body:
"Any text which has for author the Pope or a whichever ministry of the Vatican
from now on is protected by copyright. No publisher will can publish the
text of  encyclical or of papal speech without former payment to Libreria
Editrice Vaticana (LEV). This is established by a decree signed by cardinal
Angelo Sodano, Secretay of Vatican, the last 31 may."

The word of "publisher" is "casa editrice" in italian, I think that this
word means "all" publisher because only LEV (which is a publisher house)
has the right to publish Vatican's documents.

Ilario

>
>
>Babelfish says:
>
>Any text that has for author the Pope or a whichever ministry of the
>Sede Saint of hour in then e' protect from the copyright. No publishing
>house potra' piu' to publish the text of a enciclica and a papal speech
>without previo contracted to payment with the Publishing Bookcase
>Vatican (Lev). To establish it e' a decree signed slid 31 May from the
>Secretary of State Vatican, cardinal Sodano Angel.
>
>What is a publishing house under Vatican law? Does this apply to
>for-profit only?  Online works too?
>
>Fascinating that his Holiness would lock up IP rights in the first year
>of his Papacy.  Ugh.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
>[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
>valdelli at bluemail.ch
>Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 2:02 PM
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright of Vatican stuff
>
>Sorry, the copyright will be applied only to NEW Vatican's documents.
>
>Please, read this:
>
>http://www.ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/topnews/news/2006-01-22_2439593.
>html
>
>it's in italian but it's the more importante italian information bureau.
>
>If someone need to bring out Vatican's documents he must contact the
>Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
>
>Ilario
>
>>-- Messaggio originale --
>>Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:49:45 +0100
>>From: Pawe? Dembowski <fallout at lexx.eu.org>
>>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright of Vatican stuff
>>Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>><foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>
>>
>>> Honestly? Ignore it. The Vatican can't make laws outside it's few
>>> quadratmeters and outside there are other copyright laws that we obey
>
>>> anyways.
>>> Of those on wikisource only Pacem in Terris is younger than 50 years.
>>> ciao, tom
>>
>>Polish Wikisource has more.
>>
>>--
>>Ausir
>>Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
>>http://pl.wikipedia.org
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in
this
>transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to
>be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the
purpose
>of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal
>Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the
>promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s)
>or matter(s) addressed in this message.
>
>If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose
>of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional
>Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet
>those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time
>and additional fees involved.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are
private
>communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may
>contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the
>intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
>notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
>is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying
>to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system.
>Thank you.
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: valdelli at bluemail.ch

subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright of Vatican stuff


list: foundation-l

body:
Libreria Editrice Vaticana (LEV) means "Vatican Bookshop Publisher" and it's
the official publisher of Vatican (it publish already for example the Official
Catechism of Catholic Church).

Ilario

>-- Messaggio originale --
>Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:19:39 +0100
>From: valdelli at bluemail.ch
>Subject: RE: [Foundation-l] Copyright of Vatican stuff
>To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>
>
>"Any text which has for author the Pope or a whichever ministry of the Vatican
>from now on is protected by copyright. No publisher will can publish the
>text of  encyclical or of papal speech without former payment to Libreria
>Editrice Vaticana (LEV). This is established by a decree signed by cardinal
>Angelo Sodano, Secretay of Vatican, the last 31 may."
>
>The word of "publisher" is "casa editrice" in italian, I think that this
>word means "all" publisher because only LEV (which is a publisher house)
>has the right to publish Vatican's documents.
>
>Ilario
>
>>
>>
>>Babelfish says:
>>
>>Any text that has for author the Pope or a whichever ministry of the
>>Sede Saint of hour in then e' protect from the copyright. No publishing
>>house potra' piu' to publish the text of a enciclica and a papal speech
>>without previo contracted to payment with the Publishing Bookcase
>>Vatican (Lev). To establish it e' a decree signed slid 31 May from the
>>Secretary of State Vatican, cardinal Sodano Angel.
>>
>>What is a publishing house under Vatican law? Does this apply to
>>for-profit only?  Online works too?
>>
>>Fascinating that his Holiness would lock up IP rights in the first year
>>of his Papacy.  Ugh.
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
>>[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
>>valdelli at bluemail.ch
>>Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 2:02 PM
>>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright of Vatican stuff
>>
>>Sorry, the copyright will be applied only to NEW Vatican's documents.
>>
>>Please, read this:
>>
>>http://www.ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/topnews/news/2006-01-22_2439593.
>>html
>>
>>it's in italian but it's the more importante italian information bureau.
>>
>>If someone need to bring out Vatican's documents he must contact the
>>Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
>>
>>Ilario
>>
>>>-- Messaggio originale --
>>>Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:49:45 +0100
>>>From: Pawe? Dembowski <fallout at lexx.eu.org>
>>>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright of Vatican stuff
>>>Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>>><foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Honestly? Ignore it. The Vatican can't make laws outside it's few
>>>> quadratmeters and outside there are other copyright laws that we obey
>>
>>>> anyways.
>>>> Of those on wikisource only Pacem in Terris is younger than 50 years.
>>>> ciao, tom
>>>
>>>Polish Wikisource has more.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Ausir
>>>Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
>>>http://pl.wikipedia.org
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>foundation-l mailing list
>>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in
>this
>>transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written
to
>>be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the
>purpose
>>of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal
>>Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the
>>promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s)
>>or matter(s) addressed in this message.
>>
>>If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose
>>of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional
>>Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet
>>those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated
time
>>and additional fees involved.
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are
>private
>>communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may
>>contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the
>>intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
>>notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
>>is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying
>>to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system.
>>Thank you.
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


list: wikien-l

from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blue sky thinking around "neutral point of view"

body:
I, too, am sick and tired of the acronym "POV" thrown around as an insult.
I doubt we can gather enough steam to deprecate the [[WP:NPOV]] shortcut
but my suggestion for an alternative would be [[WP:NEUTRAL]].

Regards,
Haukur

> Just some blue sky thinking:
>
>   Our neutral point of view policy has aroused a fair bit of discussion at
> [[WP:NPOV]]
>   recently, and this has got me thinking:
>
>   We've all seen arguments where people keep arguing that this is "POV" or
> someone
>   is being "POV" where in normal English we'd just call something an
> "opinion" and
>   note that someone has an opinion on something. Indeed, the made-up term
> POV
>   is bandied around usually to mean something along the lines of - you are
> wrong,
>   I am right, and because it is a NPOV issue, the point is non-negotiable,
> which isn't
>   a very good place to start from if the issue is to be resolved. Plus far
> too many
>   people read NPOV as equating to "no point of view" as opposed to the
> real requirement, which is to write from a neutral viewpoint.
>
>   My blue sky thinking (which I don't claim to be a panacea, just an
> interesting thought) is why don't we rename the policy page
> [[Wikipedia:Neutral viewpoint]] and make
>   the shortcut link to it [[WP:NEUVIEW]] (or [[WP:NEUTVIEW]]). It goes
> without
>   saying that the underlying concept behind the policy would remain
> completely
>   unchanged - just the name of the page would change - plus it would
> enhance
>   people's perceptions that it is about requiring a neutral viewpoint,
> rather than no
>   viewpoint, or neutrality more generally: it would help define the policy
> in positive terms
>   and (and perhaps I'm going too far here:) ) may help stop content
> disputes escalating
>   in scale and viciousness.
>
>   Kind regards
>
>   Jon
>   (jguk)
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger  NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
> voicemail
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Google Earth copyright (now that you bring it up)

body:
On 1/24/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > I really don't see what encyclopedic knowledge a photo of a
> > burning wing adds to the [[Tenerife disaster]] article.  The
> > computer generated image of the impact, on the other hand,
> > that's somewhat informational.
>
> Both are useful. The CG image shows how the accident happened in a way that
> no photograph can, simply because there was no camera present at an
> appropriate vantage point and the visibility was very poor.
>
> The photograph of the burning wing illustrates the conditions at the crash
> scene. I don't think anyone who has ever travelled on an airliner can look
> at that photograph and not get a sense of how horrific the crash must have
> been, in a way that is going to be difficult to convey in text alone.
>
Well, it's certainly possible, because when I saw the image I was
wholly unimpressed.  OK, a wing is burning.  That's what I would have
imagined anyway if you told me "a plane crashed".  I stand by my
opinion that I don't think there is any encyclopedic knowledge added
by that picture.  I think the article would be as good with the image
as without it.  Better, in fact, because the article wouldn't be more
free.

If horrifying people really is that important, I'm sure it'd be
possible to create a good re-enactment, complete with a simulation of
the burning and carnage and all that fun stuff.  Yes, it'd take a lot
of time and effort.  Frankly, I don't think it'd be worth it in this
case.  But I take that to mean that it's not worth it to just use
someone else's work either.

> > Of course, the computer generated image was apparently ripped
> > off some website, even though it's perfectly possible for a
> > Wikipedia to generate it herself.
> >
> > "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of
> > works of art for critical commentary on the work in question,
> > the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the
> > school to which the artist belongs on the English-language
> > Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the
> > non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under
> > United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on
> > Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement."
> >
> > Which of those three uses is [[Image:Tenerife collision.jpg]]
> > being used under?
>
> Obviously none of them, and I will not defend the uploader for picking that
> usage, except to say that they have only been editing for a few months and
> could perhaps use guidance more than criticism.
>
> However, thanks for spotting it, and perhaps you or some other
> public-spirited editor could take appropriate action?
>
What is the appropriate action?  Should I remove the image from the
article?  Do you want to bet someone adds it back if I do?

