wrote:
> The problem I see with free books is just that you really need something
> that says... this is WHY you, the contributor would put in this amount of
> effort here.
Well, I'd hate to see how things would had ended up if everyone had that
attitude with regards to the idea of creating a fre
On 27 February 2011 20:37, wrote:
> So what we should have created it not Wikibooks with which to start, but
> Wiki...How or WikiChapter or something small, that a person could actually
> accomplish.
Arguably we could have started wikihow.com ... which is CC by-nc-sa,
rather than an actually
In a message dated 2/27/2011 12:26:22 PM Pacific Standard Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
> The scope was supposedly textbooks - how-to books.
>
The problem I see with free books is just that you really need something
that says... this is WHY you, the contributor would put in this amount of
On 26 February 2011 16:32, wrote:
> I will go one step further.
> What is Wikibooks at all?
> The scope, content, purpose were really poorly defined.
> "Something to large for Wikipedia" doesn't really cut it in my mind.
> When our Wikipedia article on Marilyn Monroe can be 25 screen pages long,
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 2:39 PM, wrote:
> The problem with the approach that we can let the "welcoming" and
> "friendliness" be an emergent behaviour, is that we're already many years
> into this
> and it's simply... not.
>
> However the admin bit is an officially sanctioned method of enforcing
>
The problem with the approach that we can let the "welcoming" and
"friendliness" be an emergent behaviour, is that we're already many years into
this
and it's simply... not.
However the admin bit is an officially sanctioned method of enforcing
rules.
This is a lop-sided approach. To counter-
In a message dated 2/26/2011 6:12:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
> So, for WIkibooks: what's the tuna? What's the compelling attraction
> that will keep people lured in?
>
I will go one step further.
What is Wikibooks at all?
The scope, content, purpose were really poor
Indeed. It always starts with the finer details of CC 3.0. and it may
well end in genocide.
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Teofilo wrote:
> French authorship rights law:
>
> Article L121-1
> An author shall enjoy the right to respect for his name, his
> authorship and his work.
> Th
>
> From: Andrew Gray
>
> I was surprised to see the pagecount figures on en.wikibooks! Is this
> no new pages being created, or is it page creation being approximately
> equal to the rate of deleting old pages?
>
>
The full period graph has an anomaly where pages went from almost 39,000 to
just u
No one wants to attack French moral rights, or the attack the idiosyncrasies of
any particular legal jurisdiction. What we want to do is curate a large
international collection of free content that will remain free content 300
years
from now after all of us are dead and can no longer be person
> French authorship rights law:
>
> Article L121-1
>An author shall enjoy the right to respect for his name, his
> authorship and his work.
>This right shall attach to his person.
>It shall be perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible. It may
> be transmitted mortis causa t
French authorship rights law:
Article L121-1
An author shall enjoy the right to respect for his name, his
authorship and his work.
This right shall attach to his person.
It shall be perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible. It may
be transmitted mortis causa to the heirs of
Teofilo, 27/02/2011 15:55:
> The uploading tutorial should explain beginners the difference between
> these licenses and the other licenses, enabling them to choose in full
> knowledge of the facts.
I don't see why. Everybody can make his own choices, the issue you
describe here is well known and
From: David Gerard
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Sat, February 26, 2011 9:55:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy?
On 26 February 2011 22:58, Birgitte SB wrote:
I think we really need the actual threat and th
From: THURNER rupert
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Sat, February 26, 2011 7:48:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy?
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 23:58, Birgitte SB wrote:
>
> From:
On 27 February 2011 14:58, Teofilo wrote:
> Creative Commons is shark-friendly. GFDL is small-fish-friendly. This
> is why they don't have the same spirit.
As I noted, the author of the GFDL says you're wrong on this one.
Are you seriously asserting that Richard Stallman doesn't know what
the
On 27 February 2011 14:53, Teofilo wrote:
> The Upload wizard distorts competition in favour of Creative Commons,
> for the purpose of creating a monopoly (0).
Your proposal falls at this assertion.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@l
Upload wizard: the different attribution mechanisms and spirits of
GFDL and Creative Commons
Two small words make a big difference in the attribution mechanism of
CC-BY-SA : "if supplied" in
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode 4(c).
Put together with "designate another party o
What is a guru license, and what is a non-guru license?
A guru license is a license where a guru can change the terms of the
license according to his whims.
You can recognise the existense of a guru to the presence of the
following lines :
CC-BY-SA 3.0 : "either this or a later license version".
The Upload wizard distorts competition in favour of Creative Commons,
for the purpose of creating a monopoly (0).
Instead, it would be safer that for every file licensed under a
Creative Commons license, one licenses one other file under GFDL and
another file under "Art libre", "open
source music
> From: David Gerard
> Date: Søn, 27. feb 2011 15:11
> Subj: Re: [Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy?
> I've asked a couple of times now:
>
> 1. What is the threat model?
> 2. The identification currently accepted is comically easy to forge.
> What is a reasonable level of ver
On 27 February 2011 13:57, wrote:
> There are very legitimate and valid concerns regarding privacy and
> responsible conduct for both the Foundation and the community, and I
> always welcome a further inquiry into the needs, requirements, and
> possible shortcomings of the idenfication and priva
> From: Pedro Sanchez
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> >> Expanding the identification policy without a thorough grounding
> risks
> >> it turning into worse security theatre - a completely lost
> purpose.[1]
> >
> >
> > [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/le/lost_purposes/ - a great blog
23 matches
Mail list logo
