On Wednesday 21 January 2009 19:32:15 Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/20 Nikola Smolenski :
> > Don't know about this wording thing, but as a Wikipedia author, I have to
> > say that I do not think that attributing me in this way is sufficient. As
> > a Wikimedian, I believe that a lot of people will
On Thursday 22 January 2009 02:31:54 Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Thomas Dalton
wrote:
> > > "Das Wikipedia Lexikon in einem Band"[1] is another stunning example of
> > > attribution gone mad
> >
> > A few pages of names in a 1000 page book doesn't seem that mad to me.
>
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
>
> > > "Das Wikipedia Lexikon in einem Band"[1] is another stunning example of
> > > attribution gone mad
> >
> > A few pages of names in a 1000 page book doesn't seem that mad to me.
>
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Anthony writes:
>
> > Over 100 might have been a slight exggeration - I guesstimated
> > rather than
> > counting each one.
>
> My goodness. I can't believe you'd ever exaggerate a factual claim.
> I'm astonished.
>
I can believe that you'd f
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > "Das Wikipedia Lexikon in einem Band"[1] is another stunning example of
> > attribution gone mad
>
> A few pages of names in a 1000 page book doesn't seem that mad to me.
> I think it makes an excellent point about how Wikipedia works.
>
P
> "Das Wikipedia Lexikon in einem Band"[1] is another stunning example of
> attribution gone mad
A few pages of names in a 1000 page book doesn't seem that mad to me.
I think it makes an excellent point about how Wikipedia works.
___
foundation-l mailin
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/1/21 Thomas Dalton :
>> Whether or not something is sufficient to comply with licensing
>> requirements isn't something that can be decided democratically.
>
> We're operating in a space with a high degree of ambiguity. The point
> would be to determine whether there
Hear hear!
"Das Wikipedia Lexikon in einem Band"[1] is another stunning example of
attribution gone mad and reusers would always have the option of crediting
authors anyway (perhaps guided by author preferences expressed on the talk
page or some other interface).
Most critically however, "the ben
2009/1/21 Thomas Dalton :
> Whether or not something is sufficient to comply with licensing
> requirements isn't something that can be decided democratically.
We're operating in a space with a high degree of ambiguity. The point
would be to determine whether there's a clear and shared expectation
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller :
> Because I don't think it's good to discuss attribution as an abstract
> principle, just as an example, the author attribution for the article
> [[France]] is below, excluding IP addresses. According to the view
> that attribution needs to be given to each pseudonym, this
Thats why i said state/city. Even within states, business licenses have to be
procured for each city/county
From: Thomas Dalton
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 8:36:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (c
Michael Snow wrote:
> Lars Aronsson wrote:
>> Florence Devouard wrote:
>>
>>> The confusion mostly came from the fact I had absolutely not
>>> understood that chapters at the national level, or chapter at
>>> any other level would have exactly the same rights and roles
>>> than the currently
Because I don't think it's good to discuss attribution as an abstract
principle, just as an example, the author attribution for the article
[[France]] is below, excluding IP addresses. According to the view
that attribution needs to be given to each pseudonym, this entire
history would have to be i
I agree on 'et', but the 'no' case is different. the codes 'no', 'nb'
and 'nn' were present in ISO 639 since the beginning. 'no' is the code
that covers both 'nn' and 'nb'. When 'nn' split from 'no' it would have
been good, if 'no' had been moved to 'nb' the same time.
The main difference betwe
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/21 Thomas Dalton:
>> A lot of the problems you are having there are because you are trying
>> to group things into "print" and "online". The correct dichotomy is
>> "online" and "offline". Of course you are going to have problems
>> classifying DVDs if your classifactio
2009/1/21 Klaus Graf :
> IT'S ABSOLUTELY FALSE THAT GFDL HAS A PRINCIPAL AUTHOR CLAUSE.
>
> This clause only refers to a title page. READ THE LICENSE PLEASE.
> Wikipedia hasn't such a thing.
I've already explained our position on this issue in the prior thread
on the topic; we do not share the int
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> It is nice that you oppose, there are reasons why it might be a
> bad idea, but the ones that I know are not the ones you put
> forward. A reason why a change would be good is that it will
> prevent confusion.