It's not worth my time, especially as it's only one image of many.  In
fact, the other image is equally bad (moreso, I'd argue, because it's
less educational).

"It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of newspaper
pages to illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in
question, with the publication name either visible on the image itself
or written in the image description above, on the English-language
Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit
Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States
copyright law." ([[Image:Tenerife Disaster Collision aftermath 27
March 1977.png]]).

These tags have become almost useless, because it is quite common that
they describe things completely unrelated to the image in question.
This image is not being used to illustrate the publication of the
article or issue in question.  There's no reason it should be in
Wikipedia.  When someone writes a really good, but proprietary,
explanation of a new scientific theory, you don't just copy it into
Wikipedia, even as a placeholder until someone writes a free
replacement.  There's no reason it should be done with images either.

My point, in case you don't see what I'm getting at, is that it's not
about this image.  It's about whatever flaw there is in the system
that allows these images to sit there for months with completely
inappropriate tags.  I'm not actually sure what it is that caused this
flaw, nor am I sure how to fix it.  It's not *just* the fact that it's
a wiki and that wikis sometimes contain glaring mistakes.  If I had
mentioned a glaring flaw in an article it'd be fixed by now.  It's
gotta be something else.  I'd love to hear your suggestions, or even
if you just think there isn't such a flaw in the first place.  (Maybe
it's the fact that this is considered meta-data.  People argue over
policies by modifying the tag, all the while not paying attention to
the fact that they're causing the tag to be completely misleading.)

> Do you have any useful views on the question I asked about thumbnailing?
>
Not really, but I'll give it my best anyway:

"I wonder at what point an image is so downgraded by thumbnailing as to be
exempt from any challenge to fair use."

> Is there some acceptable percentage, or do we just have to hope that a court
> will say that 5% or 10% or whatever is degraded enough that we can use it?
>
> Peter (Skyring)

No, there's no acceptable percentage.  Fair use in the United States
is extremely subjective.  It doesn't just matter how much you're
using, but who you are, how you're using it, how good your lawyer is,
what kind of mood the judge is in, etc.

In fact, I'd say a large part of the advantage of a free encyclopedia
is supposed to be that it removes such questions from having to be
worried about.

Anthony


body:
You mention twice that you think "copyright affects media
differently".  I actually don't think this is true for the most part,
either in terms of what copyright should do or what it does do (with
exception for some limited cases, for instance digital audio
transmissions, which are given specific rights under copyright law).

You say that what's copyrighted in Mickey Mouse is not just the lines.
 I actually think this shows exactly what I'm saying.  To describe
Mickey Mouse in words is just as much of an infringement as to
describe the Mouse in pictures.

Anthony

On 1/25/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/23/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > I don't know that it has to be "basic facts", but certainly when we're
> > talking about images in an encyclopedia we're talking about
> > communicating facts.
>
> Well, that was just an example. But I am talking about things like
> scientific facts, which are not copyrightable. If I use someone's
> drawing of an atom to make my own drawing of an atom, that's fine,
> even more so if I make my own graphical choices about it in the
> process. What's copyrighted is the specific presentation, and whatever
> "creative" decisions went into it, not the underlying "factual"
> information.
>
> Mickey Mouse is not quite the same thing as this, I don't think. Here
> the underlying information is a fictional creation, based entirely on
> someone's creativity. Hence it is copyrightable "all the way down", as
> I understand it.
>
> > If a picture really is worth a thousand words, and that's probably not
> > a bad order of magnitude for the purposes of this statement, then it'd
> > take about as much work to make a "copyright-safe" version of the same
> > "size" text or image, at least given the same level of communication
> > skills in each medium.  Maybe that isn't fair, though, as most people
> > communicate more effectively with words than with pictures.
>
> Again, copyright affects media differently and I think assuming that
> it shouldn't is entirely wrong. It is very easy to make a "copyright
> safe" paragraph about World War II based on a secondary source (take
> the basic information, rewrite it in your own words, cite the original
> source as a reference). It is not easy if even possible to make a
> "copyright safe" version of a photograph of World War II.
>
> > Doesn't a [[clean room design]] allow you to make "free" versions of
> > copyrighted things?  If a textual description of a photograph is
> > non-infringing, and you give that textual description to a sketch
> > artist (who's never seen the original), then isn't the sketch likewise
> > non-infringing?
>
> The [[clean room design]] is another example of copyright affecting
> different media differently. Programming code is more like text than
> it is like an image -- if I find another way to do the same thing you
> do, without copying your code, I don't infringe on the copyright.
> (Software _patents_ are a different matter entirely, of course, which
> is why they are so controversial.)
>
> But about your specific hypothetical: what is copyrighted in a picture
> of Mickey Mouse is the creative aspect of it, not the specific lines
> and whatnot. If you strive to copy that , no matter what machinations
> you add in the execution is going to be ruled infringement. Again, if
> the opposite were true then you'd see tons and tons of knockoffs of
> every copyrighted image on the market.
>
> FF
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] note David Gerard's just placed on [[WT:AFD]]

body:
On 25 Jan 2006, at 17:54, Jon wrote:
>
>   The other thing worth cracking down on is new edits - Our
> policies already allow
>   us to revert a new edit that adds new information without a
> reference. We should
>   be doing this automatically.

How are you supposed to tell if a new edit comes from an existing
source for the
article though? (Except in the case the article has no references at
all).

Justinc


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
On 1/25/06, Jon <thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>   The other thing worth cracking down on is new edits - Our policies already allow
>   us to revert a new edit that adds new information without a reference. We should
>   be doing this automatically.

Because you know, GOD FORBID that users should learn to cooperate and
add material to refine and support one another's work...


from_name: Sam Korn

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: Thoughts on admin-only IRC channels and RC
	patrol

references:
<43D77353.8070803@starglade.org> <dr82ga$26o$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<43D78E06.5020506@starglade.org> <dr8dh0$o80$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<cbffa3750601251104t639a27f3r8e7d6df1ef62b4ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<dr8pmb$gd9$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 1/25/06, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am *sure* it was an honest mistake.
> This is nevertheless not the first time, not even the first time *this*
> week. And this is disheartening.

I think most of these "honest mistakes" are due to the fact that there
are very few statements by the Board as a whole.  Thus statements by
individual Board members are understood as being on behalf of the
Board as a whole.

Though I recognise the difficulty presented, I do think it would
reduce these confusions if a definitive statement "by the Board" could
be presented more often.

--
Sam


from_name: Matt Brown

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] An outsider's view on en-admin-only
	whatever and the rest

body:
On 1/25/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Matt Brown wrote:
> > I strongly believe helpdesk-l should be shut down.

> If you claim it is because "any old troll could join it", we can
> moderate subscription. There are no longer any archives being kept. If
> you have some other reason, please state it instead of just hand-waving...

Simply because I feel that it does not scale and does not handle the
flood of incoming emails all that well, from my experience of it.  NOT
a criticism of the hard work of the volunteers answering emails.

-Matt


body:
On 25 Jan 2006, at 21:47, Fred Bauder wrote:

> Properly done each fact (or set of facts) will point somehow to the
> source, including the page in the source.

How? And how will the article still be readable? And what is a fact?
And what use is the page number
when there are loads of editions of a source?

No encyclopaedia is written like this.

Justinc


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Copyright of Vatican stuff

body:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2005615,00.html

here it says

The edict covers Pope Benedict XVI?s first encyclical, which is to be
issued this week amid huge international interest. The edict is
retroactive, covering not only the writings of the present pontiff ? as
Pope and as cardinal ? but also those of his predecessors over the past
50 years. It therefore includes anything written by John Paul II, John
Paul I, Paul VI and John XXIII.

