Re: [Foundation-l] 31 august, 20 years of our national holiday "Our romanian language" in Moldova, mo.wikipedia still in cyrillic !

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Andrew Turvey wrote: > - The iso code for Romanian/Moldavian is ro. "mo", which was the ISO code for > Moldavian in the Cyrillic script is now deprecated. There is no ISO code for > Cyrillic script Moldavian. ISO 639 codes are about languages, not scripts. The c

Re: [Foundation-l] Growth vs. maintenance

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:51 AM, wrote: > How about this one.  Every arrest (read block for 24 hours or longer) must be > approved by an "Admin Supervisor" (let's just call it for now).  That Admin > Supervisor, must use a Real Name and be Verified. > > That by itself, would greatly cut down on

Re: [Foundation-l] Growth vs. maintenance

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 8:33 PM, wrote: > In a message dated 11/7/2009 10:56:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, > andreeng...@gmail.com writes: > > >> We tried that on nl: (although with 1 week rather than 24 hours >> minimum). The effect of this is that _each and every block_ will get >> the whole wiki

Re: [Foundation-l] Growth vs. maintenance

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:05 AM, David Goodman wrote: > We need, as does every voluntary society, the involvement of many > ordinary members in  each aspect of the government of the society.  We > need, thus, the influence of community opinion--expressed opinion, > expressed without fear of reject

[Foundation-l] Banners

It's interesting that this list has been effectively closed just before it would be getting a true storm of protest... But on the off-chance that it's actually nobody writing here rather than nobody being there to get the messages through: Why o why these ugly, YELLING, unclear banners? At many pl

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:37 PM, George Herbert wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Jake Wartenberg > wrote: >> I am not talking about "pedophilia activism", but instances where the >> individual in question is not disruptively editing. > > There are a wide variety of reasons to permanentl

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia and Environment

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Teofilo wrote: > How about moving the servers (5) from Florida to a cold country > (Alaska, Canada, Finland, Russia) so that they can be used to heat > offices or homes ? It might not be unrealistic as one may read such > things as "the solution was to provide nea

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > We've advertised third party for-profits in the past with prominent > matched donations notices before (albeit controversially). This isn't > that different. As you say, that one was controversial and this one isn't that different. Then it s

Re: [Foundation-l] commercial use of wikipedia content

On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Istvan Soos wrote: > For the sake of example we would like to automatically convert the > page content to a different text and different format (e.g. > automatically create text extracts and compile it into a pdf document) > and sell it as part of a subscription

Re: [Foundation-l] (no subject)

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:23 AM, C F wrote: > With 2 personal phone numbers? Nevermind it seems that one of them has > the wrong area code (although I might be wrong), which suggests that > the phone numbers were the only things intended for that email. Those are probably just their standard signa

Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Erik Zachte wrote: > Today I released 4 new reports, which all focus on: > > Where do our readers come from? > > > >   http://tinyurl.com/yhdej3j Going through the countries, another remarkable result in my opinion is the Ukraine - Ukra

Re: [Foundation-l] Where do our readers come from?

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > Ziko van Dijk wrote: >> Thank you for the numbers, Erik! >> I wonder why 40 % of the visitors of ksh.WP (the dialect of Cologne) are >> from Japan. And why 25 % of the visitors of eu.WP (Basque) are from Poland? > > Bots? I think that's a

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy on CNN

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2010/1/19 Domas Mituzas : >> Hello dear people, >> >> there's something very very very special about the video at >> http://cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2010/01/19/ctw.connector.jimmy.wales.cnn >> You can definitely see that organization just

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] Please HELP save Wikipedia history ! (urgent)

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Chad wrote: > While I don't agree that we need to take this away from the community > and hand it to a team of lawyers, I must say that the "practical training" > caught my eye. > > Would it be possible for the Foundation to get Mike--and other people > who actua

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:36 AM, The Cunctator wrote: > No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A "free" > license is a copyright license. So? What does that have to do with the post you are quoting, or anything else in this thread? > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:11 PM,

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Przykuta wrote: >> > Or just use common sense that it's silly for a Wikimedia project to say >> > it's >> > not allowed to use a logo own by Wikimedia Foundation >> >> It is not "common sense" to depend on the relationship between the >> project and the hosti

Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Mike Godwin wrote: > It's crazy. sv.wiki still has "unfree" logo on every page :) >> It is "unfree" to protect wiki identity. >> > > This is exactly right.  If we had no copyright or trademark restrictions on > the Wikimedia logos and marks, it would be trivial fo

Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:19 PM, James Alexander wrote: > I would say claiming copyright on a map is legitimate but I think the big > issue here is the geotag's themselves (i.e the locations) since so many > people use google maps or another tool to find the geo location. The > locations themselv

Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:28 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: > Guys, > Lets get back to one point : terms of service. > > We are talking about copyright here the whole time, but the contract > agreement in the terms of service are much more binding, they override > your copyright. > > If

Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > It wasn't a response -- I hadn't read your comment yet.  But when I did see > your comment, I thought it missed the point that Fox was always going to > congratulate itself on its story, regardless of what we did or didn't do in > response. I'v

Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Andre Engels wrote: >> >> So instead we just give in to them? We get attacked and decide to just >> sit up like a good dog? > > No one is acting "like a good dog." Bad meta

Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Alec Conroy wrote: > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: >> >> I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do >> things from the "Founder" flag. > > I appreciate this step, but the community has now firmly rejected your > continued s

Re: [Foundation-l] Statement on appropriate educational content

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 7:09 AM, K. Peachey wrote: > Bugzilla 982[1]  MediaWiki should support ICRA's PICS content labeling. > From my understanding without reading much about it, It [ICRA] is ment > to be a "international" or at least a standard for these things which > most people seem to abide

Re: [Foundation-l] Commons:Sexual content

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote: > Okay, I've complained a lot, time to give something back. > > I think I've managed to create a sexual content policy that's > consistent with the core values of commons and previous decisions, > such as the artworks of Muhammed,  while dealing

Re: [Foundation-l] Commons:Sexual content

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Kim Bruning wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:23:28AM +0200, Andre Engels wrote: >> Being educational should be just another word for being in scope, and >> in scope are, in my opinion, in the first place those files that are >> usable for

Re: [Foundation-l] Commons:Sexual content

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Noein wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 10/05/2010 05:51, Andre Engels wrote: >> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Kim Bruning wrote: >>> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:23:28AM +0200, Andre Engels wrote: >&

Re: [Foundation-l] Another board member statement

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:05 AM, stevertigo wrote: > Kat Walsh wrote: >> "Commons should not be a host for media that has very >> little informational or educational value > > This is too broad. Confine the scope toward dealing with what does not > belong, rather than trying to suggest that every

Re: [Foundation-l] Another board member statement

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:13 AM, stevertigo wrote: > Stephen Bain wrote: >>It is not too broad; Commons has always distinguished itself in this >>way from general purpose photo/media hosting services like Flickr or >>YouTube. > > Andre Engels wrote: >> I disag

Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > When you look where what languages have their biggest audience, you will be > surprised. The notion of most likely languages is either based on such > statistics or it is only guess work. The best performance is when people can > cho

Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: >> Is that possible without putting WMF lawyers in a tight spot? > > Sometimes. Sometimes not. (The issue is not so much putting lawyers in a > tight spot as it is one of making WMF more vulnerable, e.g., by revealing > defense strategies.) Sure

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: change of registered TMs in Persian wikipedia

I think that we cannot decide this for you, this is typically something you (that is, the Persian Wikipedia community) have to decide themselves. Having said that, the best strategy in my opinion would be to do whatever is usual in Persian texts - which might well be different for different tradema

Re: [Foundation-l] encouraging women's participation

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Aphaia wrote: > One thing we can do would be to make contributors' names more visible. > Translators for WMF stuff too (Ting Chen made a good point about the > latter in Alexandria). Many websites gives clear credits to > contributors - not only for-profit media, b

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Samuel Klein wrote: > I love those proofreading features, and the new default layout for a > book's pages and TOC.  Wikisource is becoming AWESOME. > > Do we have PGDP contributors who can weigh on on how similar the > processes are?  Is there a way for us to actua

Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against "copyleft"

