body:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
> Keeping this in mind --
>
> On 15/11/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>>We also developed a mission statement from scratch. What's the point?
>>Aside from uniting behind a set of key goals, it helps us to decide
>>which activities fall within our scope and which ones don't --
>>something that is not always easy, given the diversity of our existing
>>projects and communities. Should we launch a WikiFoo project, or is
>>Foo not part of our mission? Both the vision and mission statement
>>will be frequently cited in future discussions of this kind, so they
>>are relevant, and not just organizational fluff.
>
>
>>== Vision Statement ==
>>
>>'''Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
>>in the sum of all knowledge.'''
>>
>>Comment:
>>
>>One version from the Retreat contained the phrase "in their own
>>language" at the end, but we removed that later--I made the argument
>>that there are different ways to address language barriers, e.g. by
>>teaching another language like English and then giving access to
>>learning resources in that language. IMHO we should not explicitly
>>endorse or reject any particular _strategy_ of knowledge dissemination
>>in our vision statement. Rather, I suggested we could add a phrase
>>such as "unimpeded by language barriers, socioeconomic status, or
>>government censorship". This was seen as too negative. In any case, I
>>feel that the simple adjective "freely" may be sufficient in order to
>>convey the idea that we seek to make knowledge as widely available as
>>possible.
>
>
> I think some statement of the importance of multilinguality is needed here.
>
> The suggestion that teaching everyone English and offering them
> English works is equivalent to offering them works in their own
> language is... really appalling. We may as well shut down all the
> other languages and just offer Wikibooks "learn English" in x trillion
> languages, right? I don't think so...
>
>
>
>>== Mission Statement ==
>>
>>'''The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage
>>people around the world to collect and develop knowledge under a free
>>license, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.'''
>>
>>'''In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation
>>provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework
>>for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and
>>other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation is committed
>>to making and keeping all information from its projects available on
>>the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.'''
>
>
> This just seems like an expanded version of the above. And it doesn't
> seem like this:  "A vision statement articulates the future of an
> organization. The statement should be a rich, meaningful, detailed
> description of what an organization hopes to become."
>
> Wouldn't this be a good time to expand on specific visions for each of
> the projects? If not here, then where? Nowhere? Or each community can
> come up with its own?

Yes. Please develop charters for each project.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charte_Wikiquote_FR

> Seems like MediaWiki software development would be worth mentioning as
> well, considering how important it is to the projects...

I am not convinced it should, given that MediaWiki developers wish to
maintain a certain independance (whether they succeed doing that is
another issue).

> Also seems to be some mention of project communities vitally missing
> here. "People around the world" are not collecting and developing
> knowledge in isolation. They are, first, getting welcomed by other
> users (ok, or maybe bots :)). They are getting guidance, help and
> warnings from more experienced users. They are being invited to help
> out with collaborative projects, and being invited to edit in a
> consensus-driven way. They are evaluating the quality of material
> collectively. They are running for positions of various power and
> status, and they are voting on such candidates. Perhaps all this is
> implied in the use of the word "wiki"... or perhaps not.

Would that do ?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mission%2FUnstable&diff=470751&oldid=469702

> Anyway my main complaint is that I don't see how either of these
> statements would prevent "wikistalk" being successfully proposed, or
> how they explain why video game guides are inappropriate for
> Wikibooks. Or why people shouldn't upload ten photos of their friends
> and dog at Commons. Or why they shouldn't write about their school
> teacher.
> Needs some adjective somewhere like EDUCATIONAL.

Ah...
Look Brianna. In french, there is a saying "you can not have the butter
and the money from the butter at the same time".
Editors are telling us all the time that the editorial policy should be
developped by community, NOT by the Foundation.
If in its statement, which is recorded in its *bylaws* the Foundation
somehow clarifies video games guides are not appropriate (I am forcing
the point here on purpose), then, the Foundation is setting up the
editorial policy.

I do not think it should be this way. The way you ask is
The Foundation decides to create a project and the project should follow
these exact rules.

Versus
The community decides to create a project with this goal, and the
Foundation likes the idea and decides to support it (or decide not to).

My suggestion (and this was a collective desire of board retreat
participants) is that each project develop a very detailed charter. That
this charter be adopted by all languages of this project. That new
language starting should adopt this charter. And the Foundation agrees
to support this project, with this charter.

Anthere


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Anthere

subject:
[Foundation-l] RfC: Mission & Vision Statements of the
	Wikimedia Foundation


list: wikien-l

from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Fair use" images of living people

body:
On 11/16/06, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> If I was willing to lie, I could easily pass this test.

And with enough firepower I could rob Fort Knox...
So?

> Putting extra obstacles in the way of people trying to do the right
> thing does not encourage the right thing to be done.  New rules and
> more complicated procedure do not enhance the chances of the correct
> outcome.

The permissions process is specifically targeted to accomplish two things:

1) Make it more difficult to succeed at being dishonest at a large
scale. Eventually someone will notice that the emails are coming from
a domain which probably isn't the copyright holder.

2) Put an honest, human to human interaction in the critical path
because our experience has shown over and over again that most people
don't feel like they are lying when they pick an incorrect option from
a drop down.. but they do feel more compelled to tell the truth to a
person.

In no way is it intended to make things harder for honest folks, and
if you have real constructive suggestions on how to improve it I'm
sure we'd all love to hear them.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Marco Schuster

subject: [Wikitech-l] Different sysop levels

body:
David Gerard schrieb:
> On 16/11/06, Marco Schuster <CDL-Klever at gmx.net> wrote:
>> David Gerard schrieb:
>
>>> What's the reason for not everyone having rollback? What would happen
>>> if everyone who'd had an account for a few days could use it?
>
>> because vandals will register with a "normal" nick, wait the few days
>> and then they can easily do revert wars, mass vandalizing (afaik the
>> rollback doesnt have a captcha so you could easily use a bot), etc, etc.
>
>
> They can and do do that now.
But with a much less effort.

For example, a revert of a big sized article (let's talk of a 80kb
article) takes much much more traffic than a simple revert.

regards,
Marco


from_name: Phil Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rethinking Fictional Topics

body:
On 11/16/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:

> While the boxes may not be Wikia-oriented in design, their _practical_
> effect will primarily be to add prominent links to Wikia.  Better
> access to a useful free content resource is good, of course, but we
> ought to be very careful about avoiding the appearance of a conflict
> of interest in how we present Wikia to readers.

I think we have a much greater conflict of interest presenting other
Wikimedia projects than we do presenting a project that comes from an
unrelated group that shares only a founder. Certainly I have nothing
to gain by directing traffic to Wikia. Nobody but Jimbo does, and he's
not come anywhere near this issue. I will admit, should Jimbo start
plastering Wikia links all over, there's a conflict of interest. But
Jimbo is not the author or director of Wikipedia.

> As far as alleviating the schism: while driving the contributors
> interested in adding in-universe coverage of fiction off to another
> site would, indeed, get rid of the dispute, I'm not sure that it would
> be a particularly good solution.  For one thing, we can expect that a
> significant portion of the potential Wikipedia contributors on a topic
> will refuse to become Wikia contributors on that topic because of the
> differences between the two.

I think this misunderstands the nature of the dispute. It is not, I
think, people who want to contribute in-universe stuff and people who
don't. It's a dispute between people who think that in-universe stuff
is important to have and people who don't. I suspect that if we give a
clear indication of where in-universe material should go, people who
are knowledgeable about fictional universes will start to offer their
in-universe material to fan-run projects, and their out-of-universe
material to Wikipedia.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 11/16/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> The suggestion that teaching everyone English and offering them
> English works is equivalent to offering them works in their own
> language is... really appalling. We may as well shut down all the
> other languages and just offer Wikibooks "learn English" in x trillion
> languages, right? I don't think so...