Is it again incorrect press report ?

ant

valdelli at bluemail.ch wrote:
> Sorry, the copyright will be applied only to NEW Vatican's documents.
>
> Please, read this:
>
> http://www.ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/topnews/news/2006-01-22_2439593.html
>
> it's in italian but it's the more importante italian information bureau.
>
> If someone need to bring out Vatican's documents he must contact the Libreria
> Editrice Vaticana.
>
> Ilario
>
>
>>-- Messaggio originale --
>>Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:49:45 +0100
>>From: Pawe? Dembowski <fallout at lexx.eu.org>
>>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright of Vatican stuff
>>Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>
>>
>>>Honestly? Ignore it. The Vatican can't make laws outside it's few
>>>quadratmeters and outside there are other copyright laws that we
>>>obey anyways.
>>>Of those on wikisource only Pacem in Terris is younger than 50 years.
>>>ciao, tom
>>
>>Polish Wikisource has more.
>>
>>--
>>Ausir
>>Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
>>http://pl.wikipedia.org
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Thoughts on admin-only IRC channels and RC patrol

body:
Sam Korn wrote:
> On 1/25/06, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>But Jimbo is NOT the Foundation.
>>
>>Assimilating ONE person to a full group of people is RUDE.
>>
>>It denies our existence. It denies our efforts. It denies the work we
>>are putting in the Foundation itself. It denies the very existence of
>>our personal opinions. It makes us appear as if we were puppets.
>>
>>And this is NOT acceptable.
>>
>>When you talk to a person, you receive the opinion of this person. ONLY.
>>
>>Ant, a PERSON.
>
>
> Ant, I really don't think Chris was attempting to be rude.  Yes, he
> carelessly took one person's opinion to represent that of several
> people, but I am sure that this was an honest mistake, not a malicious
> (or even thought-out) attempt to bypass the work you do.
>
> Indeed, I don't think anyone would underestimate the work you do.  I
> am sure that this was really only the result of a misunderstanding.
>
> --
> Sam

I am *sure* it was an honest mistake.
This is nevertheless not the first time, not even the first time *this*
week. And this is disheartening.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Vatican is asserting copyright

body:
On 25 Jan 2006, at 22:16, Katefan0 wrote:

> This sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure how it comports with their
> announcement:
>
> Publishers will have to negotiate a levy of between 3 per cent and
> 5 per
> cent of the cover price of any book or publication "containing the
> Pope's
> words". Those who infringe the copyright face legal action and a
> higher levy
> of 15 per cent.
>
> The Italian publishing house that got slapped with a $18.4k suit only
> contained 30 lines of papal decree.  Obviously a Wikipedia article
> would
> never have even that much verbatim verbiage, but it does seem
> rather a small
> amount for an almost $20k suit.  It then begs the question of what the
> quoted cutoff might be.  I think regardless we would be all right
> as long as
> we were paraphrasing.  But ... quoted matter may be a different story.
>

Sounds like a lot of Papal Bull to me.

Sorry..... ;)

Justinc


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

body:
Anthere wrote:
> Jimbo is Jimbo.
> Jimbo is the foundator.
> Jimbo is the benevolent dictator.
> Jimbo is the chair of the Foundation.
>
> But Jimbo is NOT the Foundation.
>
> Assimilating ONE person to a full group of people is RUDE.
>
> It denies our existence. It denies our efforts. It denies the work we
> are putting in the Foundation itself. It denies the very existence of
> our personal opinions. It makes us appear as if we were puppets.
>
> And this is NOT acceptable.
>
> When you talk to a person, you receive the opinion of this person. ONLY.
>
> Ant, a PERSON.

Anthere, you know you and I have talked often enough and I respect your
personal contributions and beliefs enough that I would never intend to
deny your own efforts. I meant Jimbo, and I'm sorry for the mistake in
phrasing.

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Maru Dubshinki

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] An outsider's view on en-admin-only whatever and
	the rest

body:
On 1/25/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/25/06, Maru Dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If the problem is really apparent, why can't you tag the page appropriately?
> > I don't think adding a new layer of procedure will help anything;
> > people who already have the time and such will already be working on
> > the cleanup category.
>
> Sure.
> Let me just take a look...
> [[Category:NPOV disputes]] 1800 articles tagged.
> [[Category:Articles which may be biased]] 196 articles tagged
> [[Category:Accuracy disputes]]  1000 articles tagged
> [[Category:Pages needing attention]]  198 articles tagged
> [[Category:Possible copyright violations]] 199 articles tagged
>
> Of course, my "urgent request" will be taken care of within the hour.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Delphine
> --
> ~notafish

Why is your urgent request more urgent than all those others?

If your point is that there is entirely too much work that needs to be
done, and that we should start cloning our best editors to try to
catch up on the backlog, I wholeheartedly agree!  :)

~Maru


from_name: PiaCarrot

subject:
[Foundation-l] GFDL Version issue: Can simply syncing GFDL Licence
	document solve GFDL version imcompatibility?

body:
Each article on most editions on wikipedia are licenced under
"GFDL 1.2 or later", but articles on ja.wp are currently licenced
under "GFDL 1.1 or later". But, some images and some articles
on ja.wp are duplicated from other language edition of wikipedia,
it seems GFDL violation because GFDL version imcompatibility.
("Permission is granted to use under GFDL 1.2 or later" can be
read "Permission isn't granted under GFDL 1.1 or prior")

If licence on ja.wp shifted to "GFDL 1.2 or later" simply,
can their "Duplicated articles and images" be relieved
from  GFDL version imcompatibility because article 9 of
GFDL licence?
(Can article 9 of GFDL licence used to relieve them from
GFDL version imcompatibility?)

----
PiaCarrot at ja/en/ja.wiktionary
E-Mail:nao-yuki a-t beige.plala.or.jp


from_name: Sabine Cretella

references:
<578945742.20060125184945@lexx.eu.org>	<43BDC11C000AF0D9@mssbzhb-int.msg.bluewin.ch>
	<dr8per$edt$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
First of all: Thank you Anthere for having copied the mail to me
privately - when I have plenty of work, the lists I receive sometimes
are not read.

What Ilario writes is right considering the Italian link he gave - there
is nothing that states "retroactive". And then thre's the link from
Anthere of the Times ... and that seems to be retroactive, but I suppose
they cannot apply it to pubblications that were done before. So if the
contents in wikibooks was there before that changes they may be there
... or not?

And I am not sure if the times is right/if Ansa reported only a part of
it. It would make sense to write the Vatican and ask ... and of course
refer to the fact that not allowing for the publication (at least on
Internet) they preclude many people from reading the Pope's writings and
that it does not at all help to spread the word, but that it prevents it
from being spread and that basically is against everything written in
the Bible. This means they give more space to whatever "strange"
organisation and will have less possibilities to communicate with people
showing additionally that maybe religion is more about business than
about "credo" ... hmmm ...

Isn't it funny that the Pope is from the city where I come from?

When I contacted the Radio Vaticana for the Cristmas wishes of Giovanni
Paolo II they immediately gave me the OK and sent me the file. Through a
priest who is also member of the Italian discussion group I got
addresses for terminology, but there is that problem that this
terminology is not wanted to be included in the actual Wiktionary since
it does not allow to underline that it is "terminology of the Roman
Catholic Church" we are dealing with and that therefore no changes
should apply. Well WiktionaryZ will help since there we can assure this
and people can edit and add further information as well. An example on
how this works is the GEMET data
(http://epov.org/wd-gemet/index.php/Main_Page) - also that glossary is
an official one that shows which terminology is to be used. And there
are "fixed glossaries and thesauri" that should not be changed
indeliberately, but there we should have proposals for changes and
additions where one can see "that is original data and that are the
changes/additions" and "that is accepted" etc.

So I know the Vatican institutions (besides one of the priests here in
Maiori) as a group of helpful people - we should simply ask them to get
things right.

My 2 cts.

Best, Sabine

Anthere wrote:

> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2005615,00.html
>
> here it says
>
> The edict covers Pope Benedict XVI?s first encyclical, which is to be
> issued this week amid huge international interest. The edict is
> retroactive, covering not only the writings of the present pontiff ?
> as Pope and as cardinal ? but also those of his predecessors over the
> past 50 years. It therefore includes anything written by John Paul II,
> John Paul I, Paul VI and John XXIII.
>
>
> Is it again incorrect press report ?
>
>
> ant
>
>
> valdelli at bluemail.ch wrote:
>
>> Sorry, the copyright will be applied only to NEW Vatican's documents.
>>
>> Please, read this:
>>
>> http://www.ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/topnews/news/2006-01-22_2439593.html
>>
>>
>> it's in italian but it's the more importante italian information bureau.
>>
>> If someone need to bring out Vatican's documents he must contact the
>> Libreria
>> Editrice Vaticana.
>>
>> Ilario
>

___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] An outsider's view on en-admin-only
 whatever and the	rest

body:
Delphine M?nard wrote:
> crossposting to wikipedia-l as this is an international issue
> =========
> Hi all,
>
> as a totally non-en person, admin on other wikis and actually working
> "behind the scenes", I would like to give my view on what I believe is
> needed, and why an en-admin-only channel and list won't help to the
> extent that is needed. This is long, but please bear with me.
>
> Let me try to make this more concrete.
>
> OTRS (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS) receives a lot (and here I
> mean "A LOT") of complaints.
>
<snip>

I'd like to add that helpdesk-l (which is just a regular old mailing
list) suffers from the same problem, except that we have no way of
knowing who has answered what until someone else posts a reply to it,
and there are a lot less people working on it. At present I have a
backlog of over 2300 messages, some of them from December last year. If
you are interested please visit
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/helpdesk-l - we mostly use
the OTRS messages (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/en), but
Humblefool and Jareth have some other messages at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Humblefool/Helpdesk_boilerplates and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jareth/Boiler respectively.

Maybe we should shut it down and all move to OTRS. I don't know.

--
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: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060125/22b70134/attachment.pgp


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] An outsider's view on en-admin-only whatever and
	the	rest

body:
Delphine M?nard wrote:
> crossposting to wikipedia-l as this is an international issue
> =========
> Hi all,
>
> as a totally non-en person, admin on other wikis and actually working
> "behind the scenes", I would like to give my view on what I believe is
> needed, and why an en-admin-only channel and list won't help to the
> extent that is needed. This is long, but please bear with me.
>
> Let me try to make this more concrete.
>
> OTRS (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS) receives a lot (and here I
> mean "A LOT") of complaints.
>
<snip>

I'd like to add that helpdesk-l (which is just a regular old mailing
list) suffers from the same problem, except that we have no way of
knowing who has answered what until someone else posts a reply to it,
and there are a lot less people working on it. At present I have a
backlog of over 2300 messages, some of them from December last year. If
you are interested please visit
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/helpdesk-l - we mostly use
the OTRS messages (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/en), but
Humblefool and Jareth have some other messages at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Humblefool/Helpdesk_boilerplates and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jareth/Boiler respectively.

