? > We should. If someone isn't willing to make a fuss if they don't get their way, they don't really care in the first place, do they? I imagine > most Wikimedians are sufficiently mature to accept it if the majority > disagree with them. > Accept what, that the majority disagrees with them? If that's what you mean, yeah, most Wikimedians are. (This is assuming only options actually legal > under the license are considered.) > I don't think that caveat has been met, though I'd present a higher one either. Only ethical options should be considered. Mere legality isn't sufficient. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/3/4 Anthony : > > You're assuming that those who ranked "no credit is needed" first will be > > happy with attribution by URL, and you're assuming that those who ranked > > "credit can be given to the community" will by happy with attribution by > > URL. But these people will also probably be happy with attribution by > > listing of authors. So you can easily draw the conclusion that a > > significant majority of the community will by happy with attribution by > > listing of authors. In fact, making your assumption you could say that > the > > survey showed that 100% of them are happy with it. > > I think it is reasonable to go with the simplest solution that a > significant majority are happy with (I'm assuming everyone is in > favour of making things as easy for reusers as possible, while > maintaining what they consider adequate attribution). What constitutes a significant majority? What if the survey results had said that a significant majority was happy with their work being released into the public domain. Would you then find it reasonable to release *everyone's* work into the public domain? If we look at just people's first choices (assuming they ranked the > options in way compatible with my ordering, first choices are > sufficient) then: > > 12.11% would be happy with no credit > 39.48% would be happy with credit to "Wikipedia" > 69.66% would be happy with linking to the article > 80.89% would be happy with linking to the version history > > That clearly shows that a significant majority would be happy with > attribution-by-URL (you can argue over where the URL should point). Order of difficulty is not the same as order of happiness. I would be happier with "no credit" than "credit to Wikipedia". ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/4 Marco Chiesa : > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony wrote: > >> >> And yes, 80% of people ranked one of 4 options which I consider >> unacceptable >> first. But then, 67% of people would have done so even if everyone chose >> their answers randomly. > > > Now, how many of the 20% who wants their name cited would have given the > same response to something like: "Would you be happy to piss everyone off if > your name does not appear in a list of about 100 authors of a Wikipedia > article cited by Xyz?" Do we really want to only listen to the opinions of those people actually willing to make a fuss if they don't get their way? I imagine most Wikimedians are sufficiently mature to accept it if the majority disagree with them. (This is assuming only options actually legal under the license are considered.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Marco Chiesa wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony wrote: > > And yes, 80% of people ranked one of 4 options which I consider > > unacceptable > > first. But then, 67% of people would have done so even if everyone chose > > their answers randomly. > > Now, how many of the 20% who wants their name cited would have given the > same response to something like: "Would you be happy to piss everyone off > if > your name does not appear in a list of about 100 authors of a Wikipedia > article cited by Xyz?" > Not clear. That question wasn't asked. In fact, it's not clear that only 20% want their name cited. If you ranked "full list of authors must always be copied" second, does that mean that you expect all authors to be listed, but just that you expect something else more, or does it mean that you don't expect all authors to be listed at all? It's not clear. The survey methodology was horrible. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/4 Anthony : > You're assuming that those who ranked "no credit is needed" first will be > happy with attribution by URL, and you're assuming that those who ranked > "credit can be given to the community" will by happy with attribution by > URL. But these people will also probably be happy with attribution by > listing of authors. So you can easily draw the conclusion that a > significant majority of the community will by happy with attribution by > listing of authors. In fact, making your assumption you could say that the > survey showed that 100% of them are happy with it. I think it is reasonable to go with the simplest solution that a significant majority are happy with (I'm assuming everyone is in favour of making things as easy for reusers as possible, while maintaining what they consider adequate attribution). The options given, in order of simplest to most difficult are: No credit Credit to "Wikipedia" (or similar) Link to article Link to history link online, full list of authors offline full list of authors (Does anyone disagree with that ordering? I don't think it should be very controversial. I would be interested to know how many people didn't order the choices in a way compatible with this ordering - by that, I mean starting at a certain point as (1), then assigning subsequent places to subsequent options until you reach the end and ranking the remaining options in reverse order - and by how much they varied.) If we look at just people's first choices (assuming they ranked the options in way compatible with my ordering, first choices are sufficient) then: 12.11% would be happy with no credit 39.48% would be happy with credit to "Wikipedia" 69.66% would be happy with linking to the article 80.89% would be happy with linking to the version history That clearly shows that a significant majority would be happy with attribution-by-URL (you can argue over where the URL should point). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony wrote: > > And yes, 80% of people ranked one of 4 options which I consider > unacceptable > first. But then, 67% of people would have done so even if everyone chose > their answers randomly. Now, how many of the 20% who wants their name cited would have given the same response to something like: "Would you be happy to piss everyone off if your name does not appear in a list of about 100 authors of a Wikipedia article cited by Xyz?" Cruccone ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> The numbers given by Erik at the start of this thread are sufficient >> to draw the conclusion that a significant majority of the community >> will be happy with attribution by URL. >> > > Less than half of people answering the survey ranked attribution by URL > first. > And yes, 80% of people ranked one of 4 options which I consider unacceptable first. But then, 67% of people would have done so even if everyone chose their answers randomly. It was a terrible survey, and a terrible summary. And it was unnecessary to have a survey in the first place. It's quite obvious to everyone that "a significant majority of the community will be happy with attribution by URL", despite the results of the survey, which doesn't actually show that at all (the survey doesn't ask anything remotely close to that question). But that's also completely irrelevant. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/3/4 Anthony : > > 1) Have the numbers been released? All I saw was a selective summary. > > 2) What do you think they're conclusive of? > > The numbers given by Erik at the start of this thread are sufficient > to draw the conclusion that a significant majority of the community > will be happy with attribution by URL. Less than half of people answering the survey ranked attribution by URL first. You're assuming that those who ranked "no credit is needed" first will be happy with attribution by URL, and you're assuming that those who ranked "credit can be given to the community" will by happy with attribution by URL. But these people will also probably be happy with attribution by listing of authors. So you can easily draw the conclusion that a significant majority of the community will by happy with attribution by listing of authors. In fact, making your assumption you could say that the survey showed that 100% of them are happy with it. > My one concern with the survey is that the options were not > particularly clearly defined - I'm not sure everyone taking it would > have understood what the online/offline split was all about. It was horribly designed, but this much seems true - 1 in 5 Wikipedians surveyed expect that an offline copy of a Wikipedia article to which they have contributed, will contain their name. But according to Creative Commons, CC-BY-SA does not require such attribution. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/4 Anthony : > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> >> And that explicitly included offline reuse? If so, it looks like we're >> ready to present a final proposal for the community to vote on. Even >> with such a small sample size, those numbers are pretty conclusive. >> > > 1) Have the numbers been released? All I saw was a selective summary. > 2) What do you think they're conclusive of? The numbers given by Erik at the start of this thread are sufficient to draw the conclusion that a significant majority of the community will be happy with attribution by URL. My one concern with the survey is that the options were not particularly clearly defined - I'm not sure everyone taking it would have understood what the online/offline split was all about. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > And that explicitly included offline reuse? If so, it looks like we're > ready to present a final proposal for the community to vote on. Even > with such a small sample size, those numbers are pretty conclusive. > 1) Have the numbers been released? All I saw was a selective summary. 2) What do you think they're conclusive of? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/4 Geoffrey Plourde : > They wrote the damned thing, so they are most likely to understand it. So? Their line of reasoning will still be very much based on the questions asked and the outcomes they have considered. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/4 Erik Moeller : > We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible > attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that > attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is > consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*. From: geni What is their line of reasoning on that? On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote: > They wrote the damned thing, so they are most likely to understand it. Yeah, that's why their line of reasoning is so interesting. Specifically, I wonder under what circumstances they propose "attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model" (quote by Erik, not CC). Is that dependent on the type of content, the terms of service, the medium of distribution? Or is it universal, and they believe that "attribution-by-URL" is per se valid for everything distributed under CC-BY-*? Is there any possibility of getting a statement from them directly, rather than playing telephone game? It'd also be interesting to hear someone try to reconcile this fact with the notion that the GFDL is in the same spirit as CC-BY-SA. I'd also be interested in hearing from the FSF on this issue. What do they think the attribution requirements of CC-BY-SA are, and has this changed since they released GFDL 1.3? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/4 Erik Moeller : > 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton : >> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important. >> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the >> CC lawyers? > > We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible > attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that > attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is > consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*. And that explicitly included offline reuse? If so, it looks like we're ready to present a final proposal for the community to vote on. Even with such a small sample size, those numbers are pretty conclusive. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