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Jeffrey Peters <17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote: > Thank you for clarifying. I put forth another email based on the expectation > of the point you just made (so, thus, I am sorry for assuming you were > speaking against the law and not in support of the licens

Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against "copyleft"

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:17 PM, wrote: > When I go to YouTube, the number of videos which are some bad amateur > singer trying to sing some good song far outweigh the number of original > videos > of that song/group.  The amount of free content in music, in general is > rapidly approaching or

Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters <17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote: > Austin, > > Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity. Gerard's > call for political activism against that organization is completely > unacceptable and harms projects like my own that

Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Austin Hair wrote: > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Andre Engels wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters >> <17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote: >>> Austin, >>> >>> Maybe you didn't realiz

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Samuel J Klein wrote: > < PGDP has a very strict and arduous workflow...  The >> result is quality, however only the text is sent downstream. > > Why not send images and text downstream? Because PGDP produces for Project Gutenberg, which publishes text and html

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > Good question! ;-) > Storage is one issue. > It would be interesting to estimate the storage requirements of > Wikisource if we had produced the PGDP etexts. I think it is the main reason; however, a back-of-the-envelope calculation (20.0

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Muhammad Yahia wrote: >> Acehnese Wikipedia is ready to boycott Wikipedia if there is fatwa from >> competent ulama. > > > In addition to trying to have a dialog with them and explain NPOV and the > rest of the pillars, I think someone should explain that the money

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:25 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 16 July 2010 17:58, Excirial wrote: > >> If a culture sees these images as highly offensive, and if the main >> complement of editors / readers agrees with this i wouldn't object to such a >> rule, as long as it remained in their local Wik

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:14 PM, David Gerard wrote: > That there is ambiguity at the edges does not disprove NPOV. Day fades > into night, but they're different things. This template is blatant > advocacy to violate NPOV, and indeed to do so across all Wikimedia > sites. They had it up on the ma

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote: >> So? Is every single rule on Wikipedia completely determined by NPOV? > > As to the best of my understanding > Each and every single rule on Wikipedia is completely determined by > WP:5P (and NPOV is one of them) in sense that no rule may con

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Bod Notbod wrote: > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Andre Engels wrote: > >>> As to the best of my understanding >>> Each and every single rule on Wikipedia is completely determined by >>> WP:5P (and NPOV is one of them) in

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Mark Williamson wrote: > Andre, I personally don't have a problem with the mere existence of > the template. I have a huge problem with it appearing at the top of > the mainpage of a Wikipedia. And the reason for telling this to me is what? -- André Engels, an

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:13 AM, emijrp wrote: > Also, reading the Privacy Policy[10] of the Wikimedia Foundation, you can > see: > > User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User > contributions are aggregated according to their registration and login > status. Data on user

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > The backlash had the potential of stopping all new Wikipedias in any > language. To prevent this from happening, the language committee and its > policy were created. This policy was accepted by the board of trustees. With > the flow of ne

Re: [Foundation-l] Increasing the number of new accounts who actually edit

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Lennart Guldbrandsson wrote: > Did you know that less than a third of the users who create an account on > English Wikipedia make even *one* edit afterwards? Two-thirds of all new > accounts never edit! Interestingly, this percentage vary very much from > language

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising banner on the french wikipedia

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's this defeatist attitude that has made being bold go out of style. > Screw the bureaucracy, I say. Shred the rulebooks (or at least > delete practically everything from the project namespace) and > do what is right rather than

Re: [Foundation-l] Signal languages Wikimedia projects

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Marcus Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chad hett schreven: >> However, we do have a policy (for better or worse) that currently states >> that: >> "The proposal has a sufficient number of living native speakers to form a >> viable >> community and audience." [1] >

Re: [Foundation-l] Signal languages Wikimedia projects

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The same arguments that apply to people who speak languages like Yoruba and > Sango apply to any of the sign languages.. People who are deaf and sign are > better served when equal information is available in their sign

Re: [Foundation-l] Signal languages Wikimedia projects

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Marcus Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andre Engels hett schreven: >>> nd this configuration does make sense, in my opinion. If we >>> have a hypothetical language with one million oral speakers, but only a >>> handful of pe

Re: [Foundation-l] Language codes to rename

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:56 AM, Finn Rindahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I thought there already *was* a redirect set up, so that no in > interwikis etc really is a redirect to nb. There is a redirect set up, but it goes in exactly the opposite direction. -- André Engels, [EMAIL PROTECT

Re: [Foundation-l] Don't know how linked we still are with wikia...