Maybe we should shut it down and all move to OTRS. I don't know.

--
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: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20060125/22b70134/attachment.pgp


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
The link to the 1978 decree makes me wonder because both of these were
issued about a month after these popes came to power.  Were there
similar decrees in relation to the previous popes?  Perhaps not for John
Paul I because of his short reign, but certainly for the three popes
before him.  Pius XI might be a different matter since he did not have
temporal power in 1922.  I suspect that this activity may be nothing
more than a routine decree showing that the pope has abandoned his
personal rights in favour of the church.

Ec

valdelli at bluemail.ch wrote:

>Here the decree:
>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2005/documents/rc_seg-st_20050531_decreto-lev_it.html
>
>with this notice:
>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2005/documents/rc_seg-st_20050531_comunicato-lev_it.html
>
>There is no references to 50 years period or retroaction.
>
>Ok, but there is this another decree issued in the 1978!!!
>
>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/lev/docs_lev/decreto1978.htm
>
>The decree of Benedetto XVI draws on the oldest 1978's decree which safeguard
>the works of Giovanni Paolo II and generally of members of Vatican:
>
>"...the Libreria Editrice Vaticana, in his capacity as official publisher
>of the Holy See, over the traditional obligation to safeguard written texts
>and speeches of the sovereign Pontiffs and the publications concerning Acts
>of the Holy See, has received the assignment of protect also the written
>ones of Cardinal Karol Wojtyla.
>Cannot be made publications, translations or reproductions in whichever graphical
>or phonical typology of Its written texts and speeches without the explicit
>authorization of the aforesaid Libreria Editrice Vaticana, following the
>international agreements and the laws on the Copyrights... (L'O.R. 27-28
>Novembre 1978)".
>
>In this case the decree of previous may don't say anything about the copyright
>on the Joannis Paulus II, but there was already another decree, the new decree
>seems to be a confirmation.
>
>But it's better to ask.
>
>Ilario
>
>
>>-- Messaggio originale --
>>To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>From: Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
>>Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:09:48 +0100
>>Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Copyright of Vatican stuff
>>Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>
>>
>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2005615,00.html
>>
>>here it says
>>
>>The edict covers Pope Benedict XVI?s first encyclical, which is to be
>>issued this week amid huge international interest. The edict is
>>retroactive, covering not only the writings of the present pontiff ? as
>>
>>
>>Pope and as cardinal ? but also those of his predecessors over the past
>>
>>
>>50 years. It therefore includes anything written by John Paul II, John
>>Paul I, Paul VI and John XXIII.
>>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Martin Baumann

subject: [Wikitech-l] renaming index.php to index.cgi

body:
Hi,

I played along with user rights of the mediawiki directories and files.
I did a
chmod -R o-r *
After that the wiki looked again like 'Simple'-skin. I changed the thing
back and voila
'MonoBook'-skin was back!

Maybe someone may find this information helpful.

MB

Martin Baumann schrieb:

> I did this. I had to change the rights of index.cgi and the wiki
> directory. Now it works. I can upload files!!!
> But at the same time the design changed. The skin is 'MonoBook' but it
> looks like 'Simple'. I have no idea where
> this came from.
>
> Has anyone had similar problems yet? Any idea what could go wrong?
>
> Thanks, MB
>
>
> Rob Church schrieb:
>
>> Change the value of $wgScript and related variables in
>> LocalSettings.php to prevent MediaWiki from redirecting back to
>> index.php.
>>
>>
>> Rob Church
>>
>> On 17/01/06, Martin Baumann <mailsgetlost at web.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi everyone!
>>>
>>> First of all I explain the problem.
>>> I installed and configured mediawiki and it works so far. The only
>>> problem is uploading files.
>>>
>>> The server used here is used by a lot of users. Therefore it is
>>> configurated in a way that makes it necessary for all php scripts
>>> that do file operations (such as uploading images) to be renamed to
>>> cgi and add a new line in the beginning that calls the correct
>>> interpreter for this cgi script. Only this way safe mode
>>> restrictions can be handled on this machine.
>>>
>>> A disadvantage of this is that cgi scrips are ran more slowly than
>>> php scripts on this server. Therefore it would be best to use
>>> index.cgi for uploading images and index.php for all other purposes.
>>>
>>> I tried to use index.cgi only: I renamed index.php to index.cgi and
>>> added the interpretar line into it. Further I replaced 'index.php'
>>> calls in all media wiki script files by 'index.cgi' calls.
>>> But it didn't work: when I opend the index.cgi in a browser (I tried
>>> several browsers) it took some time and then the following error was
>>> shown:
>>> Redirection limit for this URL exceeded.
>>>
>>> Is there a simple way to make changes to media wiki such that it is
>>> started as a cgi and not as php script file?
>>> Does anyone have experience with this?
>>>
>>> Thanks, MB
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
>>> Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>>> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Thoughts on admin-only IRC channels and RC patrol

body:
Ryan Delaney wrote:
> First off, thank you for a very thoughtful and polite email. At the risk of
> taking this off-topic, I would like to address one point you made at the end
> with a quick point:
>
> On 1/25/06, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
>
>>Another - and better - solution, however, is to grant the rollback
>>privilege to good contributors who are not admins. This would make the
>>jobs of RC patrollers much easier - and will have the knock-on effect of
>>lowering the amount of complaints the Foundation gets. The Foundation
>>agrees that this is a great solution to the big problem we face. There
>>is a poll to gauge community consensus on the issue:
>>  -->
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback_privileges/Poll
>>
>
>
> While I support this idea (and I would even approve of a measure where the
> software automatically granted rollback to all users after they passed a
> certain number of edits), this can also be accomplished with godmode light.
> I suggest that more non-admin vandal patrollers familiarise themselves with
> this and other powerful monobook.js scripts.
>

The page notes that this and others exist; however these place
considerable load on the servers and often break as soon as some part of
Mediawiki changes.

--
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: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060126/03ae5079/attachment.pgp


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Could an Administrator please
	look	into	this	conflict?

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:

>Ray Saintonge stated for the record:
>
>
>>Luigi30 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>So at what point does attempting to assert your copyright become
>>>>"making a legal threat"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Saying "you'll hear from my lawyer" before telling them kindly to
>>>remove it, I imagine.
>>>
>>>
>>I guess we all react to this kind of thing differently.  I don't
>>interpret legal threats as much of a big deal.  Outlawing them seems a
>>bit like changing the rules of poker to forbid bluffing.  I prefer to
>>respond with comments like, "I dare you!" or more simply, " :-P ."  I
>>refuse to be intimidated by such nonsense.
>>
>>Ec
>>
>>
>The reason for getting rid of them is that a person who has stated
>(almost certainly as a bluff, but possibly not) his desire and intention
>of either ruining an editor's life or of financially destroying the
>project is clearly not an asset to the encyclopedia.  We don't simply
>want someone who want to do us harm to have write-access to the
>sum-total of human knowledge.
>
Perhaps then the views of the treatened person should be taken into
account.  Some oof us are more thick-skinned than others.

Ec


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: An outsider's view on en-admin-only whatever
	and the rest

body:
On 1/25/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
...
> Because, for example, it might deal with a matter that creates potential
> legal liability for the Wikimedia Foundation. Which would make it just a
> little more pressing than the question of what is really known about
> [[Celtic Christianity]].
>
> These are not problems for which "Just tag it and we'll fix it later" is
> an appropriate response. Hence the sarcastic reaction when that response
> is given.
>
> --Michael Snow

And again, I don't think you've differentiated the articles you are
concerned about.
The entire copyvio category is a "potential legal liability" as well.
Are you talking about a few rare extraordinary exceptions? In those
cases, what is wrong with simple and old methods like raising a gang
of editors on IRC or asking another editor to take care of it?

~Maru


body:
Sean Barrett wrote:

>Anthere stated for the record:
>
>
>>Is that legal to retrospectively apply a copyright on communications ?
>>
>>...
>>I must say I am abashed by this news...I seem to remember that the key
>>point of a religion was to carry on a deity words so as to ensure a good
>>number of believers...
>>
>>Weird
>>
>>ant
>>
>>
>The British Crown claims to own the King James Bible.
>
And the Acad?mie fran?aise claims perpetual copyright on all editions of
its dictionary because it was written by immortals.

Ec


body:
Matt Brown wrote:

>On 1/25/06, Katefan0 <katefan0wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>All right, so back to the topic at hand -- should we just delete every quote
>>from every pope cited on Wikipedia and Wikisource?
>>
>>
>On Wikipedia: absolutely not.  We are not including whole texts within
>Wikipedia, we are selectively quoting from and referencing them, which
>is well within the normal scope of fair use.
>
>We might want to consider the status of some things on Wikisource, however.
>
We really don't need to rush into any kind of panic.  On English
Wikisource the only affected text is John XXIII's "Pacem in terris".
I'm sure that there are other copies of this around that have been
published without permission.  That may be enough to allow the doctrine
of laches to apply; the facts would need to be researched. We may even
be able to afford 15% of our cover price!  We should at least give the
issue a little time to develop.