Please help me about my blog bacause I am new star making blog m...give me some idea Sent from my BlackBerry® powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT -Original Message- From: philippe Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 23:52:58 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results Ahem. List mods? ___ philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com [[en:User:Philippe]] On Mar 3, 2009, at 11:39 PM, jokarwilis2...@gmail.com wrote: > Anyone give me some idea abaut my blog .http://jokarwilis2009.blogspot.com > Because my blog is low trafic > --Original Message-- > From: Erik Moeller > Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results > Sent: Mar 4, 2009 10:15 AM > > 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton : >> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important. >> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the >> CC lawyers? > > We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible > attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that > attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is > consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*. > > -- > 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 > > > Sent from my BlackBerry® > powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT >___ > 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] Attribution survey, first results
Ahem. List mods? ___ philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com [[en:User:Philippe]] On Mar 3, 2009, at 11:39 PM, jokarwilis2...@gmail.com wrote: > Anyone give me some idea abaut my blog .http://jokarwilis2009.blogspot.com > Because my blog is low trafic > --Original Message-- > From: Erik Moeller > Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results > Sent: Mar 4, 2009 10:15 AM > > 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton : >> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important. >> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the >> CC lawyers? > > We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible > attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that > attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is > consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*. > > -- > 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 > > > Sent from my BlackBerry® > powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT > ___ > 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] Attribution survey, first results
Anyone give me some idea abaut my blog .http://jokarwilis2009.blogspot.com Because my blog is low trafic --Original Message-- From: Erik Moeller Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results Sent: Mar 4, 2009 10:15 AM 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton : > Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important. > However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the > CC lawyers? We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*. -- 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 Sent from my BlackBerry® powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
My is my live please give some information about trafic to my blog http://jokarwilis2009.blogspot.com --Original Message-- From: geni Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results Sent: Mar 4, 2009 10:41 AM 2009/3/4 Erik Moeller : > 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton : >> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important. >> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the >> CC lawyers? > > We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible > attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that > attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is > consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*. > What is their line of reasoning on that? -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Sent from my BlackBerry® powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
They wrote the damned thing, so they are most likely to understand it. From: geni To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 7:41:32 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results 2009/3/4 Erik Moeller : > 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton : >> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important. >> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the >> CC lawyers? > > We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible > attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that > attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is > consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*. > What is their line of reasoning on that? -- 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] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/4 Erik Moeller : > 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton : >> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important. >> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the >> CC lawyers? > > We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible > attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that > attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is > consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*. > What is their line of reasoning on that? -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton : > Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important. > However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the > CC lawyers? We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*. -- 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] Attribution survey, first results
Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > >> I think it is very on point to mention that even if some >> things were on that list, that would not make them >> *more* acceptable to the community, just by virtue of >> them being considered allowable by CC lawyers, if >> they were infact contrary to our mission. >> > > Indeed. What we need to determine is what things are both acceptable > to the community *and* legal. They are two independent criteria that > both need to be satisfied. > > Actually, what the CC lawyers would say, would *not* constitute what is legal. it would just be some vague interpretation of their intents and understandings; and I doubt they would even confidentially let anyone know *all* their views of possible legal ramifications. It is not true that some concrete and definable "what is legal" should be satisfied. In fact it would be contrary to many of our core mission issues to satisfy many "what is legal" criteria, in quite a few jurisdictions. And not just in China, but quite palpably also in the UK. (Crown Copyright for instance). What we do want to enable though, is interoperability within reasonable limits of concordance with our mission, and jurisdictional issues of importing, exporting content and keeping it generally in play within a copyleft framework. 