On 04/08/2012 00:44, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM, ??? wrote:
On 03/08/2012 16:24, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:14 AM,
wrote:
The proposal was floated by Jimmy Wales on the 10th of december, 1
day after a Creative Commons Board meeting, on which h
Well, if you don't see a problem, please explain how you see the matter.
Who is the advocacy advisory group, and why is it said that they
(a) represent the community's voice and (b) are managed by a Foundation
department?
I presume the underlying idea of the policy is that there should be checks
On 3 August 2012 22:00, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>
Andreas, I'm sorry, but you've been involved in Wikimedia projects for
quite a while now. What in heaven's name would ever give you the idea that
the WMF could possibly get itself organized enough to co-ordinate something
like this with Google?
Andreas makes a really important point below. Now that I read it from his
perspective, it seems like what we're dealing with here is a surreptitious
attempt by the General Counsel to hijack the Wikimedia Foundation and its
projects to serve their covert corporate masters. Obviously the Bilderberg
G
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:12 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Why are there so many various levels and steps if it's not a determination
> about principles and about whether a particular cause meets Wikimedia's
> mission? This is what's confusing me.
>
> People on the talk page at Meta-Wiki have seemed to
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:38 PM, ??? wrote:
> On 03/08/2012 16:24, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:14 AM,
>> wrote:
>>> The proposal was floated by Jimmy Wales on the 10th of december, 1
>>> day after a Creative Commons Board meeting, on which he sits
>>> alongside the mother-i
On 03/08/2012 16:24, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:14 AM,
wrote:
bhar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist.
The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and
directed it into existence, not the Foundation. We merely
Stephen LaPorte wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:07 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> My question, more directly, is: if the SOPA action from January 2012
>> were held in August 2012 (following the implementation of this new statement
>> from the General Counsel's office), would it be considered a "communi
Michael Snow writes:
> Perhaps worth adding, I think it's fair to say that these reviews did
> take place with respect to the use of Wikimedia Foundation resources in
> the context of the January SOPA protest. They didn't necessarily follow
> the form of the current policy, since it didn't exist y
Hi -
Actually, it looks like there are a few places where people can share
their thoughts, etc. about SOPA/Blackoutness:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout
and other things related but not:
https://met
Sarah,
Well, for one I was not aware that there was a "reflection" about the
blackout posted on Meta. A link would be appreciated. Thanks.
Secondly, four or five months ago I would not have been aware of various
events on the timeline that preceded the blackout.
Third, this is an ongoing situati
Could we please get back to the subject here?
That would be discussing the proposed guideline[1] instead of dissecting a
historical event.
I note that there is quite a bit of commentary on the talk page, and
perhaps it would be best if further discussion continues in that central
location.
Risk
How come these concerns weren't brought up months ago when the "reflection"
about the blackout was posted to meta?
It seems that right now Andreas, you are the main opponent of something that
already happened and no one can change.
I'd just post your concerns to meta and stop this talking in ci
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> We do everything in our power to prevent
> the problem, but it would be absolutely cost prohibitive to do it 100%
> with the difference being that fine grained, and this law gives you
> the right to shut us down if we can't hit 100%. We think on
On 3 August 2012 19:12, Michael Snow wrote:
> I agree that the community retains the authority to reach its own decisions
> about future actions of this type. I think the policy should be understood
> primarily as something the foundation will adhere to in its operations, not
> something that reg
On 8/3/2012 10:47 AM, Stephen LaPorte wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:07 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
My question, more directly, is: if the SOPA action from January 2012
were held in August 2012 (following the implementation of this new statement
from the General Counsel's office), would it be conside
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:07 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> My question, more directly, is: if the SOPA action from January 2012
> were held in August 2012 (following the implementation of this new statement
> from the General Counsel's office), would it be considered a "community
> initiative" or not?
Th
Long as it's getting top-posted anyway...
First, copying is not and cannot be theft. That's not to say it's
always legally or ethically acceptable, mind you, but it's not theft.
In legal terms, there was a court case over that particular matter,
that ruled someone could not be charged on a "transp
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:14 AM, wrote:
> bhar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
>> This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist.
>>
>> The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it
>> into existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated.
>
> The p
I am not sure that needed to be that prolix. :) But yes, let's tease out
some things:
1. Wikimedia projects have quite strongly worded policies against copyright
violations. Many volunteer editors make good-faith efforts to uphold them.
Many other editors, knowingly or unknowingly, break them, and
(warning, tl;dr!)
**
*@Andreas - *I understand your sentiment, but in a reasoning way, I find I
don't agree with that assessment. For what it's worth, I edit a lot on law
- one of my GAs is a Supreme Court case, numerous others worked on, it's an
area I like, and I tend to read full rulings like s
Hi,
Man, what a talent for story telling! But I don't think you story
represents anything close to WP. First comparing copying digital
content illegally with stealing cakes is a very bad analogy. That's
what the industry wants us to believe, and you falled by the trick.
Then I don't think people
bhar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
>
> This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist.
>
> The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it
> into existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated.
>
The proposal was floated by Jimmy Wales on t
I am afraid that is not how it feels at all. It's more like organising a
giant volunteer effort to provide a market stall handing out free sweets
and cakes for anyone who wants some. The stall is very popular, and many
people chip in, bringing in cakes they've baked and candy they've made. And
some
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Risker wrote:
>
>
> > The line between what constitutes a community initiative and what's
> > considered a request from an outside group still isn't clear to me
>
> Ah, interesting point. My read of this was that the guideline would
> consider an initiative reque
On 2 August 2012 21:07, MZMcBride wrote:
> Brandon Harris wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> >>> What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?
> >>
> >> You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimed
There's a fallacy going on here - ie a term with two subtly different
meanings.
The community - who are the ones ultimately "making the gift" do so
altruistically, in the sense of not seeking *compensation*, but that's not
the same as not expecting *consideration*. We do expect consideration.
Attr
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:52 AM, Brandon Harris wrote:
>
> This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist.
>
> The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed
> it into existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated.
>
Yeah, and I remember
Brandon Harris wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>>> What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?
>>
>> You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in November
>> 2011, one month after the It
This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist.
The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it
into existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated.
On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 P
30 matches
Mail list logo