Ec


from_name: Angela

subject: [Foundation-l] New Wikimedia Committees

body:
As you may have seen from
<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions>, the Board has
approved the creation of a number of new committees: Financial,
Technical, Executive, Events, Communications, Special projects, Board
expansion committee, and Chapters.

The pages linked from the resolutions page gives some very brief
details about these, and so far there has been no public discussion of
them.

I would like to open up discussion of the Executive Committee since
internally, opinions are very divided on how this committee should be
set up, and I think some additional views might be useful. The two
lines of thought are:

1) small committee: the committee should be made up of between 2 and 4
existing Board
members only
2) large committee: the committee should include the current Board as
well as representatives from other committees and people outside the
other committees.

Does anyone have experience or knowledge of how Executive Committees
in other non-profit organizations are organized? Is there any benefit
of one approach over the other?

Ideas are also welcome on how the Executive Committee should fit in
with the other committees, and whether additional committees are
needed.

Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] New Wikimedia Committees


from_name: sannse

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: An outsider's view on en-admin-only whatever
	andthe rest

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:
> "Delphine M?nard" <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote
>>Sure.
>>Let me just take a look...
>>[[Category:NPOV disputes]] 1800 articles tagged.
>>[[Category:Articles which may be biased]] 196 articles tagged
>>[[Category:Accuracy disputes]]  1000 articles tagged
>>[[Category:Pages needing attention]]  198 articles tagged
>>[[Category:Possible copyright violations]] 199 articles tagged
>>Of course, my "urgent request" will be taken care of within the hour.
>
>
> So modify your reply to the complainer: instead of saying "oh yes, I've
> taken care of it personally; you don't need to do anything" try saying "as
> per normal Wikipedia procedure I've tagged it for urgent treatment. Please
> feel free to help out yourself."
>
> Maybe you can recruit editors this way, and at least they'll start with some
> sort of motivation. Obviously someone would want to check that said
> motivation didn't carry them away :-)

This just isn't practical.  If we have an irate politician writing to us
and threatening to sue, "fix it yourself" just isn't going to wash.
Especially if there are three regular POV-warriors sitting on the
article day and night putting the problem text back.

We have to accept that not all people with a complaint are willing or
able to edit.  And I somehow doubt that "well he could have edited it
every day for three months to keep it ok" will be a good defence in a
libel case.  Or worse - "he should have tried using the dispute
resolution process"

We /do/ often encourage people writing to info-en to join the project.
But it's simply not appropriate in all cases.  And those where it isn't
are generally the ones with the potential to blow up in our faces big-time.

--sannse


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: #wikipedia-en-admins

body:
On 1/25/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Trusted editors == admins? Should I feel vaguely insulted?
>
> Admins == trusted editors (well, admins *should* == trusted editors),
> but trusted editors > admins.
>
> --
> Sam

Actually it's really more like <math>Admins \subset Trusted
Editors</math>, or, if you really, really want to use natural numbers
|Admins| < |Trusted Users|

I'm sorry, I just had to :P

--Oskar Sigvardsson


from_name: valdelli at bluemail.ch

body:
Here the decree:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2005/documents/rc_seg-st_20050531_decreto-lev_it.html

with this notice:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2005/documents/rc_seg-st_20050531_comunicato-lev_it.html

There is no references to 50 years period or retroaction.

Ok, but there is this another decree issued in the 1978!!!

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/lev/docs_lev/decreto1978.htm

The decree of Benedetto XVI draws on the oldest 1978's decree which safeguard
the works of Giovanni Paolo II and generally of members of Vatican:

"...the Libreria Editrice Vaticana, in his capacity as official publisher
of the Holy See, over the traditional obligation to safeguard written texts
and speeches of the sovereign Pontiffs and the publications concerning Acts
of the Holy See, has received the assignment of protect also the written
ones of Cardinal Karol Wojtyla.
Cannot be made publications, translations or reproductions in whichever graphical
or phonical typology of Its written texts and speeches without the explicit
authorization of the aforesaid Libreria Editrice Vaticana, following the
international agreements and the laws on the Copyrights... (L'O.R. 27-28
Novembre 1978)".

In this case the decree of previous may don't say anything about the copyright
on the Joannis Paulus II, but there was already another decree, the new decree
seems to be a confirmation.

But it's better to ask.

Ilario

>-- Messaggio originale --
>To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>From: Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
>Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:09:48 +0100
>Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Copyright of Vatican stuff
>Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>
>
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2005615,00.html
>
>here it says
>
>The edict covers Pope Benedict XVI?s first encyclical, which is to be
>issued this week amid huge international interest. The edict is
>retroactive, covering not only the writings of the present pontiff ? as

>Pope and as cardinal ? but also those of his predecessors over the past

>50 years. It therefore includes anything written by John Paul II, John
>Paul I, Paul VI and John XXIII.
>
>
>Is it again incorrect press report ?
>
>
>ant
>
>
>valdelli at bluemail.ch wrote:
>> Sorry, the copyright will be applied only to NEW Vatican's documents.
>>
>> Please, read this:
>>
>> http://www.ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/topnews/news/2006-01-22_2439593.html
>>
>> it's in italian but it's the more importante italian information bureau.
>>
>> If someone need to bring out Vatican's documents he must contact the Libreria
>> Editrice Vaticana.
>>
>> Ilario
>>
>>
>>>-- Messaggio originale --
>>>Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:49:45 +0100
>>>From: Pawe? Dembowski <fallout at lexx.eu.org>
>>>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright of Vatican stuff
>>>Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Honestly? Ignore it. The Vatican can't make laws outside it's few
>>>>quadratmeters and outside there are other copyright laws that we
>>>>obey anyways.
>>>>Of those on wikisource only Pacem in Terris is younger than 50 years.
>>>>ciao, tom
>>>
>>>Polish Wikisource has more.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Ausir
>>>Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
>>>http://pl.wikipedia.org
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>foundation-l mailing list
>>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


body:
Sorry, but the Vatican's web site is written in six languages, but the part
concerning the LEV is only in italian.

Ilario

>-- Messaggio originale --
>Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 01:40:39 +0100
>From: valdelli at bluemail.ch
>Subject: RE: [Foundation-l] Re: Copyright of Vatican stuff
>To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>
>
>Here the decree:
>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2005/documents/rc_seg-st_20050531_decreto-lev_it.html
>
>with this notice:
>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2005/documents/rc_seg-st_20050531_comunicato-lev_it.html
>
>There is no references to 50 years period or retroaction.
>
>Ok, but there is this another decree issued in the 1978!!!
>
>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/lev/docs_lev/decreto1978.htm
>
>The decree of Benedetto XVI draws on the oldest 1978's decree which safeguard
>the works of Giovanni Paolo II and generally of members of Vatican:
>
>"...the Libreria Editrice Vaticana, in his capacity as official publisher
>of the Holy See, over the traditional obligation to safeguard written texts
>and speeches of the sovereign Pontiffs and the publications concerning Acts
>of the Holy See, has received the assignment of protect also the written
>ones of Cardinal Karol Wojtyla.
>Cannot be made publications, translations or reproductions in whichever
graphical
>or phonical typology of Its written texts and speeches without the explicit
>authorization of the aforesaid Libreria Editrice Vaticana, following the
>international agreements and the laws on the Copyrights... (L'O.R. 27-28
>Novembre 1978)".
>
>In this case the decree of previous may don't say anything about the copyright
>on the Joannis Paulus II, but there was already another decree, the new
decree
>seems to be a confirmation.
>
>But it's better to ask.
>
>Ilario
>
>
>>-- Messaggio originale --
>>To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>From: Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
>>Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:09:48 +0100
>>Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Copyright of Vatican stuff
>>Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>
>>
>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2005615,00.html
>>
>>here it says
>>
>>The edict covers Pope Benedict XVI?s first encyclical, which is to be
>>issued this week amid huge international interest. The edict is
>>retroactive, covering not only the writings of the present pontiff ? as
>
>>Pope and as cardinal ? but also those of his predecessors over the past
>
>>50 years. It therefore includes anything written by John Paul II, John

>>Paul I, Paul VI and John XXIII.
>>
>>
>>Is it again incorrect press report ?
>>
>>
>>ant
>>
>>
>>valdelli at bluemail.ch wrote:
>>> Sorry, the copyright will be applied only to NEW Vatican's documents.
>>>
>>> Please, read this:
>>>
>>> http://www.ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/topnews/news/2006-01-22_2439593.html
>>>
>>> it's in italian but it's the more importante italian information bureau.
>>>
>>> If someone need to bring out Vatican's documents he must contact the
Libreria
>>> Editrice Vaticana.
>>>
>>> Ilario
>>>
>>>
>>>>-- Messaggio originale --
>>>>Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:49:45 +0100
>>>>From: Pawe? Dembowski <fallout at lexx.eu.org>
>>>>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>>>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright of Vatican stuff
>>>>Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Honestly? Ignore it. The Vatican can't make laws outside it's few
>>>>>quadratmeters and outside there are other copyright laws that we
>>>>>obey anyways.
>>>>>Of those on wikisource only Pacem in Terris is younger than 50 years.
>>>>>ciao, tom
>>>>
>>>>Polish Wikisource has more.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Ausir
>>>>Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
>>>>http://pl.wikipedia.org
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>foundation-l mailing list
>>>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] [Fwd: [HelpDesk-l] Complaint: Service abuse]

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Korn

> On 1/24/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > So where are these people applying to join our football
> academy coming from?
>
> Nigeria, apparently.  Where we should also soon be expanding
> our range of aluminium pipes.

