Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF

hi Theo, Actually, no. The board and WMF both have a legal existence and basis. FDC > as a committee, albeit a board mandated one sits on the same or equal > footing as Langcom or Comcom, slightly above OMGcom, as far as I'm > concerned. It has little to no real world existence. Second, the WMF b

[Wikimedia-l] Is the capability to delete usernames compatible with the CCBYSA license?

Hi, Someone brought up an interesting issue: is it moral for the vandals to be credited as contributors to articles (especially when exporting the article as pdf)? After experimenting a little, it turns out that deleting the usernames from the history removes them from the contributor list. While

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the capability to delete usernames compatible with the CCBYSA license?

Answer to the first question is very simple - C is derived from A, not vandalized B revision. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Strainu wrote: > Hi, > > Someone brought up an interesting issue: is it moral for the vandals > to be credited as contributors to articles (especially when exporting >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the capability to delete usernames compatible with the CCBYSA license?

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Strainu wrote: > > While morality is a subjective matter, a more interesting question is: > is this behavior compatible with the CCBYSA license? Say we have > version A of a text, vandalised in version B and reverted in revision > C. Then version C is a work deri

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the capability to delete usernames compatible with the CCBYSA license?

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Strainu wrote: > Hi, > > Someone brought up an interesting issue: is it moral for the vandals > to be credited as contributors to articles (especially when exporting > the article as pdf)? After experimenting a little, it turns out that > deleting the usernames f

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the capability to delete usernames compatible with the CCBYSA license?

2013/10/23 Marco Chiesa : > Actually, following the same philosophy, one should wonder whether the > person reverting from version B to version C should be kept in the > contributor's list. At the end of the day, version C is an exact copy of > version A (i.e. no creative input of editor C), and ve

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the capability to delete usernames compatible with the CCBYSA license?

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Strainu wrote: > > Same argument in > > different wording: None of the creativity that goes into the vandalizing > > from version A to version B is present in version C. Thus, version C does > > not fall under the copyright of the vandal. Which means that there

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the capability to delete usernames compatible with the CCBYSA license?

Andre Engels, 23/10/2013 11:10: On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Strainu wrote: If we go this way, then none of the authors who added legitimate content in the past but had it deleted later should be credited. We would need a tool like "git blame" [1] to generate the author list. Not neces

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the capability to delete usernames compatible with the CCBYSA license?

On 10/23/13 11:10 AM, Andre Engels wrote: On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Strainu wrote: Same argument in different wording: None of the creativity that goes into the vandalizing from version A to version B is present in version C. Thus, version C does not fall under the copyright of the va

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Wikimania Committee Formed

No, it's correct. James personally wanted me to represent WM2012. Best, *~Orsolya* 2013/10/23 MZMcBride > Ellie Young wrote: > > • Orsolya Virág Gyenes (representing WM 2012) > > • James Hare > > I think your label may be switched here? > > MZMcBride > > > > __

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Wikimania Committee Formed

Congratulations to those involved in kicking off this committee. Though we should probably avoid setting up too many committees I know this part of the Wikimedia movement's decision making and learning process has been talked about for quite some time and I'm sure that the WM 2014 UK team will appr

Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF

On 10/23/13 2:08 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: Theo10011, 23/10/2013 00:21: I'm quite surprised to constantly read FDC is somehow representative of the larger community and accountable to them. Almost all the current members were part of chapter leadership and have been quite active within th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF

Dear Dariusz, thank you for your interesting answer, I learned a lot from it. I can imagine that some things will look different when the movement is a little older, with more former board members who would like to serve in the FDC. Kind regards Ziko Am Mittwoch, 23. Oktober 2013 schrieb Dariu

Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF

Delirium, 23/10/2013 13:33: From my perspective as someone not really involved in either the WMF or chapters (or other committees), but just an editor and a community member, I tend to see the WMF as "special" Note that I wasn't saying it isn't "special" in some way, I was just saying that *t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Wikimania Committee Formed

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013, Sarah Stierch wrote: > Orsolya was Deputy Program Chair for WM 2012. > > And James was the lead for WLM 2012. > James was the lead for Wiki Loves Monument too? > > So it's correct no matter what :) > -Theo ___ Wikimedia-l maili

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

On 10/21/2013 08:13 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > On a typical site, paid staff would deal with problematic users. The obvious, and perhaps a bit trite, answer would be that we are most certainly not a typical site by any meaning of the term. :-) Seriously, however, I can understand why some current ho

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

Although I personally didn't consider identifying to be onerous, I've never thought the entire identification requirement and process were necessary, since nothing is ever done with the identification data. Can anyone think of a situation that would have been handled differently if the proposed po

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

On 10/23/2013 07:01 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote: > (I myself can > think of one and only one, but am curious if there are others.) I can also think of exactly one off the cuff (and it is almost certainly the same); but I can think of a couple of scenarios where the dissuasive effect alone might have mad

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

On 24 October 2013 00:07, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > On 10/23/2013 07:01 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote: >> (I myself can >> think of one and only one, but am curious if there are others.) > I can also think of exactly one off the cuff (and it is almost certainly > the same); but I can think of a couple

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

Speaking for myself, I have no problems with the overall idea, and I doubt that a lot of the others who have signed the petition do either. The problem is in the details of how it is implemented, and that appropriate safeguards are not written into place to protect the privacy and legal rights

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

Going back to the 2011 discussions on otrs lists, a flag was raised that challenged whether the WMF had sufficiently secure servers to host copies of ID documents that might be electronically submitted, including sufficient firewalling and/or airgapping, internal access controls, etc. My impressio

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

Hi All, I wanted to let you know that I have posted a responseto the recent feedback we have received and very much look forward to hearing your thoughts on the id

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

As far as " The physical handling is relatively easy to ensure is proper", well... Considering that some of our less sane problematic users have, if I'm remembering correctly, shown up at the WMF office itself and would have loved to get their hands on the real-life documents of our advanced-privil

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

Fluff- When crazies go crazy > about Wikipedia, they go *very *crazy, and breaking a padlock in an office > isn't that outlandish for some of them. It will not happen without staff being fully aware, and an intruder knowing which cabinet to break into without significant effort is extremely unli

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

I can think of three times that people with access to private information misled the community about their identity and it would have been better if there were records showing who they were. Being able to audit the records for false documentation would have been useful in two and probably would

[Wikimedia-l] Generation Wikipedia: Summer Youth Conference Proposal

Hi folks! For the next round of Individual Engagement Grants from the WMF, Keilana and myself are proposing ''Generation Wikipedia'', a pilot, week-long summer conference for young Wikipedians and Wikimedians from around the globe, to develop skills, leadership, and community in a safe environment.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

Marc A. Pelletier wrote: >Seriously, however, I can understand why some current holders of rights >might have reservations about a policy that tightens greatly how private >information is handled and how much vetting is done on who does the >handling; but that tightening does very much need to take

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

MZMcBride, 24/10/2013 05:47: Marc A. Pelletier wrote: Seriously, however, I can understand why some current holders of rights might have reservations about a policy that tightens greatly how private information is handled and how much vetting is done on who does the handling; but that tightening