Come on, nobody is confused about what language Estonian is
Scenario 1: An article from Wikipedia is used elsewhere (be it on or
offline), with a link to the history of the page. The article is
subsequently deleted from Wikipedia (e.g. accidentally and
irretrievably).
Scenario 2: Wikipedia ceases to exist in its current form. Its
content is hosted
Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Florence Devouard wrote:
>
>> The confusion mostly came from the fact I had absolutely not
>> understood that chapters at the national level, or chapter at
>> any other level would have exactly the same rights and roles
>> than the currently existing chapters.
>>
>
By repeating false things they will be not more true.
IT'S ABSOLUTELY FALSE THAT GFDL HAS A PRINCIPAL AUTHOR CLAUSE.
This clause only refers to a title page. READ THE LICENSE PLEASE.
Wikipedia hasn't such a thing.
Attribution in the GNU FDL is done by copyright notices or the section
called Hist
Anthony writes:
> Over 100 might have been a slight exggeration - I guesstimated
> rather than
> counting each one.
My goodness. I can't believe you'd ever exaggerate a factual claim.
I'm astonished.
> There are over 1 different versions of CC-BY-SA 3.x.
They are sufficiently interchangeab
Florence Devouard wrote:
> The confusion mostly came from the fact I had absolutely not
> understood that chapters at the national level, or chapter at
> any other level would have exactly the same rights and roles
> than the currently existing chapters.
I'm confused by your description of cha
2009/1/21 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/1/21 Thomas Dalton :
>> A lot of the problems you are having there are because you are trying
>> to group things into "print" and "online". The correct dichotomy is
>> "online" and "offline". Of course you are going to have problems
>> classifying DVDs if your classi
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Whether you draw the distinction between
> print or non-print, or between "online" and "offline", is always
> somewhat arbitrary, as content can change from one state to another
> very easily. (A file downloaded to your harddisk becomes an of
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/21 Anthony :
> > As in CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported? You know, the one that says "You must not
> > distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to
> the
> > Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's ho
> > Is it reasonable for a t-shirt to have to include a metadata
> > text-block? Is a DVD substantially different from a print product?
>
> I don't see a problem with
> listing authors in fairly small print on the back of a t-shirt, seems
> perfectly reasonable to me.
Can someone remind me why
2009/1/21 Thomas Dalton :
> A lot of the problems you are having there are because you are trying
> to group things into "print" and "online". The correct dichotomy is
> "online" and "offline". Of course you are going to have problems
> classifying DVDs if your classifaction systems assumes all ele
2009/1/21 Anthony :
> As in CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported? You know, the one that says "You must not
> distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the
> Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or
> reputation"?
That quote is pulled out of context in a f
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>
> >>> There are over 100 Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike
> >>> Licenses.
> >>
> >> [citation needed]
> >
> > There are 74 due to versioning and jurisdiction ports, see
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:55 AM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/20 Anthony :
> > That doesn't really any of my questions, though I was more looking for an
> > answer from Erik or Mike anyway.
> >
> > It's a fairly important question, since compatibility with other works
> under
> > CC-BY-SA is allegedly t
Prevent confusion from whom?
I think we should let the et.wp community vote on this change instead
of letting Gerard push it on them.
Võro Wikipedians know to go to http://fiu-vro.wikipedia.org/, non-Võro
Estonian Wikipedians know to go to http://et.wikipedia.org/
Introducing a new URL for Võro
Hoi,
This change for Estonian is not special. It has happened before where other
codes changed their meaning and became a "macro language". German (de) is a
completely different type of language, in several ways it is more like
Italian. I do not understand where you got this "standard Estonian" fro
I am happy, that Voro got its own code and I fully support to move
'fiu-vro' to 'vro'. But I think this also demonstrates, that ISO is to
some degree out of touch with reality or at least quite inconsistent
with its codes.
Why did they declare 'et' to be synonymous to the macrolanguage? 'et'
wa
> There are various problems with making a distinction between print and
> online use when it comes to name inclusion. The first problem is that
> there are related questions which immediately pop up: Is it reasonable
> for a one page print document to have half a page or more of author
> metadata?