Odd that you should mention Nigeria. I have just this moment received a most
generous business proposition which should set Wikipedia in funds for many
years to come. It all checks out, according to the relevant but sadly
mis-spelt WP articles, so that's OK.

Pete, who hadn't realised that Nigerian astronauts were on such huge
salaries


body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> Delphine M?nard wrote:
>
>>crossposting to wikipedia-l as this is an international issue
>>=========
>>Hi all,
>>
>>as a totally non-en person, admin on other wikis and actually working
>>"behind the scenes", I would like to give my view on what I believe is
>>needed, and why an en-admin-only channel and list won't help to the
>>extent that is needed. This is long, but please bear with me.
>>
>>Let me try to make this more concrete.
>>
>>OTRS (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS) receives a lot (and here I
>>mean "A LOT") of complaints.
>>
>
> <snip>
>
> I'd like to add that helpdesk-l (which is just a regular old mailing
> list) suffers from the same problem, except that we have no way of
> knowing who has answered what until someone else posts a reply to it,
> and there are a lot less people working on it. At present I have a
> backlog of over 2300 messages, some of them from December last year. If
> you are interested please visit
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/helpdesk-l - we mostly use
> the OTRS messages (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/en), but
> Humblefool and Jareth have some other messages at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Humblefool/Helpdesk_boilerplates and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jareth/Boiler respectively.
>
> Maybe we should shut it down and all move to OTRS. I don't know.
>

I think that something needs to be done to bring the two versions
together.  It seems clear that people are writing to helpdesk-l,
thinking that they are writing to the "site owner's" email address, and
asking questions that would be better answered officially.  And there
are plenty of mails on OTRS that could be better answered by a general
help desk.

The only way I can see of bringing them together is on OTRS.  Perhaps
with two queues, one official mail and one helpdesk.

I don't know, but I do think it's something we should look at.

--sannse


from_name: Nathan Russell

body:
On 1/25/06, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
> > ...
> > Is that legal to retrospectively apply a copyright on communications ?
> >
> > ...
> > I must say I am abashed by this news...I seem to remember that the key
> > point of a religion was to carry on a deity words so as to ensure a good
> > number of believers...
>
> The Holy See is a sovereign nation and therefore can make whatever it
> likes legal. :)
>
> Chris

However, if they go outside the Berne convention, we don't need to
worry about it until we set up mirrors in the Vatican.  I have a
feeling that this will be some time in any case.

Nathan


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject:
[WikiEN-l] illegel removal By Ragib to try modification of some
	parts

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

joalex stated for the record:

 > I tried to correct the important things regarding the history of india
> and pakistan. since he was in favour of the pakistan(He is a Bangladesi)
> He always want to do the facts in favour of the pakistan where as I
> tried  to act in a neutral way.

Ah, I see.  Thanks for explaining.  Your understanding of how to "act in
a neutral way" includes changing the common name of that country to
"Pakistan_the whore of America."

> Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that everyone can edit. So I have the
> right to work in my own way.

No, you don't.

> I tried to contact Ragib,but he refused to contact me. so there is no
> way to state my arguements.

Your arguments that Pakistan's national anthem is "Fuck off The Ugly
Land"?  He has the right to refuse to contact you.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | If you can't beat them, arrange to
 sean at epoptic.org | have them beaten. --George Carlin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD2PhFMAt1wyd9d+URAqe2AJ0fmxki4n7O/sXMI8pDIsYzRrGCXACfbQ2x
KX6zVfJ5pkQyH9xcyH7KPQM=
=V6A3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Lolo Buell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Modification du menu navigation

body:
2006/1/25, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins at gmail.com>:
>
> On 25/01/06, Lolo Buell <lolobuell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here the link to the sidebar i try to modify :
> > http://spa.rennesredon.online.fr/wiki/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar
>
> According to
> http://spa.rennesredon.online.fr/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Allmessages
> "wgUseDatabaseMessages est d?sactiv?" - that means you have added
> "$wgUseDatabaseMessages=false;" to your LocalSettings.php file,
> *switching off the function of the special "MediaWiki:" pages*.
>
> 1) Why did you set this? (If you saw instructions suggesting this
> setting, where were they?) It may be that you would be better off
> leaving it switched to true, to take advantage of the "MediaWiki
> namespace" features. See
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Aide:Espace_de_nom_MediaWiki

Thanks for your answer and your research.
I didn't set this to false, it was like this by default on LocalSettings.
I switched it to true but nothing changes, I have always the same problem.

Apologies for not trying to reply in French, but I think that would
> just lead to more misunderstandings! ;)

;o)


from_name: Matt R

subject: [WikiEN-l] note David Gerard's just placed on [[WT:AFD]]

body:
--- Jon <thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>   The other thing worth cracking down on is new edits - Our policies
> already allow us to revert a new edit that adds new information
> without a reference. We should be doing this automatically.

That would be very harmful. Many (probably most) Wikipedia articles are
improved bit-by-bit. References are a "bit". We don't automatically revert
additions that contain spelling mistakes, do we? We don't automatically delete
new articles that fail to illustrate their topic with images, do we? Of course
not. It's entirely acceptable for:

1) Alice to add information; and then
2) Bob to add a reference for that information.

Yes, we should be encouraging people to cite their sources, obviously. And,
clearly, if an addition is suspect, it's quite proper to ask for sources,
possibly even removing it until a source is forthcoming in some cases. However,
I strongly oppose the proposal that providing sources is *immediately*
mandatory for every new fact added to an article. This would raise the amount
of effort needed to add content, and would cut out large amounts of legitimate,
useful contributions.

The time to put our foot down and make sources absolutely mandatory is when we
review a candidate for Featured Articles, and not when writing ordinary
articles that are still a work in progress at that point.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Wp ayb.gif

body:
> So if someone download the article dump and the image dump with
> plans of publishing it in the US (outside they would have to delete
> all the faur use images anyway, or obtain permission for each
> individual image) then your humorous fair use image from your
> userpage become a copyright violation for that reuser because
> without your userpage he has no fair use defence for it. This means
> that re-users would have to spend time and effort to purge these
> humor, parody and other orphanded userpage stuff from the dump, and
> while it's not rocket sience to automate such a purge it's still an
> extra burden on re-users that is completely unnessesary.

Wouldn't they purge the entire User: namespace anyway? We're not so
interesting as for our user pages be republished in an actual
encyclopedia.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Carlos Thompson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Registering www.wikipedia.se for sv.wikipedia.org

body:
Andreas Vil?n escribi?:

>Hi, I've started a discussion at svwiki about registering the address
>www.wikipedia.se (.se is the primary domain of Sweden), but it's
>currently owned by someone, and it will probably cost money to buy it.
>I have not contacted the person who owns it yet, but I'm checking if
>there's any way this could be financed by Wikimedia? I also see that
>for example www.wikipedia.de, www.wikipedia.no and www.wikipedia.pl
>already exists.
>
>
It might work if www.wikipedia.se redirects to sv.wikipedia.org and
chapter.wikipedia.se to the Swedish chapter.  If there is no Swedish
chapter, well, it might be time to create one.  You can also have
fi.wikipedia.se and se.wikipedia.se redirecting to the respective
languages... or even better:
  (www.)wikipedia.se/wiki --> sv.wikipedia.org/wiki
  (www.)wikipedia.se/fi --> fi.wikipedia.org/wiki
  (www.)wikipedia.se/se --> se.wikipedia.org/wiki
  (www.)wikipedia.se/chapter --> chapter.wikipedia.se
... well, something like that.

>I think registering the .se address would increase traffic to the
>Swedish Wikipedia, since many today probably believe there is only an
>English version of it, and I don't know, but I suspect that traffic to
>svwiki is relatively low, at least we have pretty few editors.
>
>Is there any possibility this could be done?
>
>
Through the Swedish chapter, sure.


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
>I strongly oppose the proposal that providing sources is *immediately*
>mandatory for every new fact added to an article. This would raise the
>amount of effort needed to add content, and would cut out large
amounts of legitimate,
>useful contributions.

Large amounts? I'm sure it would be more than 90%, and may be as high
as 98 on 99%. Someone should really determine this empirically: what
proportion of edits containing new information do not contain
references to back them up?

