There are severe public relations problems between WM-IL and some
Commons admins at present over the Pikiwiki project. They're getting
attention at the Foundation level.
Anyone here have anything to say on the problems?
(They appear to relate to how much of a service project for other
Wikimedia
2009/6/4 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
Well the most basic thing is that the logo of the project has been marked
for deletion. This is the same old argument as happened over Wikimedia
Foundation logos.
Sounds like people who don't want Commons to be a service project and
are
David Gerard schreef:
Anyone here have anything to say on the problems?
You might want to read
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Pikiwikisrael
It pretty much sums up all problems (and possible solutions!).
Maarten
2009/6/4 Maarten Dammers maar...@mdammers.nl:
David Gerard schreef:
Anyone here have anything to say on the problems?
You might want to read
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Pikiwikisrael
It pretty much sums up all problems (and possible solutions!).
David Gerard a écrit :
2009/6/4 Maarten Dammers maar...@mdammers.nl:
You might want to read
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Pikiwikisrael
It pretty much sums up all problems (and possible solutions!).
From that thread, I think I can conclusively
2009/6/4 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
From that thread, I think I can conclusively say: if Commons has been
obstructively bureaucratic to the point that an entire chapter (WM-IL)
will no longer work with it ... then Commons has *failed utterly* as a
service project, and will need reining in
Folks before this disolves into a pointy session we know the whole process
derailed a long time ago the block Dror was to protect the person and
project there's no reason to disect it on this list.
Whats needed is solutions to resolve the problems with image uploads and
heal the wounds
Is the
Hoi,
I would argue that any of the WMF chapters and its projects should be seen
as our own. When this is not accepted it means that Commons is indeed an
island with the drawbridge closed. Truly reconsider because this hurts us as
an organisation. We are not divided by chapters we are organised
Hello Huib,
at first I want to make clear that I write this mail as a normal
community member and not as a board member, and that I am expressing my
personal opinion and in no way stance of the foundation or the board.
Just to avoid any possible confusion about this point.
I read the threads
Hoi,
Key in my mind is that this is a project of the Israeli chapter. These other
organisations are cooperating by growing OUR content. The fact that there
are other organisations involved is not that important to me. The fact that
they collaborate and realise our commons goal is.
Given that my
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Andrew Turvey
andrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote:
I've started a discussion at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Wikimedia_Chapter_Copyrights
regarding the policy of Commons on images where the copyright is owned by a
recognised chapter.
Hi!
I agree that Meta is good place for WMF-owned logos. At least many
purist talks on Commons will be finaly resolved.
Eugene.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Andrew Turvey
andrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote:
I've
Some time ago, I suggested using Meta for this purpose. That would be
the best solution; the second-best being to use Commons and expanding
the scope to chapter logos and the like (as I suggested already:
13 matches
Mail list logo