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] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > I think it is very on point to mention that even if some > things were on that list, that would not make them > *more* acceptable to the community, just by virtue of > them being considered allowable by CC lawyers, if > they were infact contrary to our mission. Indeed. What we need to determine is what things are both acceptable to the community *and* legal. They are two independent criteria that both need to be satisfied. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > >> Thomas Dalton wrote: >> >>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important. >>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the >>> CC lawyers? They wrote the license, so their interpretation of it is >>> highly relevant. Community opinion is only relevant within the bounds >>> of what is acceptable under the license. >>> >>> >> While there is nothing I disagree logically with in your >> statement; I do think the last sentence is only acceptable >> if taken in the absolute. >> >> Certainly that is an "utmost" framework that cannot be >> transgressed. But there are many, many, many things >> clearly and unambiguously acceptable within hte bounds >> of the license, which are clearly unacceptable for our >> mission. >> >> There is no reason for us to stretch the license "as far >> as it can go". >> > > I don't understand what you are disagreeing with... The license has > certain requirements, there is a long list of things that would > satisfy those requirements. Community opinion should be used to decide > which items on that list we consider acceptable, it can't be used to > decide that things not on that list are acceptable. > > The source of your confusion is simple. You think I disagree with you, when I (plainly worded and quoted by you) find "nothing I disagree logically with in your statement". I simply do not disagree with you. Period. But you do introduce a very specific staement in your confusion that can help to progress further gains in understanding. You say specifically that "Community opinion should be used to decide which items on that list we consider acceptable, it can't be used to decide that things not on that list are acceptable." I think it is very on point to mention that even if some things were on that list, that would not make them *more* acceptable to the community, just by virtue of them being considered allowable by CC lawyers, if they were infact contrary to our mission. 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] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > Thomas Dalton wrote: >> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important. >> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the >> CC lawyers? They wrote the license, so their interpretation of it is >> highly relevant. Community opinion is only relevant within the bounds >> of what is acceptable under the license. >> > > While there is nothing I disagree logically with in your > statement; I do think the last sentence is only acceptable > if taken in the absolute. > > Certainly that is an "utmost" framework that cannot be > transgressed. But there are many, many, many things > clearly and unambiguously acceptable within hte bounds > of the license, which are clearly unacceptable for our > mission. > > There is no reason for us to stretch the license "as far > as it can go". I don't understand what you are disagreeing with... The license has certain requirements, there is a long list of things that would satisfy those requirements. Community opinion should be used to decide which items on that list we consider acceptable, it can't be used to decide that things not on that list are acceptable. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/3/3 Erik Moeller : > >> Hello all, >> >> as some of you may have seen, I've run a small survey over the >> weekend, scattered via a 5% site-notice on the English Wikipedia for >> signed in users. The result is a self-selected sample of authors. I'll >> publish the full anonymous raw data later this week, and I also intend >> to run it on the German Wikipedia to get some comparative data. Please >> note that I'll probably turn off the English version before doing so, >> so if you feel you still want to take the survey yourself, you can do >> so at: http://survey.wikimedia.org/index.php?sid=69514 >> > > Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important. > However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the > CC lawyers? They wrote the license, so their interpretation of it is > highly relevant. Community opinion is only relevant within the bounds > of what is acceptable under the license. > While there is nothing I disagree logically with in your statement; I do think the last sentence is only acceptable if taken in the absolute. Certainly that is an "utmost" framework that cannot be transgressed. But there are many, many, many things clearly and unambiguously acceptable within hte bounds of the license, which are clearly unacceptable for our mission. There is no reason for us to stretch the license "as far as it can go". 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] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/3 Erik Moeller : > Hello all, > > as some of you may have seen, I've run a small survey over the > weekend, scattered via a 5% site-notice on the English Wikipedia for > signed in users. The result is a self-selected sample of authors. I'll > publish the full anonymous raw data later this week, and I also intend > to run it on the German Wikipedia to get some comparative data. Please > note that I'll probably turn off the English version before doing so, > so if you feel you still want to take the survey yourself, you can do > so at: http://survey.wikimedia.org/index.php?sid=69514 Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important. However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the CC lawyers? They wrote the license, so their interpretation of it is highly relevant. Community opinion is only relevant within the bounds of what is acceptable under the license. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
