On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 6:45 AM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
I want to ask you something else. It's been suggested several times at
various places that the present resolution is justified as a
compromise to prevent a considerably more repressive form of
censorship.
This implies
On 26 August 2011 08:55, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com wrote:
Are we truly on a slippery slope with 'informative labelling' with neutral
language? Or can this be considered another aspect of curation?
We have a category system. Modulo idiots (the danger of a wiki is that
people can
Hi,
I was wondering if there is any way to officially free Wikipedia
content under PD/CC-0? What procedure should one follow to use that
data on another website with an incompatible license?
Assumptions: we are talking about a single version of the page with
only one or just a few authors, and
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 12:15, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
I was wondering if there is any way to officially free Wikipedia
content under PD/CC-0? What procedure should one follow to use that
data on another website with an incompatible license?
Assumptions: we are talking about a
On 26 August 2011 12:15, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if there is any way to officially free Wikipedia
content under PD/CC-0? What procedure should one follow to use that
data on another website with an incompatible license?
Assumptions: we are talking about a
Til dine oplysninger:
www.wikilovesmonuments.com :-st
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Isn't the official site is http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu? Also, some
chapters have their own.
It's not a commercial event, so I don't think the participants run that .com
site.
My apologies, if I am wrong.
2011/8/26 billy joel billyonl...@hotmail.nl
Til dine oplysninger:
Yes, I understood that.
But I think its kind of stupid that the foundation didn't buy the .com domain
and that it was possible to hijack it...
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sounds a little problematic depending on the details. If the text was
released on Wikipedia first, then the contributors agreed to release
your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. If the all the
authors of the article can identify themselves as the same people who
contributed under the
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:15:48AM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
On 26 August 2011 08:55, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com wrote:
Are we truly on a slippery slope with 'informative labelling' with neutral
language? Or can this be considered another aspect of curation?
We have a
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 01:25:32PM +0530, Bishakha Datta wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 6:45 AM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
I want to ask you something else. It's been suggested several times at
various places that the present resolution is justified as a
compromise to
On 26 August 2011 12:37, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds a little problematic depending on the details. If the text was
released on Wikipedia first, then the contributors agreed to release
your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. If the all the
authors of the article can identify
is not a WMF event. And all of the sites have the country code in the end.
_
*Béria Lima*
http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer
Hi billy,
thanks for your attention. Wiki Loves Monuments is being organized by
several chapters in over 15 countries in Europe. The main page for that is
indeed www.wikilovesmonuments.eu . The Wikimedia Foundation is not involved
in organizing the events, nor is it responsible for its websites -
I don't think the problem will be whether the contributors edited in
accounts associated with their legal identities, I think the problem will be
whether all the editors (or their heirs) are contactable.
Much of the pedia has been written by IP editors. IPs may be edited by
multiple people and by
I think there are definitely some neutral criteria which might be
applicable. And maybe there are some criteria which are harder to neutralize
(yeah, i know - has a different meaning :) )
Take for example nudity. It should be possible to create a category Images
that show a vagina, images that
2011/8/26 Strainu strain...@gmail.com:
Assumptions: we are talking about a single version of the page with
only one or just a few authors, and all authors have accepted to
release the data in the public domain.
As I said before, I am targeting only a very specific subset of pages,
where
If this should succeed I shall work as I do now, in other areas. I
want to add content and keep out spam, not to dispute whether , for
example, the images that show a human penis should include ones
where the anatomical details are blurred, or only the outline visible.
There is no point in
On 26 August 2011 16:06, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
This labeling is proposed to be done on the basis not of the regular
commons categories, but of special ones designed for the purpose; not
on the regular WP editors, but a special committee.
Ooh, *really*. Then this initiative
Hi Asaf,
At this point it is mostly a declaration of intent to cooperate.
Arcanum digitises content under various copyright regimes (some are already
under public domain, some they only digitise without any rights in the work,
for some they receive a fixed duration permission to use), and they
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 09:40:45AM +0800, Waihorace wrote:
Dear all,
?
Are the Wikimania 2011 video on YouTube aviliable on Wikimedia Commons? Where
is the link? Thanks.
?
HW@zhwp
So far we have:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_of_Wikimania_in_Haifa
and
[sorry for cross-posting]
I wanted to remind you all that the deadline of the European
consultation on Open Access and Open Data is September 9th.
Here's the link:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/scientific_information/consultation_en.htm
and here's the survey on Meta:
Hi Jimmy,
There are several side effects to the idea of not allowing chapters at all
to fundraise (I note that boardmembers and staff members have a different
take on this, so I'll keep it general - keeping in mind there are many other
aspects to be considered, such as transparancy. However, imho
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Jimmy,
There are several side effects to the idea of not allowing chapters at all
to fundraise (I note that boardmembers and staff members have a different
take on this, so I'll keep it general - keeping in mind
Always nice to see fellow Wikipedians featured in major news media :)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/minutes-after-virginia-earthquake-it-was-on-wikipedia/2011/08/24/gIQAQqQMcJ_story.html
(And I'm from DC and Indianapolis, so, even better!)
--
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for
25 matches
Mail list logo