The idea that humanity can unite under a single language is not
appalling at all to me, rather the opposite. Some people believe this
"world language" to be Esperanto, others might think it can be Chinese
or English, or a new artificial language. But I don't think Wikimedia
should adopt a position that implies humanity should continue to
actively use hundreds or thousands of languages indefinitely. To me,
supporting multilinguality is first and foremost about breaking down
barriers to knowledge, but it's not the only strategy to achieve that.

> Wouldn't this be a good time to expand on specific visions for each of
> the projects? If not here, then where?

Project charters -- TBD. Let's get the general statement sorted out first.

> Seems like MediaWiki software development would be worth mentioning as
> well, considering how important it is to the projects...

Possibly, though I see WMF as an organization that is not focused on
technology and lacks the dedication to become one.

> Also seems to be some mention of project communities vitally missing
> here.

Yes, some additional emphasis on community (and its values) in both
M&V might make sense.

> Anyway my main complaint is that I don't see how either of these
> statements would prevent "wikistalk" being successfully proposed, or
> how they explain why video game guides are inappropriate for
> Wikibooks. Or why people shouldn't upload ten photos of their friends
> and dog at Commons. Or why they shouldn't write about their school
> teacher.
> Needs some adjective somewhere like EDUCATIONAL.

Perhaps - though even "knowledge" was a bit controversial, and that
word is quite flexible in its interpretation. (Are 10 marginally
different ways to show the same thing a useful addition of knowledge?
Is unverifiable information knowledge?)

As for VG guides, I wouldn't _want_ them to be excluded from
Wikimedia's scope. That Wikibooks is becoming more narrowly focused on
textbooks may make sense from a strategic point of view to attract the
right authors and institutions, but I don't see why we should not ever
host HOWTOs about video games in a separate project, for example.

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


from_name: Simetrical

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Adding new marks (or tags) to MediaWiki markup
	language

body:
On 11/16/06, Gabriel Sim?es <gsimoes at vetorial.net> wrote:
> Is it possible to add different marks, like ++ Text ++ or || Text || to
> MediaWiki markup language?

Only if you write a parallel parser.

> What class of MediaWiki translate the wiki markup to HTML?

includes/Parser.php


subject: [Wikitech-l] idea: edit summary preview

body:
On 11/16/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Why only when doing Show Preview? Surely a bit of either client-side
> JavaScript or AJAX can show the preview right underneath the Summary
> textbox and get updated live?

Excellent idea if I knew anything about Ajax except "it sends stuff
back and forth with JavaScript and XML".  ;)  Plain JS I could do,
though, I guess, if there aren't any evil bits of the parsing that
just aren't occurring to me.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Different sysop levels

body:
On 11/16/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Marco Schuster wrote:
> > David Gerard schrieb:
> >
> >>What's the reason for not everyone having rollback? What would happen
> >>if everyone who'd had an account for a few days could use it?
> >
> > because vandals will register with a "normal" nick, wait the few days
> > and then they can easily do revert wars, mass vandalizing (afaik the
> > rollback doesnt have a captcha so you could easily use a bot), etc, etc.
>
> Firstly: they can only revert-war or mass-vandalise until they're
> blocked. So make sure you block them quickly enough ;-)
>
> Secondly: You've already mentioned Captcha. Why is it not an option to
> implement a Captcha for every rollback that is requested less than (say)
> a minute after the previous rollback?

. . . for non-admins, anyway?


subject: [Foundation-l] Foundation logo : pain and suffering

body:
ATR wrote:
>
> |> > I don't think the foundation owns the mediawiki logo. Copyright wise
> |> > it is in the public domain.
> |> Hoi,
> |> Given the age of the thing it cannot be PD yet. They are part of a
> |> trademark and as such they are owned by the Foundation. They can if they
> |> so choose license the logos. This is problematic because the rights that
> |> are usual for other WMF content contrasts with the requirement of
> |> maintaining the trademark.
> |
> |No, the MediaWiki one really is public domain.
> |http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:MediaWiki-smaller-logo.png
> |
> |Whether or not it is also a trademark of the Foundation doesn't affect
> |its copyright status.
> |
> |Angela.
>
> Someone cannot declare a work PD just by copying it. It seems the
> actual logo was created by Eric Moller, and it has always been the
> understanding with all logos that they were "works made for hire" for
> the foundation. This has been discussed previously and Jimbo can
> back this up. Just because someone put a PD tag on the page at
> Commons does not invalidate the Foundation's claim to this logo.
>
> As far as the "trademark" status of the logo, the word MEDIAWIKI is
> a registered mark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.. I know this because
> I am the attorney of record on the USPTO file that granted this mark to
> the foundation. Also the actual logo is also a mark of the Wikimedia
> Foundation Inc., and is used to identify the MediaWiki software which
> is released by the Foundation and is a foundation project.
>
> Of course all trademarks can also be used based upon principles of
> fair use that apply to trademarks in a similiar way as copyrights. The
> important issue is that the mark is not used in a way to confuse the
> public or dilute the brand which the mark represents as this is the kind
> of protection that the law affords mark holders.
>
> Alex T Roshuk
> Attorney at law

Can I put my feet in the mud here ?

The logo was a creation of Erik. The flower is from me (see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tournesol%28L%29.jpg)

After the end of the contest, Erik decided to use that logo for
mediawiki. At this time, it was not clear at all the logos would be
trademarked by the Foundation. The truth is we had no idea at that time
how important trademarks would be in the future. Well, the Foundation
was created only a couple of months before the international contest for
logos. There was no set up board. There were no board decision. There
were no resolution. In short, there is absolutely no trackable way to
prove there was an understanding the Foundation would own the trademark.
This is just bullshit. There was no clear understanding. We were young,
we did not know. Period.

My memory is also very clear that developers did not want the mediawiki
logo and name to be owned by the Foundation. Of course, in real life,
anyone can claim to own a trademark on something that nobody else claim.
So, the Foundation asked to own the trademark of this, and now does. And
with most developers now making a living thanks to the Foundation, I
doubt very much any of them would ever make a complain over this. There
is now a history.

Several months after the logo started being used for mediawiki, Erik
asked me if I would put the flower image under public domain. Again, I
did not know much about copyright and author rights at that time. At
this point, the image was under GFDL, which made no sense for a logo,
and no sense for what we wanted it to be used for. It may be that
another licence would have been better.

The mediawiki software is very arguably a Foundation project as you
claim. For a long time, it was not. And the developers did not want it
to be. It seems the Foundation just decided at some point that it was.
Apparently.
The problem I have with this statement, is that I far as I know, I have
been on the board of trustees since june 2004, and I have NO memory we
ever decided that mediawiki was a wikimedia project. For all I know, it
is not. And for now, the Foundation website does not claim it is :
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects.

It is definitly a software we are using. Developers are largely
improving it for our projects. But others are improving it as well. The
main *ownership* of mediawiki is related to the main developers being
now paid by the Foundation. It may be a wikimedia project in this that
we largely support its development. But it is not officially a wikimedia
project. Period.

Now, understand it well. I *prefer* that the Foundation owns the logo
and name trademarks, because as you say, it means the logo and name can
not be misused to confuse public.

However, contrariwise to Wikipedia, the mediawiki software is not only
used by the Foundation, but by also thousands of projects around the
world. The worse thing that could happen is that people deciding to use
the mediawiki find themselves obliged to ask permission or even worse to
pay the Foundation to use the software, use the name, use the little
logo, powered by Mediawiki. If something like this ever occurs in the
future, I hope developers will consider changing the name, changing the
logo and make it possible for the software to spread freely. This is
what is important, and as long as the Foundation respects this spirit,
and only defend the logo and name against bad uses, I am fine with the
current situation.

In the end, I am only pissed of to see claims about what the Foundation
owns, said, agreed to, blahblahblah, provided with the stamp "Jimbo can
back this up". The Foundation is governed by a board. And as Angela will
probably agree to, there are some decisions which were never made by the
board. Which makes their validity questionnable.

