On 2 March 2014 02:01, Mark wrote:
> I personally would welcome more attention to our actual mission, producing
> free content, rather than the mission some of our members seem to be engaged
> in, "making the *.wikipedia.org sites look nice in the short term, even if
> nobody external can reuse t
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#What_to_ask_to_disclose:_paid_contributions_or_COI.3F
Please participate in this discussion and help produce a well-readable
revision, if such change is necessary. Thanks!
_
On 2 March 2014 08:55, David Gerard wrote:
> On 2 March 2014 02:01, Mark wrote:
>
> > I personally would welcome more attention to our actual mission,
> producing
> > free content, rather than the mission some of our members seem to be
> engaged
> > in, "making the *.wikipedia.org sites look nic
On Sun, 2 Mar 2014, geni wrote:
On 2 March 2014 08:55, David Gerard wrote:
On 2 March 2014 02:01, Mark wrote:
> I personally would welcome more attention to our actual mission,
producing
> free content, rather than the mission some of our members seem to be
engaged
> in, "making the *.wikip
On 2 March 2014 16:31, Chris McKenna wrote:
> These days I wouldn't dare upload an image that was not either my own work
> or public doman due to life+100 because I couldn't guarantee that it wont be
> delted. Even with my own work I'm wary because of recent cases of amateur
> lawyering over the
Omg, I totally missed this thread when it started originally.
As Wikimedia Deutschland has an extensive history in individual grantmaking
and is currently running more than a dozen programs, please allow me to add
a link to our overview-page in the German Wikipedia:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/
On 3/2/14, 5:31 PM, Chris McKenna wrote:
There seems to be a disconnect between what Commons sees as it's
mission: To be a repository of Free media; and what other projects see
as Commons' mission: To be a repository of media for use on Wikimedia
projects.
But since the other Wikimedia projects
> One possible approach is certainly to choose a "representative" country
per language, and define freeness as only free in that country
specifically. So en.wiki's ambition is to be free only for Americans.
Perhaps es.wiki's goal will be to be free for Spaniards, and/or
Argentinians. de.wiki will b
On 2 March 2014 16:56, Mark wrote:
> On 3/2/14, 5:31 PM, Chris McKenna wrote:
>> There is a further disconnect in that Commons is taking an increasingly
>> ultra-conservative approach to the definition of "Free", whereas most other
>> projects are working to a definition of "Free for all practica
On Sun, 2 Mar 2014, Mark wrote:
On 3/2/14, 5:31 PM, Chris McKenna wrote:
There seems to be a disconnect between what Commons sees as it's
mission: To be a repository of Free media; and what other projects see
as Commons' mission: To be a repository of media for use on Wikimedia
projects.
But
On 2 March 2014 20:50, Chris McKenna wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2014, Mark wrote:
>
> On 3/2/14, 5:31 PM, Chris McKenna wrote:
>>
>>> There seems to be a disconnect between what Commons sees as it's
>>> mission: To be a repository of Free media; and what other projects see as
>>> Commons' mission: T
On 2 March 2014 13:51, geni wrote:
> Its a pretty accurate description. What do you think the law says?
It's possible, if you want people and organisations to stop their
moves against you, that snideness and word play may not serve to
convince them that you have any evidenced interest in workin
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Chris McKenna wrote:
>
> You've missed the point. Commons is not at present a reliable source of
> media, Free or otherwise, because media gets deleted because once someone
> alleges that it is not free it gets deleted if the original uploader cannot
> prove it is f
On 2 March 2014 16:35, David Gerard wrote:
>
> Indeed. The extreme paranoia over images people created themselves
> versus the ridiculously sloppy standards for anything on Flickr (a bot
> can't meaningfully "verify" an image) makes Commons merely seem
> capricious.
>
No the same standards are a
On 02/03/2014 01:26, geni wrote:
On 1 March 2014 23:59, ??? wrote:
On 01/03/2014 23:06, geni wrote:
On 1 March 2014 19:58, ??? wrote:
You have no guarantee that the account that the images were scraped from
held the copyright in the first place, and as such you are unable to pass
that gu
On 2 March 2014 22:20, David Gerard wrote:
> On 2 March 2014 13:51, geni wrote:
>
> > Its a pretty accurate description. What do you think the law says?
>
>
> It's possible, if you want people and organisations to stop their
> moves against you, that snideness and word play may not serve to
> co
On 3/2/14, 6:17 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 2 March 2014 16:56, Mark wrote:
On 3/2/14, 5:31 PM, Chris McKenna wrote:
There is a further disconnect in that Commons is taking an increasingly
ultra-conservative approach to the definition of "Free", whereas most other
projects are working to a defi
Denis: I found it useful, thank you. I believe there is a long
history of this in other chapters as well, such as Wikimedia Polska.
Are other grantmaking overviews published online?
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Cristian Consonni
wrote:
> 2014-03-02 1:36 GMT+01:00 Samuel Klein :
>> +1 to movi
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Nathan wrote:
> Which led to the thought that hey, what we really need is a meta-project
> for hosting images that is *explicitly* intended to serve the other
> projects. We tried this before, right? But maybe this time we make the
> meta-project a technical imple
That would be wonderful. I imagine we would want to tag the images to
indicate their copyright status in certain jurisdictions, and set up a
mechanism so that projects can define which sorts of images they want to be
able to embed in their local pages, and which they do not want (unless a
locally E
20 matches
Mail list logo