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Brock Weller wrote: > I don't care if its up or down, i was just wondering if we're still > connected to wikia in anyway (ie it reflect badly on us). If we're not, as > it seems by your response, then I really don't care too much :) There's no official connection

Re: [Foundation-l] What to do with moribund languages?

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 6:53 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > I realized that at Requests for new languages [1] we have a number of > proposals for projects in moribund languages [2]. In brief, when > roughly less than 1000 dominantly older persons speak one language, > this language will be dead when tho

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraiser update

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > Calling it "a 23-people organization" suggests a growing chasm between > the volunteers and the hired hands. Well, I do indeed feel that chasm too, although perhaps it's more a case of a felt distance between the foundation and the projects.

Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Michael Snow wrote: > I deal with this regularly in a professional capacity, this is what > stock photography firms are built on, and I can assure you that there is > no adequate freely licensed stock photography resource in the world. > Commons is the best there

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Dan Rosenthal wrote: > As to your arguments that having a NY chapter obviates the need for other > subnational US chapters, I disagree. There are plenty of reasons why a > person outside of NY would want to become a member of a US subnational > chapter other than

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Ting Chen wrote: > As far as I know, there are already two organizations in the > Netherlands, why would you want to create an Amsterdam chapter and what > is the beneficial of it? Or is the question just theoretical? Well, there are two organizations, but one o

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote: > Two answers to this question: > 1) WMNYC does prevent the creation of a separate WMUSA chapter. At the > moment the rule-of-thumb is that chapters cannot overlap. However, it > may be possible in the future if both groups agree to share s

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Andre Engels wrote: >> Well, one benefit would be that it avoids strange definitions of >> chapter boundaries. Suppose that we have a Los Angeles chapter and a >> Monterey County cha

Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Andrew Gray wrote: > 2009/1/23 Nikola Smolenski : >> Article length was 82028 bytes, and length of contributors' names is 650 >> bytes >> (or 0.8% of the article's length). If that would be printed in an >> encyclopedic format, the article would take some more th

Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

One thing that has not been brought forward yet in this discussion, and which I think is important, is that 'author' does not equate 'editor'. It seems many here do go from that assumption in trying to get the authors of an article. Suppose, an article has the following edit history: A starts the

Re: [Foundation-l] The reality of printing a poster

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > The Zwijntje picture is actually one that is rather special. I use it as an > avatar on many of my profiles. When people abuse this picture, it may hurt > me. There is another aspect as well, I am not arguing about attribution to > t

Re: [Foundation-l] The reality of printing a poster

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Huib Laurens wrote: > I don't really think that would be enough.. I am not sure but the > poster and the license need to stay together.. If the attribution is > on a paper with the poster the license and author can get lost... There is nothing that says that the l

Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility atwikinews[en]

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Phil Nash wrote: > Sorry, my experience is different; there are some editors whose behavioural > problems go on, and on, and on, yet are tolerated, because they contribute > "good content". But the overhead to others drains volunteer resources. I can raise you on

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > There is this "rule"; ignore all rules. There is a point to it. Particularly > in situations where an injustice is likely to happen, the blind following of > rules can be quite inhuman and at best an excuse for not thinking through >

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Andre Engels wrote: > As I have written before, I disagree with "Ignore All Rules" because > there are some rules that should NOT be ignored. Ignore all rules is a > good rule when applied to rules about what the lay-out of Wikipedia > pages

Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Revisions, Report on german WP

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 6:33 PM, geni wrote: > 2009/2/15 P. Birken : >> Hiho, >> >> there have been some significant developments on de-WP, which I would >> like to share with this list. >> >> On February, 4th, all articles of the german WP had at least one >> sighted revision. Since then, only pa

Re: [Foundation-l] Free edition of Norways national encyklopedia Store Norske Leksikon

