On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 11:32 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> I'm a big fan of the GDPR and why it had to be created. (I'm doing a lot of
> the bureaucratic work on the tech side at the day job and am getting very
> used to thinking of ways something could constitute Personally Identifying
> Information
For the BBC article, see http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39754909
On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Pharos wrote:
> The Wikipedia aspect was highlighted on the BBC and other sites in earlier
> stories, before the other events happened.
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
>
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 1:18 PM,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote:
> 1. The Nepali statistic is simply astonishing! There must be a story
> there. I'm keen on learning more about this, if anyone can shed light.
I looked, and it seems that a large proportion consists of porn
actresses... See the attached sampl
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:48 AM, David Emrany wrote:
> Since the "Mediawiki" trademark was lost to WMF the day you and
> Anthere placed the logo into public domain [1], how can the WMF now
> spin-off this new organization ?.
That's incorrect, putting something in the public domain does not
remov
The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's
new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd
exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it,
as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who
had a negative opinion ab
From the discussion on the creation of Wikimedia I remember that there
definitely was an intention to have members involved in the election
of the board. Apart from the appointed board members, there would be
two community selected members - one chosen by the editing community,
the other by the fin
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 5:33 AM, svetlana wrote:
> MZMcBride wrote:
>> As much as the term is an awful buzzword, Commons could also do with
>> additional gamification, from what I've seen. If we can set up an easy
>> keyword/tagging system, having users help us sort and tag media would be
>> amaz
And where do you see what you are writing here? If you really consider
it bullying to say outside Commons that you think something is wrong
with Commons, then the situation is much worse than I thought it would
be. Your analogy is severely flawed in many places, and only functions
to enrage those w
M, Jane Darnell wrote:
> Wait, are you saying all those pics are going to be deleted then? There
> must be tens of 1000's out there by now
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
>
>> No, they do not. The Dutch title of copyright law considering freedom
No, they do not. The Dutch title of copyright law considering freedom
of panorama:
"Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk als bedoeld in artikel
10, eerste lid, onder 6°, of op een werk, betrekkelijk tot de
bouwkunde als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 8°, dat is
gemaakt om permanen
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Russavia wrote:
> To answer the tractor question first. Of course not, there is nothing
> copyrightable in this image.
I see many copyrightable objects in this image. The tractor. The car.
The logo. The boards with demonstration slogans. The clothes. The
gate. An
o give up their complete financial privacy, I find the first
option the least morally repugnant one.
Andre Engels
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:49 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> Given this news about BGP hijacking used to mine hundreds of thousands
> (if not millions) of dollars worth of bi
an inventing far out
reasons to think why they maybe in some way are not free and thus delete
them?
Andre Engels
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Craig Franklin
wrote:
> Pardon me if this has already been covered, but as I understand it the
> problem is not the legal status of the files in I
Ccml,bv ..
Op 7 apr. 2014 03:35 schreef "Jaime Anstee" het
volgende:
> Greetings,
>
> (Please pardon any cross-posting)
>
> The final in our series of the Evaluation Reports (beta), the report on the
> Wikipedia Education Program, is now available on meta:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Prog
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Which reminds me – I often think it odd that Wikimedia will fund a
> Wikipedian-in-Residence for some regional tourist attraction (think the
> Welsh Coastal Path project, or the York Museum),
>
Wikipedians-in-Residence are not funded by Wi
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Gryllida wrote:
> Thought paid editing is prohibited. It could be nice to find ways to
> enforce that.
>
I don't think it's expressly forbidden, 'frowned upon' would be the words
I'd use. Apart from that, I have a feeling this whole thread is a storm in
less than
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
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
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 8:12 AM, rupert THURNER wrote:
> Am 26.08.2013 18:14 schrieb "Andre Engels" :
>
> > Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article),
> > paragraph 3:
> >
> > "Aanbieders van internettoegangsdie
Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article),
paragraph 3:
"Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven
voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en
toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt."
"Offere
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> The problem is that in some European countries lobbying is in a gray zone
> at the limit of "corruption" and it's not legally recognized.
>
> What is important is to define clearly what people means with "lobbying"
> and may be better to c
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Mathieu Stumpf
wrote:
> One of my favorite wikimedia project is the wiktionary, I probably use
> it everyday and I like to contribute on the french chapter here and
> there.
>
> As I'm learning esperanto, I wanted to improve the french wiktionary on
> this topic.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> On 26/06/2012 2:02 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
>>
>> Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been
>> forced to censor a
>> number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
>>
>
> And thus is the wisdom of eschewing adve
I'll take another route (although probably just as meaningless as most
others). The normal way of generating money over the net is through
advertisements. How much would Wikipedia make in advertisements, would
they use them? Using a conservative price of 0,5 cents per pageview,
and using the data f
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 4 June 2012 13:57, David Gerard wrote:
>> AIUI, weekdays office hours are our peak access period, and Wikipedia
>> generally isn't blocked in offices the way Facebook, etc. often are.
>> This suggests it's good for *something* economically
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Svip wrote:
> On 18 April 2012 10:53, Mike Dupont wrote:
>
>> this just in, scary.
>>
>> Breivik: My Biggest Influence Was Wikipedia
>> http://www.businessinsider.com/norwegian-terrorist-anders-breivik-my-biggest-influence-was-wikipedia-2012-4#ixzz1sN3LZci6
>
>
26 matches
Mail list logo