Ant


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rethinking Fictional Topics

body:
On 11/16/06, Phil Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/16/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > While the boxes may not be Wikia-oriented in design, their _practical_
> > effect will primarily be to add prominent links to Wikia.  Better
> > access to a useful free content resource is good, of course, but we
> > ought to be very careful about avoiding the appearance of a conflict
> > of interest in how we present Wikia to readers.
>
> I think we have a much greater conflict of interest presenting other
> Wikimedia projects than we do presenting a project that comes from an
> unrelated group that shares only a founder. Certainly I have nothing
> to gain by directing traffic to Wikia. Nobody but Jimbo does, and he's
> not come anywhere near this issue. I will admit, should Jimbo start
> plastering Wikia links all over, there's a conflict of interest. But
> Jimbo is not the author or director of Wikipedia.

I was actually referring to the fact that Wikimedia as a whole stands
to benefit from Wikia's financial success, both directly (e.g. Wikia's
sponsorship of Wikimania) and indirectly (e.g. Wikia employees working
on MediaWiki).  I think the relationship is significant enough that
directing traffict to Wikia in a different way than to other sites
could be viewed as a conflict of interest; but if people don't see
that as an issue, fair enough.

> > As far as alleviating the schism: while driving the contributors
> > interested in adding in-universe coverage of fiction off to another
> > site would, indeed, get rid of the dispute, I'm not sure that it would
> > be a particularly good solution.  For one thing, we can expect that a
> > significant portion of the potential Wikipedia contributors on a topic
> > will refuse to become Wikia contributors on that topic because of the
> > differences between the two.
>
> I think this misunderstands the nature of the dispute. It is not, I
> think, people who want to contribute in-universe stuff and people who
> don't. It's a dispute between people who think that in-universe stuff
> is important to have and people who don't. I suspect that if we give a
> clear indication of where in-universe material should go, people who
> are knowledgeable about fictional universes will start to offer their
> in-universe material to fan-run projects, and their out-of-universe
> material to Wikipedia.

Or, perhaps, a dispute between people who want to contribute
in-universe stuff and people who don't want them to?  (Admittedly
omitting the role of those people who want to see in-universe material
contributed, but aren't going to do it themselves.)

I think there's good reason to believe that a significant number of
people who might be inclined to contribute to Wikipedia would refuse
to contribute to a Wikia project (see the various debates over ads on
Wikipedia, etc.).  Thus, two questions:
1. Is the primary goal here to remove in-universe content from
Wikipedia - without too much thought being given to where exactly it
ends up - or to create a well-defined off-Wikipedia place for
in-universe content, with the associated removal of such material from
Wikipedia being merely a side effect?
2. If the goal is the latter, how significant are the drawbacks of
using Wikia (as opposed to a Wikimedia project) as a place to move the
material?  (In particular, how likely is the appearance of forks over
financial issues, and how harmful would the resulting divisions in the
community of contributors be?)

--
Kirill Lokshin


subject: [WikiEN-l] Rethinking Fictional Topics

body:
On 11/16/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think there's good reason to believe that a significant number of
> people who might be inclined to contribute to Wikipedia would refuse
> to contribute to a Wikia project (see the various debates over ads on
> Wikipedia, etc.).  Thus, two questions:
> 1. Is the primary goal here to remove in-universe content from
> Wikipedia - without too much thought being given to where exactly it
> ends up - or to create a well-defined off-Wikipedia place for
> in-universe content, with the associated removal of such material from
> Wikipedia being merely a side effect?

The latter - the goal of removing in-universe content does not work -
too many people are too willing to revert such material, and attempts
to fix these articles rarely stand.

> 2. If the goal is the latter, how significant are the drawbacks of
> using Wikia (as opposed to a Wikimedia project) as a place to move the
> material?  (In particular, how likely is the appearance of forks over
> financial issues, and how harmful would the resulting divisions in the
> community of contributors be?)

Because it's easier to create the box than to fly another Wikimedia
project. Furthermore, despite the possibilities of a conflict of
interest, I, at least, would have serious issues with creating a
Wikimedia project that competed with a number of projects on Wikia.
There are good free content resources for fictional universes - we
have very little to gain by throwing our weight around to compete with
them.

-Phil


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 11/16/06, ATR <alex756 at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Putting together those two elements creates a logo, and
> a logo is covered by statutory & common trademark law.
> The basis principle of trademark law is that the trademark
> belongs to whomever uses it, here it has been in use by the
> Wikimedia Foundation, it was created on its servers and it
> belongs to it, anyone, even board members of the WMF
> cannot suggest that it belongs to them or can be transfered to
> some kind of "public ownership" because they are not
> using it "in commerce" and never did. Correct me if I am
> wrong.  Otherwise it is Wikimedia Foundation that "owns"
> the logo, and all the underlying intellectual property rights
> to said logo, whatever such rights may be notwithstanding
> whatever anyone says or whatever they might have did,
> i..e., declaring such logo as being "public domain."
>
The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't "own" the logo.  They might own a
trademark on the logo.  They don't own the copyright on the original
logo, because they didn't create it, not even as a work for hire (the
author was not an employee at the time they created the image, and the
author did not "expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them
that the work shall be considered a work made for hire").

Whether or not the WMF owns the trademark is actually a more difficult
question.  A trademark doesn't actually belong "to whomever uses it",
in order to obtain a trademark it has to be used with some degree of
exclusivity.

Are others using the Mediawiki logo in commerce?  I would think there
probably are.  Is this use significant enough?  I have no idea.

Anthony


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject:
[Foundation-l] RfC: Mission & Vision Statements of
 the	Wikimedia Foundation

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 11/16/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The suggestion that teaching everyone English and offering them
>> English works is equivalent to offering them works in their own
>> language is... really appalling. We may as well shut down all the
>> other languages and just offer Wikibooks "learn English" in x trillion
>> languages, right? I don't think so...
>>
>
> The idea that humanity can unite under a single language is not
> appalling at all to me, rather the opposite. Some people believe this
> "world language" to be Esperanto, others might think it can be Chinese
> or English, or a new artificial language. But I don't think Wikimedia
> should adopt a position that implies humanity should continue to
> actively use hundreds or thousands of languages indefinitely. To me,
> supporting multilinguality is first and foremost about breaking down
> barriers to knowledge, but it's not the only strategy to achieve that.
>
>
Hoi,
With all respect, this is the pov of an engineer. The idea of the world
to unite under one language does horrify me. The image that I get is
shopping centres all over the world that have exactly the same shops,
the same products. Television that has the same programs, the same
adverts. Going to Italy and only to be told how it used to be with
nothing going on that I cannot find in Almere (FYI Almere as a city is
only some 30 years old). Supporting multi linguality you do in order to
appreciate that there is more than what you to take for granted. Not
knowing at least two languages and cultures ensures you that you do not
appreciate what is around you. Being able to appreciate things from a
different perspective is what provides depth to the world as you
perceive it.
>> Wouldn't this be a good time to expand on specific visions for each of
>> the projects? If not here, then where?
>>
>
> Project charters -- TBD. Let's get the general statement sorted out first.
>
>
>> Seems like MediaWiki software development would be worth mentioning as
>> well, considering how important it is to the projects...
>>
>
> Possibly, though I see WMF as an organization that is not focused on
> technology and lacks the dedication to become one.
>
>
>> Also seems to be some mention of project communities vitally missing
>> here.
>>
>
> Yes, some additional emphasis on community (and its values) in both
> M&V might make sense.
>
It is even dangerous to think that we are ONE community, we are one
community in that we share commons values. But many other values are
starkly different. This is easy to observe, just watch the interaction
between the ro and mo communities. It is so bad that the ro go as far as
denying the existence of mo.
>
>> Anyway my main complaint is that I don't see how either of these
>> statements would prevent "wikistalk" being successfully proposed, or
>> how they explain why video game guides are inappropriate for
>> Wikibooks. Or why people shouldn't upload ten photos of their friends
>> and dog at Commons. Or why they shouldn't write about their school
>> teacher.
>> Needs some adjective somewhere like EDUCATIONAL.
>>
>
> Perhaps - though even "knowledge" was a bit controversial, and that
> word is quite flexible in its interpretation. (Are 10 marginally
> different ways to show the same thing a useful addition of knowledge?
> Is unverifiable information knowledge?)
>
If you ask a teacher if it is useful to show the same information in 10
marginally different ways, he will tell you no two of his kids are the
same and that by being able to say the same things slightly different
the message will come across where it did not at first. Certainly when
the background of people is different, information that is well written,
NPOV may not inform because the assumptions no not coincide with the
assumption of the reader. It is exactly to overcome these issues that
makes it so important to tell the same information in "ten" marginally
different ways.