2009/1/21 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/1/20 geni :
>> 4(c)(iii) is irrelevant. The foundation not the licensor and the URL
>> is on top of other attribution and copyright stuff. The only way
>> attribution methods can be controlled through CC-BY-SA-3.0 is through
>> 4(c)(i).
>
> You are making an unsupp
2009/1/20 Nikola Smolenski :
> Don't know about this wording thing, but as a Wikipedia author, I have to say
> that I do not think that attributing me in this way is sufficient. As a
> Wikimedian, I believe that a lot of people will feel the same.
That's probably true, Nikola. The proposed attribu
Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>>> There are over 100 Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike
>>> Licenses.
>>
>> [citation needed]
>
> There are 74 due to versioning and jurisdiction ports, see
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/index.rdf
That sounds more likely than "over 100," although the rele
2009/1/20 geni :
> 4(c)(iii) is irrelevant. The foundation not the licensor and the URL
> is on top of other attribution and copyright stuff. The only way
> attribution methods can be controlled through CC-BY-SA-3.0 is through
> 4(c)(i).
You are making an unsupported assertion. CC-BY-SA is preci
On Wednesday 21 January 2009 17:28:23 Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Maybe people don't want to spend 2 hours sorting out authors? Also, the
> history link allows someone to look at every single contribution,
How does the history link allow someone to look at every single contribution,
when they don't
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Cary Bass wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In accordance with the recent board decision to increase the number of
> ombudsmen from 3 to 5, we have appointed the following users as
> successor ombudsmen.
>
> [[User:Schiste]] from frwiki
On Wednesday 21 January 2009 17:50:38 Mike Godwin wrote:
> Anthony writes:
> > "the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License"
> >
> > There are over 100 Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike Licenses.
>
> [citation needed]
Given various versions and localisations, this may well be true
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In accordance with the recent board decision to increase the number of
ombudsmen from 3 to 5, we have appointed the following users as
successor ombudsmen.
[[User:Schiste]] from frwiki
[[User:PatríciaR]] from commonswiki
[[User:Tinz]] from dewiki
[[Us
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> To clarify, I'm not sure that "absolutely could not work together" is
> the best description of the criteria. Our culture is built on
> collaboration and cooperation, and I expect that all chapters should be
> able to work together when the o
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:26 PM, geni wrote:
>
> If the change to CC-BY-SA goes through I will be proposing a new
> wikimedia project to record what authors and reuses consider
> acceptable (and what people actually do if that happens) in terms of
> attribution for every form of reuse we can thin
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Anthony writes:
>
>> "the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License"
>>
>> There are over 100 Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike Licenses.
>
> [citation needed]
There are 74 due to versioning and jurisdiction ports, see
http://cre
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> wrote:
>
>> Wow!, just wow. Would you be okay with one country that was
>> very tiny having two chapters?
>>
> If the very tiny country had enough active wikimedians to create
> critical mass for two chapter
Attribution by reference to a URL only seems reasonable for online
reuse to me. For content added directly to Wikimedia projects, you may
be able to get by with including permission to do so in the terms of
service, but for 3rd party content that doesn't work. If I write
something on another site,
Anthony writes:
> "the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License"
>
> There are over 100 Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike Licenses.
[citation needed]
--Mike
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> * Of the organizations Lars mentioned, only ISOC has "chapters". I still
> find it not clear about whether the national organizations are independent
> or merely national agencies of the center (as it is the case with
> Greenpeace).
IEEE us
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:13 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
>
>
>> Nathan wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Erik Moeller
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
2009/1/20 Ting Chen :
> Not quite. One criteria is that the chapters should have well
2009/1/21 Geoffrey Plourde :
> It is extraordinarily difficult to found a US chapter, because we are in
> essence a federation of 50 little nations. Every state has their own unique
> characteristics and their own unique laws. Also, we do not have interest for
> a national chapter. By empowering
Maybe people don't want to spend 2 hours sorting out authors? Also, the history
link allows someone to look at every single contribution,
From: Nikola Smolenski
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 1:09:22 AM
Subject: Re: [
The CC wrote this license and are likely to be considered authorities if there
was ever a court case. If their lawyer says this is acceptable, its probably
acceptable.