Steve


from_name: oscar

subject: [Foundation-l] announce-l and "Wikizine"?

body:
On 1/24/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> It seems a couple folks took over the abandoned announce-l mailing list a
> couple
> months ago, sending community updates branded as "Wikizine" on it. The
> domain
> name wikizine.org is being used to redirect to the list subscription page,
> and
> some links & an email address at that domain are used.
>
> http://wikizine.org/
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/announce-l
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikizine

well, walter had the idea of launching a wikizine on announce-l, i supported
the idea and asked elian for permission. she changed the list-owners to the
current situation fyi.

grtz, oscar

Now, having some actual Wikimedia info on a mailing list is pretty cool. :)
> But
> I've got a couple organizational questions I want to toss out to the
> broader
> community:
>
> * It looks like Walter Vermeir owns this wikizine.org domain himself.
> What's the
> status of it? If Walter loses interest will it continue? Who'll be
> responsible
> for renewing it?
>
> * I received a request to make a mailing list for a Romanian-language
> Wikizine.
> Are we going to add more such lists, and if so should we do so under the
> 'announce' name set or 'wikizine'?
>
> * Some 'marketing' ;) This has been going on for two or three months and I
> never
> noticed. Was I just asleep at the wheel, or are a lot of people missing
> out who
> might be interested?
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Vatican is asserting copyright

body:
You can't have a GFDL or PD "exception" for Wikipedia -- if it is
licensed GFDL, then it becomes GFDL for life; ditto with PD (but
especially with GFDL).

FF

On 1/25/06, Katefan0 <katefan0wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> CNN this morning was reporting that the Vatican has decided to assert
> copyright on basically all papal communications (speeches, encyclicals,
> etc.) made by every pope during the last 50 years, with the exception of
> "the news media."  I don't know how much material we might have that could
> fall afoul of this new declaration, or whether the Vatican would consider
> Wikipedia and Wikisource under that umbrella, but someone more familiar with
> Catholic information in Wikimedia areas should probably get involved.
>
> I don't know if there's any reason to think the Vatican would be willing to
> grant a PD or GFDL licensing exception for Wikipedia. The spokesman said
> that "newspapers have the right to publish texts as news" (such as
> encyclicals), presumably because there's no profit made specifically from
> their use.  But I'm not sure how this would apply to WP or WS.
>
> -k
>
> http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/01/25/ap2475804.html
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Vatican is asserting copyright

body:
On the safe side, we should remove "Pacem in terris", as it would seem
to be still eligible for copyright under US law (was issued 1963).

But anything which would be safe under US law we should keep. Just
because the Vatican says they have the right to assert copyright on
16th century publications doesn't make it true, at least in US
jurisdictions.

FF

On 1/26/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Matt Brown wrote:
>
> >On 1/25/06, Katefan0 <katefan0wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>All right, so back to the topic at hand -- should we just delete every quote
> >>from every pope cited on Wikipedia and Wikisource?
> >>
> >>
> >On Wikipedia: absolutely not.  We are not including whole texts within
> >Wikipedia, we are selectively quoting from and referencing them, which
> >is well within the normal scope of fair use.
> >
> >We might want to consider the status of some things on Wikisource, however.
> >
> We really don't need to rush into any kind of panic.  On English
> Wikisource the only affected text is John XXIII's "Pacem in terris".
> I'm sure that there are other copies of this around that have been
> published without permission.  That may be enough to allow the doctrine
> of laches to apply; the facts would need to be researched. We may even
> be able to afford 15% of our cover price!  We should at least give the
> issue a little time to develop.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Actually, nevermind the 16th century bit -- I see they're only
asserting copyright on the last 50 years, which is more reasonable and
doesn't do anything too terribly different than US law would allow.

But "fair use" of such text still applies, copyright or not, so with
the exception of "Pacem in Terris" we're fine, in the US anyway.

FF

On 1/26/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> On the safe side, we should remove "Pacem in terris", as it would seem
> to be still eligible for copyright under US law (was issued 1963).
>
> But anything which would be safe under US law we should keep. Just
> because the Vatican says they have the right to assert copyright on
> 16th century publications doesn't make it true, at least in US
> jurisdictions.
>
> FF
>
> On 1/26/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > Matt Brown wrote:
> >
> > >On 1/25/06, Katefan0 <katefan0wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>All right, so back to the topic at hand -- should we just delete every quote
> > >>from every pope cited on Wikipedia and Wikisource?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >On Wikipedia: absolutely not.  We are not including whole texts within
> > >Wikipedia, we are selectively quoting from and referencing them, which
> > >is well within the normal scope of fair use.
> > >
> > >We might want to consider the status of some things on Wikisource, however.
> > >
> > We really don't need to rush into any kind of panic.  On English
> > Wikisource the only affected text is John XXIII's "Pacem in terris".
> > I'm sure that there are other copies of this around that have been
> > published without permission.  That may be enough to allow the doctrine
> > of laches to apply; the facts would need to be researched. We may even
> > be able to afford 15% of our cover price!  We should at least give the
> > issue a little time to develop.
> >
> > Ec
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>


from_name: joalex

body:
On 1/24/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> joalex stated for the record:
>
> > friends,
>
> que 1) Ragib did the right thing -- you are a vandal.
>
> que 2) What is this "freedom of the press" thing you refer to?

ans to the que 1:

I tried to correct the important things regarding the history of india and
pakistan. since he was in favour of the pakistan(He is a Bangladesi) He
always want to do the facts in favour of the pakistan where as I tried  to
act in a neutral way.

ans to the que 2:

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that everyone can edit. So I have the right
to work in my own way. I haven't tried to modify any part of the work
illegly by writing on the work done by me but he always do so because the
article regarding Baloochistan freedom fighting was done by me.ask him
whether he had done it or not. He illegly pointed to avert the matter in
favour of pakistan.Dude tell me is it correct or not? Is there no right to
argue in a neutrel point of view, so that the motto of wikipedia itself is
adverted.........

Que regarding obsecureness:

I tried to contact Ragib,but he refused to contact me. so there is no way to
state my arguements.How can I express a thing if there is no chance of
contacting him? This was a one side tracking by that illegal editor.I done
it as my last chance.He ignored the respone so badly.
joe


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki API

body:
Michiel van Hulst wrote:
> I read in an article that KDE and the foundation are announcing a
> knowledge-intergrated desktop using a webservice API.
>
> This is just great! And the idea of a SOAP/WSDL API is even better.
>
> What is the status or are the plans on this API?

We chatted a bit in August and not much has happened since. A bunch of other
things that are really annoying but have had more immediate priority (like
making the servers work regularly ;) keep coming up.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060126/d8f1d0eb/attachment.pgp>


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] More on WT:AFD

body:
Could people interested in fixing the problems AFD is causing in the
wider world please come to [[WT:AFD]]? At the moment most of the
responses to my message there are varying degrees of denial and/or
indignation. I've pointed out that I put it there to point out the
need for severe internal reform rather than a solution being imposed
from without. But helpful suggestions on how to deal with problematic
nominations/nominators and (not-a-)votes are most urgently needed.

And remember: just because a nomination or (not-a-)vote is in good
faith doesn't mean it's not stupid or damaging.

- d.


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: More on WT:AFD

body:
"David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:fbad4e140601260443l5c3ed83n at mail.gmail.com...
> Could people interested in fixing the problems AFD is causing in the
> wider world please come to [[WT:AFD]]?

I've suggested that we delegate a lot more work to WikiProjects, and make
them more "official".

> And remember: just because a nomination or (not-a-)vote is in good
> faith doesn't mean it's not stupid or damaging.

Heh! What was the road to hell paved with, again?

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] An outsider's view on en-admin-only
	whatever and the rest

body:
Matt Brown wrote:
> I strongly believe helpdesk-l should be shut down.
>

Why?

If you claim it is because "any old troll could join it", we can
moderate subscription. There are no longer any archives being kept. If
you have some other reason, please state it instead of just hand-waving...

--
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: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060126/1269db8d/attachment.pgp


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] New Wikimedia Committees

body:
While I'm extremely flattered at the suggestion, I must advise the board to not consider me for a
post as CEO. I'm not qualified and don't have the relevant experience to run the size and scope of
an organization that we want the foundation to be. We need somebody with an MBA and years of
non-profit experience. While it would be nice to have a Wikimedian fill this role, I don't think
that is a critical thing for the board to consider.