Honestly and truly, let us cherish our differences by being aware of how
we differ. But let the differences not be what drives us apart while we
have so much in common.

Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [Foundation-l] Rules committee

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Essentially I agree. It all comes down to mature judgement, and who is
>>> capable of exercising it.  We have a lot of people who can too easily
>>> jump to conclusions.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes. One question is whether we want every language and project
>> community to develop its own policy on these matters, or whether this
>> is an area where it makes sense to have a single policy that is
>> localized. This goes for checkuser and oversight as well. Perhaps an
>> in-between solution makes sense, where the WMF requires that local
>> policies identify and propose a group that consists of the most
>> trusted users before granting these privileges on a language/project
>> level.
>>
> I can't address the technical requirements for someone with checkuser
> capacity, but technical competence is only one side of the coin.  Good
> judgement, trust and common sense are just as important.  The ideal
> checkuser is effective in both respects.
>
> Rule making on the wiki tends to be chaotic at best, to the point where
> the best way to develop a rule can be to make a rule and hope that
> nobody notices.  No-one can keep up with the process, or be certain of
> the circumstances when a rule was adopted.  Proposing changes can be an
> intimidating process.
>
> I would llike to propose a Rules Committee on the following bases.
>

You know that if something never happens, there must be a committee
behind it. Isn't that how the saying goes? :)

<snip>
>        3. Although membership at this stage would be relatively open,
</snip>

I have to disagree with the initial openness. We have too many process
wonks who would jump at the chance, and we'll end up only being allowed
to edit every second thursday when it's a prime number of days from the
vernal equinox of Triton...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061116/4c102c2c/attachment.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Rules committee

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Essentially I agree. It all comes down to mature judgement, and who is
>>> capable of exercising it.  We have a lot of people who can too easily
>>> jump to conclusions.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes. One question is whether we want every language and project
>> community to develop its own policy on these matters, or whether this
>> is an area where it makes sense to have a single policy that is
>> localized. This goes for checkuser and oversight as well. Perhaps an
>> in-between solution makes sense, where the WMF requires that local
>> policies identify and propose a group that consists of the most
>> trusted users before granting these privileges on a language/project
>> level.
>>
> I can't address the technical requirements for someone with checkuser
> capacity, but technical competence is only one side of the coin.  Good
> judgement, trust and common sense are just as important.  The ideal
> checkuser is effective in both respects.
>
> Rule making on the wiki tends to be chaotic at best, to the point where
> the best way to develop a rule can be to make a rule and hope that
> nobody notices.  No-one can keep up with the process, or be certain of
> the circumstances when a rule was adopted.  Proposing changes can be an
> intimidating process.
>
> I would llike to propose a Rules Committee on the following bases.
>

You know that if something never happens, there must be a committee
behind it. Isn't that how the saying goes? :)

<snip>
>        3. Although membership at this stage would be relatively open,
</snip>

I have to disagree with the initial openness. We have too many process
wonks who would jump at the chance, and we'll end up only being allowed
to edit every second thursday when it's a prime number of days from the
vernal equinox of Triton...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20061116/4c102c2c/attachment-0001.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Rules committee

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Essentially I agree. It all comes down to mature judgement, and who is
>>> capable of exercising it.  We have a lot of people who can too easily
>>> jump to conclusions.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes. One question is whether we want every language and project
>> community to develop its own policy on these matters, or whether this
>> is an area where it makes sense to have a single policy that is
>> localized. This goes for checkuser and oversight as well. Perhaps an
>> in-between solution makes sense, where the WMF requires that local
>> policies identify and propose a group that consists of the most
>> trusted users before granting these privileges on a language/project
>> level.
>>
> I can't address the technical requirements for someone with checkuser
> capacity, but technical competence is only one side of the coin.  Good
> judgement, trust and common sense are just as important.  The ideal
> checkuser is effective in both respects.
>
> Rule making on the wiki tends to be chaotic at best, to the point where
> the best way to develop a rule can be to make a rule and hope that
> nobody notices.  No-one can keep up with the process, or be certain of
> the circumstances when a rule was adopted.  Proposing changes can be an
> intimidating process.
>
> I would llike to propose a Rules Committee on the following bases.
>

You know that if something never happens, there must be a committee
behind it. Isn't that how the saying goes? :)

<snip>
>        3. Although membership at this stage would be relatively open,
</snip>

I have to disagree with the initial openness. We have too many process
wonks who would jump at the chance, and we'll end up only being allowed
to edit every second thursday when it's a prime number of days from the
vernal equinox of Triton...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061116/4c102c2c/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] Rules committee

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Essentially I agree. It all comes down to mature judgement, and who is
>>> capable of exercising it.  We have a lot of people who can too easily
>>> jump to conclusions.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes. One question is whether we want every language and project
>> community to develop its own policy on these matters, or whether this
>> is an area where it makes sense to have a single policy that is
>> localized. This goes for checkuser and oversight as well. Perhaps an
>> in-between solution makes sense, where the WMF requires that local
>> policies identify and propose a group that consists of the most
>> trusted users before granting these privileges on a language/project
>> level.
>>
> I can't address the technical requirements for someone with checkuser
> capacity, but technical competence is only one side of the coin.  Good
> judgement, trust and common sense are just as important.  The ideal
> checkuser is effective in both respects.
>
> Rule making on the wiki tends to be chaotic at best, to the point where
> the best way to develop a rule can be to make a rule and hope that
> nobody notices.  No-one can keep up with the process, or be certain of
> the circumstances when a rule was adopted.  Proposing changes can be an
> intimidating process.
>
> I would llike to propose a Rules Committee on the following bases.
>

You know that if something never happens, there must be a committee
behind it. Isn't that how the saying goes? :)

<snip>
>        3. Although membership at this stage would be relatively open,
</snip>

I have to disagree with the initial openness. We have too many process
wonks who would jump at the chance, and we'll end up only being allowed
to edit every second thursday when it's a prime number of days from the
vernal equinox of Triton...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061116/4c102c2c/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Bence Damokos

subject: [Wikitech-l] idea: edit summary preview

body:
Hi!
Could you tell me, which page is to be localised to have the "Summary
preview" text in a local language?
Regards, Dami

On 11/16/06, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/16/06, Ligulem <ligulem at pobox.com> wrote:
> > Simetrical wrote:
> > > On 11/15/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> > >> I realize full well that obsessing about one's edit summaries is
> > >> a sign of, well, obsession, and I'm not about to propose a way of
> > >> editing them, but given that their formatting rules are subtly
> > >> different from normal wikitext (special treatment of /* */,
> > >> evidently no treatment of ''...'', automagic insertion of
> > >> the ? character, etc.), it seems like it would be nice (but also
> > >> benign) to show a preview of the edit summary along with the rest
> > >> of the page when doing Show Preview.  Is this too goofy an idea?
> > >
> > > I just committed a change to do exactly that a couple of days ago.  It
> > > should go live within a few days, whenever someone decides to
> > > resynchronize the sites with the codebase.
> >
> > \o/ superb! Thanks a lot.
> >
> > --Ligulem
>
> . . . and it should be live.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Angela

body:
> > I don't think the foundation owns the mediawiki logo. Copyright wise
> > it is in the public domain.
> Hoi,
> Given the age of the thing it cannot be PD yet. They are part of a
> trademark and as such they are owned by the Foundation. They can if they
> so choose license the logos. This is problematic because the rights that
> are usual for other WMF content contrasts with the requirement of
> maintaining the trademark.