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:17 AM, John at Darkstar wrote: > The release has been given a lot of press coverage, and some comparisons > between the encyclopedias has been done. Two of them, in Dagbladet[1] > and Dagsavisen[2], has concluded that Wikipedia is best. According to > Aftenposten the new

Re: [Foundation-l] Free edition of Norways national encyklopedia Store Norske Leksikon

Free as in beer, of course, but still, that's the main part of what's our mission, our at least what I see as our mission: As I see it, our mission is to ensure that the _knowledge and information_ are _available_ to everyone. For that, free as in beer is the important step. On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 a

Re: [Foundation-l] Free edition of Norways national encyklopedia Store Norske Leksikon

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:01 AM, John at Darkstar wrote: > I've been wondering if we could identify different users somehow, what > kind of role they had in writing of the article - especially who did the > research and who did the writing, and what kind of trust (reputation) > they have. > > The

Re: [Foundation-l] Free edition of Norways national encyklopedia Store Norske Leksikon

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > What would you achieve by doing that and, what would it mean for our down > stream users ? In my opinion this is not where we want to go at all. What it would achieve is that the reader has more of an idea who wrote what he is read

Re: [Foundation-l] Cabal?

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Chris Down wrote: > Can anyone shed some light on whether this is even feasible? I really don't > see how it could possibly be construed as being such. It would be great if it were feasible, but the thing as it stands is ludicrous. As others have already mentioned

Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 1:59 AM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/3/16 Michael Snow : >> Anthony wrote: > >>> For offline copies, that would likewise be no attribution at all. > >> Can we please drop the nonsense that a URL is "no attribution at all" in >> an offline context? I've made this point before

Re: [Foundation-l] Compulsory policies for all Wikipedias

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Jaska Zedlik wrote: > Thank you, but not obligatory a list. I meant any form, even a number > of rules written on this mailing list. Otherwise we (may) have a > situation when, for instance, a user puts some inflammatory or > divisive content on their user page and

Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding biographies of living people)

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Anthony wrote: > Here's the NPPA Code of ethics: > >   1. Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects. >   2. Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities. >   3. Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording >   sub

Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement on Wikimedia trademarks

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Michael Snow wrote: > Because of this, we ask the Wikimedia staff to take appropriate steps to > register and protect the Wikimedia marks, develop a set of policies and > practices, and develop a strategy to allow uses by the chapters and > community for activitie

Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

My opinion on this is clear: Commons should welcome both photographs and pictures. Whether a project shows a picture or a photograph should be the project's decision, not that of Commons. Some may prefer one, others the other. Sexuality is in scope on Wikimedia projects, so its images are in scope

Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with human translations of Wikipedia articles

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Brian wrote: > In the absence of a specific argument against my argument, my argument holds > - Google imports the data into their own service and there is no > contradiction. > > Suppose however that my argument did not hold - that when Google download's > data to

Re: [Foundation-l] Issues about Copyright

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 5:38 AM, Jimmy Xu wrote: > Hello all, >  These days at the Village Pump of zhwiki, many wikipedians are > arguing about whether Wikimedia project should apply to the US > Copyright Law that is where the servers were placed, or the local > ones, for us, that is the P.R. of Ch

Re: [Foundation-l] Issues about Copyright

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Jimmy Xu wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:28 AM, teun spaans wrote: >> IANAL, but I suppose three things must be considered: >> - US law, where the servers are based >> - the country where a work originates >> - the country to which the wikipedian belongs. > > T

Re: [Foundation-l] Meadow Mari Wikipedia

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > First, I want to thank to Tim who created the project [1] today. > Tomorrow is the main cultural event for Meadow Maris and they will > have Wikipedia for that day. Because of that, I asked the Board and > WMF tech staff to create the project mo

Re: [Foundation-l] Meadow Mari Wikipedia

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Andre Engels wrote: >> I don't want to spoil the fun, but I still get a "Wiki does not exist" >> message on that URL. > > Ah, bad Tim. He opened it just for me ;) I thi

Re: [Foundation-l] New projects opened

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > Yesterday, new projects were opened: > > * Sorani Wikipedia (http://ckb.wikipedia.org/) > * Western Panjabi Wikipedia (http://pnb.wikipedia.org/) > * Mirandese Wikipedia (http://mwl.wikipedia.org/) > * Acehnese Wikipedia (http://ace.wikipedia.