Daniel Mayer

--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:

> Dear Angela, dear list,
>
> thank you for publishing this, and thanks to the Board and everyone else
> involved for taking these steps, which I hope will help to decentralize
> the organization and empower and encourage users to participate in
> everyday work such as the establishment of partnerships, the
> coordination of fundraising campaigns, the management of press releases,
> the handling of libel cases, and so on. I'd like to get involved a bit
> to help this process along as much as possible.
>
> As you requested, in this response I focus specifically on the Executive
> Committee. I am sending a separate message with some general concerns.
>
> The situation in the past has been that the Board was the single
> executive body of the Wikimedia Foundation. This was obviously not
> scalable. There are, essentially, two competing problems:
> * the Board is too small to deal with the amount of decisions that need
> to be made.
> * the Board is too large and distributed to immediately make a decision
> when one is needed.
>
> This relates to the problem Angela has pointed out of two competing
> goals of a small and a large committee. As Jake has explained, the
> solution is probably a compromise.
>
> It is my understanding that our mid term goal is to have a full-time CEO
> in addition to the Board. This CEO position is highly relevant, as the
> CEO will have to make many of the immediate short term decisions. I
> would strongly recommend not to pick a complete outsider for this
> position. While non-profit experience is obviously helpful in running an
> organization like Wikimedia, Wikimedia is a very unusual beast and a
> highly participatory community.
>
> The CEO needs to be a person who understands the community, the goals,
> the technology, and the organization. They also need to be particularly
> good at electronic communications, which is our main means of getting
> things done. I'd much rather see someone like Daniel Mayer or James
> Forrester in this position - both individuals with great organizational
> talent - than someone who has never edited a wiki.
>
> I would support the current Board or a subset thereof serving in an
> interim role as a multiple personality CEO while this position is being
> defined and a suitable candidate is sought. However, I strongly believe
> there need to be more people on the Executive Committee.
>
> We have subunits in the organization (chapters) which could provide some
> of the members of the EC: each head of a chapter would automatically be
> a member of the EC. In addition, we have the existing officers like the
> CTO, CFO and CRO, who should serve on the committee.
>
> Now, if we stick to all these people, we still have a few problems:
> - They are all quite busy in their existing roles.
> - Some of these positions are appointed, others were elected to a
> specific chapter. I think we should try to avoid a situation where the
> executive body is stagnant and seen as bureaucratically distant from the
> community, like the European Commission.
> - In all likelihood, these people, through their existing roles, will be
> forced to focus on our largest project, Wikipedia.
>
> Therefore, I suggest that in addition, we have an annual or biannual
> open election of about 10 members, one or two for each Wikimedia
> project. These could be elected by their project communities, or by the
> entire Wikimedia community - I have no strong opinion on that.
>
> The members of the EC would meet at least weekly (but also be present
> much of the time on a designated IRC channel). Realistically, in a
> volunteer organization, you'd probably find that of the relatively large
> committee, only a subset of maybe 10 people really show up and
> participate regularly. So you'd need to state that decisions can be made
> by such a subset.
>
> Any decision that can be postponed until the next meeting would be made
> in consensus or through a vote by the members present then and there
> (with the CEO having the power to override a split vote). In addition,
> the CEO would be required to consult with the Executive Committee
> whenever possible (in practice, through the aforementioned IRC channel).
>
> The Board would primarily exercise strategic oversight: ensure the
> openness of the organization, prioritize long term goals, evaluate the
> work of the officers, and so on. The President (Jimmy) would also be the
> main person identified with the organization at large to the outside
> world, i.e. the guy who gets the Nobel Prize in the end ;-).
>
> Whether there needs to be a "Wikicouncil" as has been suggested before
> (similar to the Central Committee Jake mentioned) is a separate
> question. Personally, I do not see the need at present, since we also
> have the other committees which hopefully will be open enough to enable
> wide participation. A very large representative body does not really
> strike me as appropriate for an organization like ours - if you can have
> a large group of people, you might as well make it completely open and
> participatory.
>
> I see one key role of the Executive Committee and the CEO as the
> authorization of outside contacts and partnership proposals. Anything
> that doesn't fall within a defined and agreed upon strategy needs to be
> authorized a priori or a posteriori.
>
> Ideally, in the next few years, I think we should gradually work towards
> making these executive positions full-time positions (some paid for
> through the chapters), as they will have to do quite a lot of work when
> it comes to the organization and oversight of the committees, and we
> need to be able to rely on them being available during meetings. Of
> course, this will not be nearly possible without a very substantial
> increase in our budget (i.e. multiple millions), so we could continue as
> we do now, starting with the most necessary official positions.
>
> These are my thoughts for now and I'm very interested in what others
> have to say. Most importantly, I hope that all non-confidential
> discussion about these issues will take place in open forums and on open
> pages from now on.
>
> Best,
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject: [Foundation-l] New Wikimedia Committees


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] An outsider's view on
	en-admin-onlywhatever and the rest

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax
> (Wikipedia email)
> Sent: Thursday, 26 January 2006 14:59
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] An outsider's view
> on en-admin-onlywhatever and the rest
>
> Matt Brown wrote:
> > I strongly believe helpdesk-l should be shut down.
> >
>
> Why?
>
> If you claim it is because "any old troll could join it", we
> can moderate subscription. There are no longer any archives
> being kept. If you have some other reason, please state it
> instead of just hand-waving...

I'd like to see a better system in place, but from what I can see it fills a
valuable need, and I am impressed at the quality of some of the responses
given by the volunteers.

I think that, given the nature of a lot of the questions, this needs to be
in some sort of email format. Many of those seeking help are obviously
unwilling to click the "edit" link and fix a simple error. Maybe they don't
believe that they can do this and they somehow need approval.

Anyway, for that reason it couldn't be replaced by a wiki. I haven't seen
enough of it in operation to determine if some sort of ticketing system
would be helpful, but what it sorely needs is more volunteers IMHO.

I'll help out as best I can. I do this sort of thing on another site and
enjoy helping users.

Peter (Skyring)


subject: [WikiEN-l] More on WT:AFD

body:
It occurred to me that there are three totally different situations
which could be described "deletion":

Topic: The topic itself simply doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and even a
brilliant article should be deleted. Examples: Dictionary definitions,
un-notable people/groups. Solution: Delete and put a note on the
topic.
Article: The topic itself could belong in Wikipedia, but it doesn't
deserve a whole article. Examples: Less well known songs of notable
but not famous groups, less well known characters in fictional
universes ("fancruft"). Solution: Merge with other articles.
Content: The topic itself could make a good article, but this isn't
it. As it stands it's worse than nothing. Examples: Copyright vio,
substub, horribly POV etc. Solutions: Delete, reduce to stub, call for
help to rewrite, trim, as appropriate.

Perhaps the format for AFD could be modified to split nominations into
these three categories. This could reduce some hurt for some article
"owners" ("It's not that your writing is bad, it just doesn't belong
here"), and also make it a bit clearer when an article is being
deleted for the wrong reason. Ie, it's in the bad topic section, but
the dispute is about poor writing or lack of comprehensiveness.

Comments?

(I can't get to the wikipedia page just at the moment, but if anyone
wants to copy this there and reply there, that's fine with me. Use my
en login name Stevage.)

Steve

On 1/26/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Could people interested in fixing the problems AFD is causing in the
> wider world please come to [[WT:AFD]]? At the moment most of the
> responses to my message there are varying degrees of denial and/or
> indignation. I've pointed out that I put it there to point out the
> need for severe internal reform rather than a solution being imposed
> from without. But helpful suggestions on how to deal with problematic
> nominations/nominators and (not-a-)votes are most urgently needed.
>
> And remember: just because a nomination or (not-a-)vote is in good
> faith doesn't mean it's not stupid or damaging.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Ryan Delaney

body:
You know, I wasn't suggesting godmode light as a complete solution, but it
is a partial one.

Ryan


from_name: Angela

body:
On 1/25/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:

> * It looks like Walter Vermeir owns this wikizine.org domain himself. What's the
> status of it? If Walter loses interest will it continue? Who'll be responsible
> for renewing it?

I can see the same problems that arose around the name "wikimania"
happening here. That was an informal name for the conference, but
ended up being what everyone called it, and now we face having to
change a well-known name or spending far too much on getting domain
names and trademarks. We should either make sure we have the rights to
"Wikizine" before its too late, or not call it that. Perhaps this is
something our Legal Officer, Jean-Baptiste Soufron, could advise on?

> * Some 'marketing' ;) This has been going on for two or three months and I never
> noticed. Was I just asleep at the wheel, or are a lot of people missing out who
> might be interested?

It was announced on a few mailing lists, but doesn't seem to have
reached many people yet, considering Daily-article-l has 8889 members
compared to just 275 on Wikizine.

Angela.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Recentchangescamp

body:
Evan Prodromou wrote:
> So, there's an informal wiki-oriented code-and-talk conference called
> Recentchangescamp coming up Feb 3-5, 2006 in Portland:
>
>         http://recentchangescamp.org/
>
> I'm going to be there, and I was wondering if any other MW developers
> will be, too. It'd be fun to do a project during the camp.

I was considering it but I'm just too busy with things I've promised to get done
to spend three days finding new things to promise to code. ;)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060126/3567148d/attachment.pgp>


from_name: david weiss

subject: [WikiEN-l] Eliezer is not a suitable administrator

body:
eliezer imposes an unfair, seriously biased and inaccurate article
dealing with messianic judaism.  when i had previously raised my concerns
in the discussion page and point out the gross misinformation in the main
article, eliezar would delete my tag.  (as a side note, i observed others
tag this article as violating the npov policy only to have their tags
deleted without explanation.)

i expressed my concerns on the talk page, only to be vandalised by
OpenInfo and blocked by Eliezer.  Eliezer prevented me from explaining:
1. where the npov policy was violated in several places; 2.  show where
the facts were seriously inaccurate and, 3. show where the author
contradicted himself.  eliezer blocked me without sufficient warning per
the blocking policy.

while i strongly disagree with eliezer's anti-messianic agenda, i do not
feel i vandalized the article or site in any way.  this site's policy
allows me the freedom to edit articles that violate the npov in a good
faith effort to make them more accurate.

i believe eliezer will only force his anti-messianic agenda upon the
public and a new administrator needs to be appointed who will fairly
address the topic.  thank you for your prompt and open-minded attention
to this matter.

--
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/