No, the MediaWiki one really is public domain.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:MediaWiki-smaller-logo.png

Whether or not it is also a trademark of the Foundation doesn't affect
its copyright status.

Angela.


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Wikitech-l] Implementing a licensing quiz on Commons

body:
On 16/11/06, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:

> Nice. And then what? Does a single wrong answer mean I can't upload to
> the commons, ever? Or can I retry the question (in which case even
> monkeys could pass it;-)?

No, no. You retry the question. Of course monkeys can pass it. It is
just a basic "be aware of this fact before uploading" thing.
It's pretty obvious that displaying notices doesn't work. Even big red
warnings don't work. But a quiz is interactive and given how simple
the questions are, will almost certainly engage the user. In fact
thinking about this quiz will likely be a faster way to get through it
than donkey-voting. :)

> If it's not a requirement but a "fun suggestion", it could go to an
> external web site (toolserver!), which would avoid putting a quiz mode
> into MediaWiki ;-)

That would be fine, but then how would it be tied with the requirement
of completing the quiz before successfully registering/uploading? I
figured that would only be possible if it was actually integrated into
MediaWiki. If I'm wrong on that point, please correct me.

> OTOH, that could be a cool extension. Think determining something
> based on a series on yes-no decisions - this is how you can identify
> plants (using a book) or the car that matches you best (a German
> newspaper does that every odd year or so). It could work with
> specially prepared wiki pages. Oh, if I only had more time to code...

Yes, it would be a very cool extension, and I can see it being
extraordinarily useful for Wikibooks, for example. (well with multiple
choice, write-in answers would be nifty too)

There is this - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Quizzes - which is
kinda waiting to be turned into a proper extension, I think.

cheers,
Brianna


body:
On 11/16/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> list them along with your reasons at [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images]]

I'd also point out that an effort should be made to contact the
uploader (vague chance he wrote the books you seem to be remembering
:) )
But with no email set, no edits in almost two months,... good luck!


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
I think the point is that the sunflower logo was one which we wanted to
have as the default logo for all installations, and we wanted people to
be able to happily use it or do whatever they wanted with it, and we did
NOT intend to protect it or license it in any restrictive way.  Not that
particular one.  That's because it is the default logo in the default
install of the software, see.

This is not about the foundation logo, the wikipedia logo, etc., all of
which are trademarks and copyright to the foundation, etc.

The sunflower one is one we don't really care about, except of course we
love it with all our hearts. :)

Now, as to whether it is literally "public domain" (which is really
rather a bit hard to do under US law), I leave to lawyers to figure out.
  Whether it is a trademark that the Foundation chooses not to defend,
or a trademark which the Foundation freely licenses, or not a trademark
at all, is a question I also leave to lawyers to figure out.

The point is, people can do as they like with it, and the Foundation
does not mind.

This discussion, to repeat, applies ONLY to the sunflower logo which is
the default install in the mediawiki software.

--Jimbo


body:
geni wrote:
> On 11/16/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> The photo of the sunflower, and the crop thereof, are certainly
>> copyrightable. My question would be: What exactly do we lose if we
>> trademark only the name "MediaWiki", and make no attempt to protect
>> the image?
>>
>
> People selling T-shirts with the logo on outside wikimedia and OS
> events? Someone useing it as the symbol for their softwear? There are
> various potential issues.

I can't speak for the entire board, of course, but I think that Erik,
Anthere, and I at least have all weighed in during this thread to say
that at the very least, for the flower logo which is part of the default
install of the software, at least these board members are of the opinion
that this is very different from all the other logos, and one which we
have never had any interest in protecting or defending.

If we wanted to have a logo for mediawiki which is defendable, I suppose
we would want to get a new one, because this one has been declared
completely free of restrictions for so long that it is really not very
defensible I think.  And anyway, we have no interest in doing that.

If people want to make tshirts with the flower logo on it, and sell
them, I doubt very much if at least these 3 board members would mind one
bit.  That's sort of what the point was of the decisions made in the past.

--Jimbo


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 11/16/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>> People selling T-shirts with the logo on outside wikimedia and OS
>> events?
>
> Go for it.
>
>> Someone useing it as the symbol for their softwear?
>
> As long as they don't call it MediaWiki ...

I am in 100% agreement with Erik.

--Jimbo


from_name: Sarah

body:
On 11/16/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/16/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > My question was: who are the potential beneficiaries of the
> > free-licence images that increasingly we insist on having?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download
>
Thank you. :-)


from_name: Rotem Liss

subject: [Wikitech-l] idea: edit summary preview

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bence Damokos wrote:
> Hi!
> Could you tell me, which page is to be localised to have the "Summary
> preview" text in a local language?
> Regards, Dami
>

MediaWiki:Summary-preview
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFXK4RqahN/0dU8mcRAuZuAJ47FOGeDVoa6phL3NcLDk60YKfrTgCeKwPv
P9uEHp2Bcc4/WlNyYSNbc1E=
=mtAm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: geni

body:
On 11/16/06, ATR <alex756 at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> The fact of the matter was that Jimbo applied for the MediaWiki
> trademark and then I fixed the application afterwards. The term "MEDIAWIKI"
> is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc..  This was done
> after the foundation was created, not before. This was not hidden from
> anyone
> it is a matter of public record:
>
> http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78507335
>
> http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=6lvb7s.3.1
>
> As you can see from the database TESS record it clearly states that the
> trademark
> was: "FIRST USE: 20030808. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20030809" The
> foundation was incorporated on June 20, 2003, August 8-9, 2003 is subsequent
> to that date. Thus, this is after the Foundation was created, not before. It
> was first
> posted on Wikimedia project web pages and it was proposed to be used in that
> context, no other. The logo was not create before that date, but afterwards.
> How can
> you say you own something when a part of it belongs to someone else?
>

I think the normal method would be to hold a 51% stake in the company.
In terms of copyright the normal method would be to prove it is a
derivative of your work. While someone else would own part of the
derivative you would still have a significant amount of ownership.

> There is also a discussion about the creation & licensing of WMF trademarks
> and
> ownership by the foundation. I have not been able to find it, but when I do
> I will post it;
> this was the allusion I made to Jimbo being able to back up the fact that
> the Foundation
> expected people to grant the ownership of any logos to the foundation and
> not release
> them through some other license (why else would you create a logo for a
> brand, it makes
> no sense otherwise?)
>

It is quite posible to trademark something that copyright wise is in
the public domain. For example "Shock and awe" has rather a lot of
trademarks on it. In terms of copyright it is still in the public
domain.

>This is just there to try
> and prevent
> people from stripping off the information about the contributors to the
> project,

That would be the function of the GPL lisence

> As far as the ownership of these things are concerned, if you do not have
> the right to release something into the public domain because it does not
> belong
> to you then you cannot later release it into the public domain as an
> afterthought
> and I would suggest that creating a logo that uses the trademarked term
> MediaWiki
> cannot be copyrighted by anyone other than the foundationno matter what the
> other
> people say, even if it is made up of a composite of public domain images
> (which
> do not have the licensing limitations of the GFDL or CC licenses).

Any derivatives would be automaticaly copyright the person who made
them and the foundation if the foundation does indeed hold the
copyright on the image which I am yet to encounter any evidence for.
Useing them as a logo to promote a product would be more problimatical
depending on the degree of simularity and the context but that lot
gets messy and you know all this.

>
> The only record of owning the trademark MEDIAWIKI is with the WMF, anyone
> else
> using it is a trademark infringement. Does it matter who owns the copyright
> or even if it is copyrightable because it may just be so generic as not to
> be subject to copyright, i.e. the brackets and the sunflower show no
> inherent creativity as elements, they are just standard symbols.

The flower is a photo of a 3D object. It is rather hard to come up
with a situation in which a photo of a 3D object does not contain
enough inherent creativity to qualify for copyright (may be even
harder in the UK but no matter).