Re: [Foundation-l] New projects opened

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Lars Aronsson wrote: > Of these 270 languages of Wikipedia, only 41 have more than 50,000 > articles and only 69 had more than 1 million page views in July of > 2009.  The 69th most used Wikipedia is Swahili. This East African > language has 50 million speakers, wh

Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright terms, again

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > My precise question is: Does US law follow local copyright laws in > relation to the works published locally and by authors with local > citizenship? Or not? No, many countries apply the 'law of shorter term' (that is, works from other count

Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 6:26 AM, wrote: > In a message dated 11/28/2010 9:06:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, > russnel...@gmail.com writes: > > Yes I agree, the policy is extremely vague. > We may be struck by lightning, we may be abducted by aliens, we may be > sentient beings. > May doesn't say an

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM, David Gerard wrote: > Yes, raw data is a primary source and therefore likely unsuitable for en:wp. > > The raw data is, however, US government public domain and therefore > suitable for Wikisource as an important historical text (which it is). > Possibly when the

Re: [Foundation-l] retire the administrator privilege

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > Are there any checkusers that aren't admins already? Checkuser is an > extra tool given to admins, not a tool given out independantly of > other tools. On Dutch Wikipedia we currently have 5 checkusers, only 2 of which are admins. The other

Re: [Foundation-l] [Announce] Brion Vibber to rejoin Wikimedia Foundation

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Lodewijk wrote: > Mi ne havas kontraŭstaron pri Esperanto en ĉi tiu specifa temo. Bedaŭrinde > mankas Google traduki en ĉi tiu lingvo! Machine translation from Esperanto to English or Hungarian is possible at http://traduku.net -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail

Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:35 PM, FT2 wrote: > During the strategy taskforce, the quality team came to two conclusions that > are similar to some ideas in this thread, but avoid the issues mentioned. [snip] First, let me apologize beforehand for sounding too cynical, but I have many years of ex

Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart

I may sound negative, as said, I know much has been tried, and little succeeded. I do really hope this does work, and am well willing to think along to try to make it that way. In fact, it is not that far from ideas that I have developed myself or with other users on IRC as well - although I was pu

Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > That's precisely the problem. Being able to remove the right to edit BLPs > from a user, irrespective of whether they have been uncivil etc., just > based on the nature of their edits, is the only thing that will solve it. > > Knowing that t

Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > I can see where this ends: biased editors in control; no discussion, no > appeal, disagree and you're history. That is indeed a risk. There seems to be no way out. Either you treat trolls as deccent editors, or you treat decent editors as tr

Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed

Lowering the edit counts sounds good, it does however also have a downside, in that it makes it easier to vote using sockpuppets or meatpuppets. I agree with voices speaking out against giving voting rights based on donations; I do also think giving people voting rights based only on being 'reader

[Foundation-l] wiki for interwiki (was: Foundation too passive)

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Ashar Voultoiz wrote: > You do have the power! The world as immensely changed in the last few > years thanks to the internet.  Internet is just about connecting people > and every little step is a change.  Get an idea, get community members > sharing it then you c

Re: [Foundation-l] Turn the things the other way around "Baidu Baike copies content from Wikipedia without attribution"

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Joan Goma wrote: > As Ray saids legal prosecution to claim for formal accomplishing of the > copyright terms is expensive and difficult. But the same happens the other > way around. > > I would like to have a clear legal opinion about applying the terms without > g

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Thomas Morton wrote: > In a number of years things may change, and ultimately the photo will > definitely be out of copyright wherever and whenever published though the > simple passing of time :) If the US keeps its speed of extending copyright by 20 years in 22

Re: [Foundation-l] 1.3 billion of humans don't have Wikipedia in their native language

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > Those are preliminary results. We have two chapters (and strategic > focus) in countries of the list above. Inside of the longer list, which > should be verified, we have more chapters. I noted that there are even > two languages of Germany w

  1   2   >