From: geni
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 6:57:25
It is extraordinarily difficult to found a US chapter, because we are in
essence a federation of 50 little nations. Every state has their own unique
characteristics and their own unique laws. Also, we do not have interest for a
national chapter. By empowering these state/city chapters, we provid
Thanks again for your explanations (I don't want to open a new mail for
every bit).
Some points:
* Of the organizations Lars mentioned, only ISOC has "chapters". I still
find it not clear about whether the national organizations are independent
or merely national agencies of the center (as it is t
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update
"the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License"
There are over 100 Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike Licenses.
___
foundation-l maili
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> These "emotional" arguments are not practical. In my opinion
> there is a need for a USA chapter because there are things that
> the Office should not handle and that should be handled by an
> USA chapter.
First you say emotions are pointless, then you express your own
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Andrew, the NYC does not need my approval but given what I know of their
> activities so far, they are doing great. This does however not mean that the
> issues that are raised have been answered, far from it.
You have not raised any issue
Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> By the way, this word "chapter" is unfamiliar for me, a German.
> I did not hear it before I became a Wikimedian. What does this
> English word mean?
It's the same word as the German "Kapitel" as used by the (Roman
Catholic) church (Domkapitel, Stiftskapitel). It repres
Hoi,
There is a request to rename the no.wikipedia.org to
nb.wikipedia.orgexactly for this reason.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/21 Jüvä Sullõv
> Thanks for congaratulations, Gerard!
>
> I am not still very sure if the fact that codes "est" and "et" have made to
> a
> macrolanguage codes nessesse
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 4:29 AM, George Herbert wrote:
> I don't know that listing thousands of authors on popular pages is an
> improvement over a link saying "Many people wrote and edited this and you
> can click to see them all".
>
What popular page has thousands of authors? Are you counting
Hoi,
These "emotional" arguments are not practical. In my opinion there is a need
for a USA chapter because there are things that the Office should not handle
and that should be handled by an USA chapter. The NYC is likely to be as
active as any other chapter. My issue is not with their activities,
Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> Emotional: Having a NYC chapter next to the French, German etc.
> makes France, Germany etc. look the equals to New York.
And in some ways they are. If that makes you feel bad, that's
your problem. Did you feel better when there was no chapter at all
in the United State
Hoi,
Without the five persons that make the difference, there is no chapter
anyway.
Andrew, the NYC does not need my approval but given what I know of their
activities so far, they are doing great. This does however not mean that the
issues that are raised have been answered, far from it.
Your re
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> Wow!, just wow. Would you be okay with one country that was
> very tiny having two chapters?
If the very tiny country had enough active wikimedians to create
critical mass for two chapters, and if those two groups found that
they abs
Hoi,
Congratulations.
As a consequence of the recognition of the Võro language, the Estonian
language with the codes est and et has been made a macro language. This
macro language contains two languages, Võro and Standard Estonian. Standard
Estonian has the code of ekk.
It is appropriate to renam
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Was this some sort of unilateral proclamation by Ting, or has the
> chapters committee officially made some sort of decision on this topic?
A principal decision on sub-national chapters has been made by the
*board* (the "Framework..." docu
On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:13 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Erik Moeller
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/1/20 Ting Chen :
Not quite. One criteria is that the chapters should have well
defined
geographical areas and they should not overlap. S
George Herbert wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>> Translation: what we are doing right now is wrong and no one complains
>> too loudly, therefore we may get away with being even more wrong in the
>> future.
>
> No, what we are doing now is not wrong. What we're
Please note that stewards are not an electoral college. Although it is
positive if there are stewards around that have an understanding of a
project in case there is something complicated going on, there is absolutely
no necessity to have stewards from specific angles. It is not like stewards
come
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Translation: what we are doing right now is wrong and no one complains
> too loudly, therefore we may get away with being even more wrong in the
> future.
>
No, what we are doing now is not wrong. What we're doing now is uniformly
and u
George Herbert wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 21 January 2009 03:23:51 Erik Moeller wrote:
>>> 2009/1/20 geni :
1)This isn't legal within anything close to the current wording of the
page.
>>> CC General Counsel has confirmed that our
72 matches
Mail list logo