> There is clearly a policy about Wikimedia logos being an exception to the
> content
> on Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing
> "Use by Wikimedia only (the only non-free-licensed exceptions hosted here as
> well are Wikimedia logos and other designs copyrighted by the Wikimedia
> Foundation that are the trademarks, service marks or other design elements
> that identify the sites of the various projects of the Wikimedia
> Foundation)"
>
> If the Foundation board thinks this is incorrect they should have their
> General Counsel
> correct it or put people on Notice that anyone can use these logos for
> anything they want
> because they are on Commons and thus, according to the logic of some
> Wikipedians,
> must be released under the GFDL (even if they were never so released before
> being posted
> on Commons).

Rather a lot of commons is lisenced under free lisences other than GFDL.

The correctness of the statement is not an issue for the foundation
since it appears it is not a crime to claim copyright on something
that is in fact in the public domain (if it is then there are an awful
lot of websites out there that are breaking it).

--
geni


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] idea: edit summary preview

body:
Steve Summit wrote:
> I realize full well that obsessing about one's edit summaries is
> a sign of, well, obsession, and I'm not about to propose a way of
> editing them, but given that their formatting rules are subtly
> different from normal wikitext (special treatment of /* */,
> evidently no treatment of ''...'', automagic insertion of
> the ? character, etc.), it seems like it would be nice (but also
> benign) to show a preview of the edit summary along with the rest
> of the page when doing Show Preview.  Is this too goofy an idea?

Why only when doing Show Preview? Surely a bit of either client-side
JavaScript or AJAX can show the preview right underneath the Summary
textbox and get updated live?

Timwi


body:
On 11/16/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > We're
> > insisting on free licences even in situations where we know the
> > copyright holder doesn't mind,
>
> Doesn't mind what?
>
> Doesn't mind using making modified versions? Doesn't mind us selling the images?
>
> If they honestly don't mind, then getting them to make a clear
> statement shouldn't be a problem.

In theory yes, but you're missing out the human factor. We had a case
recently of an 80-year-old philosopher being approached. He was happy
to send his image and he gave permission for us to use it. The editor
had to write back and say "No, we can't use it with your permission"
and gave him the right words. There was so much back and forth that
the original editor gave up from nervous exhaustion and a second
editor had to step up to take his place. We got the free licence in
the end (I believe) but at the cost of several years taken off
everyone's life. :-)

> Did you miss my point about the importance of avoiding being liked by
> the rights holders in maintaining neutrality?

No, I saw that, and I think it's a good point, but I've felt similar
pressure when I've been given free-licence images, especially when the
person has gone to a lot of trouble to get them for us. I worked on a
story recently where the widow of the subject sent us images from
their wedding, of the subject in his schooldays, and so on. I
definitely felt pressure after that not to add critical material about
the husband. I resisted it, but it was there.

> > Who is our audience, in other words;
> > what is our market?
>
> We endeavor to create an encyclopedia of Free Content for the world.
> It is not sufficient to merely place knowledge behind a glass wall of
> intellectual property, so that the people of the   world may look but
> not touch.  The world already has fine examples of that in commercial
> encyclopedias. To go beyond that we must produce a resource which will
> be owned, equally, and in perpetuity by all the people of the world so
> that they may use it, share it, and benefit from it, in any way that
> they see fit.
>
> In a few short years we have created so much free work. It would seem
> foolish to not take every effort to ensure that the greatest amount of
> the total can be easily used as freely as the majority so that it may
> be enjoyed by as many people for as many purposes as possible.
>
> Wikipedia will be around 100 years from now, and hopefully still going
> strong.   I see no cause to walk away from free content because in a
> few cases it will allow us to speed things up a little.  Certainly not
> now, .. not after we've proven that competent photographers would want
> to contribute.. not after we've proven that we can get excellent
> photographs of famous people..

Yes, I take these points, and thank you for explaining.
>
> > As I said, responsible publishers who want to use
> > our material won't trust what we say regarding free licenses: they'll
> > make their own licensing enquiries. And irresponsible publishers won't
> > care. So who are we doing it for?
>
> Are they to make these enquiries years after the source has died?  Do
> we expect a publisher to contact dozens of rights holders just to
> republish a *single* Wikipedia article.. people whom we already should
> have contacted for our own usage?  That would seem to be very
> inefficient.

I don't know how a publisher would handle it in every case, but if we
have a free-license image of Madonna, any good publisher would contact
her agent before using it just to make sure. They probably wouldn't
contact Professor John Smith whose image was taken from his unversity
homepage, because they'd know he wouldn't mind. That was all I was
trying to get at: that when we *know* people don't mind, we still
insist that editors go to very great lengths to obtain a free licence,
to a degree that no other publisher would.

But I take your point about absolutely free knowledge for the world.
You made the case very eloquently.
>
> Considering that my contributions are available on many websites who
> have mirrored and excerpted from Wikipedia and the only rights
> requests I've ever had were from people who wanted the ability to use
> my works commercially without attribution, I think you're assuming
> publishers are able and willing to do more work than they actually
> are.
>
Yes, you're probably right.  Anyway, thank you again for explaining it
so clearly.

Sarah


subject: [Wikitech-l] Different sysop levels

body:
Marco Schuster wrote:
> David Gerard schrieb:
>
>>What's the reason for not everyone having rollback? What would happen
>>if everyone who'd had an account for a few days could use it?
>
> because vandals will register with a "normal" nick, wait the few days
> and then they can easily do revert wars, mass vandalizing (afaik the
> rollback doesnt have a captcha so you could easily use a bot), etc, etc.

Firstly: they can only revert-war or mass-vandalise until they're
blocked. So make sure you block them quickly enough ;-)

Secondly: You've already mentioned Captcha. Why is it not an option to
implement a Captcha for every rollback that is requested less than (say)
a minute after the previous rollback?

Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] Different sysop levels

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 11/16/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> There's Javascript that allows non-admins to do rollback in wide use
>> on en:wp - it's just another form of edit, after all. There's no need
>> to add a privilege level to MediaWiki.
>
> Yes, it's a pretty dumb situation: on the one hand, only admins are
> allowed to "rollback". However, any user can artificially "rollback".
> Since any user can artifically rollback, no point making a special
> group for them...?
>
> I'm sure there's a logical contradiction in there somewhere.
>

The "rollback" right also allows bot flagging for Recent Changes
purposes, and is performed server-side.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20061116/b52903c6/attachment.pgp>


body:
On 11/16/06, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
> I've tried to get some movement on this at the fair use talk page.  It
> appears a large amount of people are seeing FUC#1 as a means to an end -
> we want more free material, and the only way to get it is to delete the
> fair use stuff whenever possible.  Realism doesn't come into play

Yes it does. Screenshots for example.

>(I know
> I can't get a free picture of the indie rock chick who's dove out of the
> public eye to become a mother, but she's alive and I ''could'' get a
> picture),

Since she likely appeared on stage at some point it is likely that fan
made pics exists which the fans may well be prepared to release under
a free lisence. It then becomes a problem of finding them but that is
a seperate issue.

> but rather directing the desires of those who do the image
> stuff.

Am failing to see where beer, faster CPUs and pizzia are involved.

--
geni


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l] Different sysop levels

body:
On 11/16/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> There's Javascript that allows non-admins to do rollback in wide use
> on en:wp - it's just another form of edit, after all. There's no need
> to add a privilege level to MediaWiki.

Yes, it's a pretty dumb situation: on the one hand, only admins are
allowed to "rollback". However, any user can artificially "rollback".
Since any user can artifically rollback, no point making a special
group for them...?

I'm sure there's a logical contradiction in there somewhere.

Steve


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 16/11/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 11/16/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The idea that humanity can unite under a single language is not
> > > appalling at all to me, rather the opposite. Some people believe this
> > > "world language" to be Esperanto, others might think it can be Chinese
> > > or English, or a new artificial language. But I don't think Wikimedia
> > > should adopt a position that implies humanity should continue to
> > > actively use hundreds or thousands of languages indefinitely. To me,
> > > supporting multilinguality is first and foremost about breaking down
> > > barriers to knowledge, but it's not the only strategy to achieve that.
>
> > With all respect, this is the pov of an engineer. The idea of the world
> > to unite under one language does horrify me.
>
> That's perfectly fine, and we can have a debate about the relative
> merits of our positions. My point, however, is that we should avoid
> phrases like "in their own language", because they transport an
> inherent POV about what the correct strategy is to disseminate
> knowledge. If we can express support for multilinguality in a more
> neutral fashion, I'd be supportive of it -- such as "breaking down
> language barriers".

"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge..."

"...regardless of [their] nation, culture or language"?

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


subject:
[WikiEN-l] (semi-OT) What to do with old but not old
	enough	encyclopedias?

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> A friend of mine has a 1980 set of Encyclopedia Britannica he's trying
> to get rid of. They're not going to be public domain in many of our
> lifetimes and the information will be out of date enough to be
> misleading in many ways - they would not be appropriate for a school.
>
> I see there's another 1980 EB on eBay right now that's had no bids.
> Nobody Cares (tm).
>
> Your suggestions are welcomed ...
>

They'd probably be quite useful as reference material. Historically,
they show what people thought about various things as of 1980.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061116/589d548f/attachment.pgp


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Rules committee

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>       3. Although membership at this stage would be relatively open,
>>
>>
></snip>
>
>I have to disagree with the initial openness. We have too many process
>wonks who would jump at the chance, and we'll end up only being allowed
>to edit every second thursday when it's a prime number of days from the
>vernal equinox of Triton...
>
Well if you really think that openness should not apply, I could choose
all the members to make sure that I have a cabal that's willing to be
compliant with my vision of the rules. :-)

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Rules committee


from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[WikiEN-l] (semi-OT) What to do with old but not old enough
	encyclopedias?

body:
On 16/11/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:

> They can be given away locally, shipping cost would exceed their
> value. We have a free box where I live. Or to the land fill. I have a
> set like that which I keep around, but in two years have only
> consulted it a few times. I suppose a  Wikipedian could use it  to
> fill in some gaps and for fact checking. Postage is about equal to
> the value of the set, so you should offer it free.

I think he just wants them the heck out of his house! He's in
Melbourne, Australia. Interested parties may drop me a line and I'll
put you in touch.

I have bought several books with the intention of using them as
Wikipedia source material. Of course, I haven't got around to it at
all ...

- d.


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
The MW logo is PD content and Anthere and I explicitly designated it
as such. I'm not even going to get into any discussion about whether
we could retroactively "un-PD" it, as I find such attempts to put
content that has been explicitly released to the public under a
proprietary license unethical.

Is it valuable for the MW logo to be copyrighted by the WMF? Maybe it
is, maybe it isn't. I'm skeptical. I've seen dozens of wikis which
have "remixed" the MW logo to make their own (put something else
between the double square brackets etc.). I think that's pretty cool
and has not created any confusion as far as I know, since MediaWiki is
primarily a product rather than a community website of its own.

I suggest distinguishing strongly between the brand name MediaWiki and
the picture used to represent it. One can be protected while the other
is not.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


body:
On 16/11/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> None of the current Wikimedia projects, for example, are currently
> intended to facilitate the sharing of all fetish porn videos. But are
> not these videos a part of all knowledge taken in the absolute sense?

Right. I'm going to spend this week setting up Wikipr0n ... wonder
what I'll make on Google ads.

- d.


body:
On 11/16/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:

> > The idea that humanity can unite under a single language is not
> > appalling at all to me, rather the opposite. Some people believe this
> > "world language" to be Esperanto, others might think it can be Chinese
> > or English, or a new artificial language. But I don't think Wikimedia
> > should adopt a position that implies humanity should continue to
> > actively use hundreds or thousands of languages indefinitely. To me,
> > supporting multilinguality is first and foremost about breaking down
> > barriers to knowledge, but it's not the only strategy to achieve that.

> With all respect, this is the pov of an engineer. The idea of the world
> to unite under one language does horrify me.

That's perfectly fine, and we can have a debate about the relative
merits of our positions. My point, however, is that we should avoid
phrases like "in their own language", because they transport an
inherent POV about what the correct strategy is to disseminate
knowledge. If we can express support for multilinguality in a more
neutral fashion, I'd be supportive of it -- such as "breaking down
language barriers".

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:45:49 -0600 (CST), "Jeff Raymond"
<jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

>I've tried to get some movement on this at the fair use talk page.  It
>appears a large amount of people are seeing FUC#1 as a means to an end -
>we want more free material, and the only way to get it is to delete the
>fair use stuff whenever possible.  Realism doesn't come into play (I know
>I can't get a free picture of the indie rock chick who's dove out of the
>public eye to become a mother, but she's alive and I ''could'' get a
>picture), but rather directing the desires of those who do the image
>stuff.

Jeff, I have to say I am surprised to see you of all people making
this argument.  You seem to me to be thoroughly committed to the ideal
of free-as-in-speech content, which is precisely what fair use images
are *not*.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
On 11/16/06, ATR <alex756 at nyc.rr.com> wrote:

> First, if something is so generic that it has no real content,
> i.e. a closeup of a sunflower and a set of brackets, it cannot
> be "released into the public domain" because it is already
> uncopyrightable; IMHO any such "license" is irrelevant as a
> matter of law.

The creative elements would be the angle from which the photo was
taken and the lighting

>How is anyone going to know if one photo of a
> sunflower close up is the same as another?

We manage:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sunflower

> Can someone copyright a set of brackets?

Under some conditions yes

>I don't think so, that seems silly
> to me, there is no real creativity there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminated_manuscript

> Not everthing we do
> is protected by copyright law, so you cannot PD something
> that can't be PD, or if you want to suggest that it is PD
> that does not mean that trademark law cannot superseded
> by copyright law and people can use it in violation of trademark
> law just because someone said, "hey I released this into the
> public domain because I was just a volunteer for the
> organization that is now using it."
>

Copyright and trademark are two different areas. One does not supersed
the other since they are not dealing with the same issues.

> Putting together those two elements creates a logo, and
> a logo is covered by statutory & common trademark law.
> The basis principle of trademark law is that the trademark
> belongs to whomever uses it, here it has been in use by the
> Wikimedia Foundation, it was created on its servers and it
> belongs to it, anyone, even board members of the WMF
> cannot suggest that it belongs to them or can be transfered to
> some kind of "public ownership" because they are not
> using it "in commerce" and never did. Correct me if I am
> wrong.  Otherwise it is Wikimedia Foundation that "owns"
> the logo, and all the underlying intellectual property rights
> to said logo, whatever such rights may be notwithstanding
> whatever anyone says or whatever they might have did,
> i..e., declaring such logo as being "public domain."
>

Not at all. The foundation owns the trademark rights. No evidence it
owns any of the other potential IP rights.

> Creating a logo for "public domain use" is an absurdity,

Several major religions would disagree with you there

You appear to be useing the word logo when you mean trademark.

--
geni


body:
On 11/16/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> The photo of the sunflower, and the crop thereof, are certainly
> copyrightable. My question would be: What exactly do we lose if we
> trademark only the name "MediaWiki", and make no attempt to protect
> the image?
>

People selling T-shirts with the logo on outside wikimedia and OS
events? Someone useing it as the symbol for their softwear? There are
various potential issues.

--
geni


body:
On 11/16/06, ATR <alex756 at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> First, if something is so generic that it has no real content,
> i.e. a closeup of a sunflower and a set of brackets, it cannot
> be "released into the public domain" because it is already
> uncopyrightable;

The photo of the sunflower, and the crop thereof, are certainly
copyrightable. My question would be: What exactly do we lose if we
trademark only the name "MediaWiki", and make no attempt to protect
the image?
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


body:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:34:15 -0500, Jeff Raymond
<jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

>I guess I'm in a minority (surprise surprise) regarding how to get to
>the free content.  As fair use has minimal chance for harm, and no one's
>told me that I'm way off base in terms of possible legal ramifications

Ah, but there *are* possible legal ramifications, aren't there, and
there are risks to our ability to redistribute content if the fair use
rationale is challenged legally.  Giving the process of replacement of
unfree images a kick in the pants seems prudent to me.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
IANAL

On 11/16/06, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> ???
> Sorry. Belongs to who ?
> If you intend to claim I am not the author of the flower picture because
> it belongs to the Foundation, I think you are showing a badly twisted mind.
>

Trademark rights under certian contexts belong to the foundation.
Since you released it into the public domain the copyright probably
belongs to no one (the slightly quibble is based on the question of is
it in fact posible to release your work into the public domain but
that is a seperate question)

>
> Are you realising what you are saying ?
>
> I do not care the image is "embedded" in the logo, but the image itself
> has an independant life and no one has the right to strip me of my
> author rights on it.

You did that when you released it into the public domain. You have no
control over derivatives. In this case the derivative is also in the
public domain copyright wise.

> It is shocking to tell me I am not allowed to
> choose myself under which licence an image I produced should be released
> simply because later it is used in a tm logo.
>

I think Alex is mixing up trademark law and copyright law. However
tradmark does impose some limits. You would not be able to use your
image to market your own brand of wiki for example.

> Excuse me ?
>
> The sunflower is NOT a symbol. It is a photo I took myself in a
> perfectly good sunflower field. They were 2 meters high. I had to find a
> way to reach the flower. Find a way to take a close up of it even though
> I was nearly escalating the plant. Find a way to escape the sun to have
> the right light. And it is to be considered generic with no author right ?
>

The stuff where you chose the lighting conditions would give you a
solid copyright claim based on the case law I have seen. The effort to
get into that position would not (the law does not appear to
diffurentuate between takeing one step to the side to snap a photo and
climbing up mountians in a war zone to take a photo).

--
geni


references:
<98dd099a0611151216n11602f22paeff1d73b1f91c72@mail.gmail.com>
	<e692861c0611151256h55f2b5cer5932ff9f6f89c19@mail.gmail.com>
	<98dd099a0611161116x6d89bb1cw9637d2cc077a8f3@mail.gmail.com>
	<2504.63.151.8.141.1163706349.squirrel@www.internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<9cppl2df2at3g7q386iortgepocug69fmb@4ax.com>
	<455CE767.4000503@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<8bspl2l3vf5s37l7kumhse3612aomspbra@4ax.com>

body:
On 11/16/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> Ah, but there *are* possible legal ramifications, aren't there, and
> there are risks to our ability to redistribute content if the fair use
> rationale is challenged legally.  Giving the process of replacement of
> unfree images a kick in the pants seems prudent to me.
>

Unlikely change much since judging by the limited stats I have on hand
there are a little over 300K images on en.wikipedia claiming fair use.
--
geni


from_name: Sage Ross

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rethinking Fictional Topics

body:
There is some good stuff in your fiction essay, but I would rather see
it incorporated (along with the fiction notability guideline) into the
existing WP:WAF; I think support is building for combining WP:FICT and
WP:WAF (and to whatever extent it isn't already covered, WP:NOT) into
a general guide for writing about fiction.

I don't particularly like the way the issue is framed in your essay
(diegetic vs. non-diegetic).  Even aside from the jargon aspect, I
think that talking about this issue in terms of in-universe and
out-of-universe perspective better captures the spirit of what a
Wikipedia article on fiction should be like.  Diegetic information can
be legitimate encyclopedic content on its own in some circumstances;
your framing of the issue implies that plot summaries are generally
inappropriate, except as background or support for specific
non-diegetic information.  Unless we think that (as some have argued)
plot summaries are inherently a copyright violation, I'm opposed to
trying to kick plot summaries out of Wikipedia.  Limiting them, as
WP:WAF advocates, seems like the most sensible approach.

Focusing on diegesis also emphasizes the text or artifact of the
fiction, to the seeming neglect of broader out-of-universe context
(e.g., the contexts of creation and reception, related works, etc.).
At least according to the article "Diegesis" and as described in your
essay, non-diegetic means aspects of the fiction itself that is not
diegetic; i.e., the extradiegetic and metadiegetic levels, the domains
of literary criticism and interpretation.

On the other hand, I love the Captain Kirk paragraph; that might make
a better first section for WP:WAF than the current one.

Yours in discourse,
ragesoss

On 11/16/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2) Coherent policy
>
> Our policy on fictional topics is currently spread across an MOS
> page, a notability guideline, and [[WP:NOT]]. This meant that policy
> on fictional topics often had to be explained anew every time.
> Furthermore, the explanations at several points were less than
> satisfying, and did a poor job of showing why these policies are good
> ideas, making them seem arbitrary and ripe for ignoring.
>
> To this end, I've, with the help of several people, worked on this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Phil_Sandifer/Fiction_essay
>
> It's a fairly compact proposed guideline that offers a good
> explanation of how to deal with fictional topics. Virtually
> everything in it comes from other guidelines, though the explanations
> are often redone. I'd like to move it into the Wikipedia namespace
> soon and get consensus as a guideline, so any comments before I do
> that would be appreciated. Expect it to exist as
> [[Wikipedia:Fictional topics]] soon - I'll post again here when it does.
>


from_name: Phil Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rethinking Fictional Topics

body:
On Nov 16, 2006, at 11:30 PM, Sage Ross wrote:

> There is some good stuff in your fiction essay, but I would rather see
> it incorporated (along with the fiction notability guideline) into the
> existing WP:WAF; I think support is building for combining WP:FICT and
> WP:WAF (and to whatever extent it isn't already covered, WP:NOT) into
> a general guide for writing about fiction.
>

My problem with incorporating it into WAF is that WAF is a MoS page,
and while it is far and away the best part of the MoS, it is still
MoS, and the MoS is a disaster area that nobody has cleared up yet.
> I don't particularly like the way the issue is framed in your essay
> (diegetic vs. non-diegetic).  Even aside from the jargon aspect, I
> think that talking about this issue in terms of in-universe and
> out-of-universe perspective better captures the spirit of what a
> Wikipedia article on fiction should be like.  Diegetic information can
> be legitimate encyclopedic content on its own in some circumstances;
> your framing of the issue implies that plot summaries are generally
> inappropriate, except as background or support for specific
> non-diegetic information.  Unless we think that (as some have argued)
> plot summaries are inherently a copyright violation, I'm opposed to
> trying to kick plot summaries out of Wikipedia.  Limiting them, as
> WP:WAF advocates, seems like the most sensible approach.
>

Though in this case, WAF is in contradiction with WP:NOT, which
states "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-
world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's
achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary
of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect
of a larger topic." NOT is policy, so WAF is currently a bit in the
wrong here.

> Focusing on diegesis also emphasizes the text or artifact of the
> fiction, to the seeming neglect of broader out-of-universe context
> (e.g., the contexts of creation and reception, related works, etc.).
> At least according to the article "Diegesis" and as described in your
> essay, non-diegetic means aspects of the fiction itself that is not
> diegetic; i.e., the extradiegetic and metadiegetic levels, the domains
> of literary criticism and interpretation.
>

That's fair - I liked diegetic because it wasn't a term we made up,
but I agree, I'm not using it with absolute precision.

-Phil


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikitainment Guides

body:
Arbitration ruling that banned user for 6 months, sockpuppets used to evade
ban, and subsequent violations of the arb ruling, it seems, based on his
block log.

On 16/11/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
>
> thanks for the info - because I'm too lazy to look it up, why?
>
> NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
> > Probably totally unrelated, just a general comment and note, which
> should
> > have no bearing on any response, that this user is currently
> > [[User:T-man%2C_the_Wise_Scarecrow|indefinitely banned]] from Wikipedia.
> >
> > --Chacor
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>