Steve Bennett wrote:
>On 4/3/06, Justin Cormack <justin(a)specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Do we? I dont actually know of anything else that is a criminal offence
>>in a major country which has general laws protecting free speech,
>>where Jimbo is likely to visit and wouldnt like to be arrested on
>>entry. And where we have an article about the law in question.
>>Maybe we should use the picture to illustrate this?
>>
>>
>Sorry, you're correct, I meant we have plenty of examples of copyright
>violation. Which is not, as you point out, a criminal offence.
>
>
Actually, as the occasional outraged victim is more than happy to remind
us, copyright infringement can be considered criminal under certain
circumstances, at least in the US. For example, willful infringement for
commercial advantage, private financial gain, or of works with a total
retail value of more than $1,000 over any 180-day period. See 17 U.S.C.
§506. The safe harbors for online service providers and the requirement
of willfulness make it difficult to apply to the Wikimedia Foundation,
but I can imagine situations in which it could theoretically apply to
the person uploading the material.
The section also provides, among other things, for fines for fraudulent
removal of copyright notices. This might be worth pointing out to those
users we find modifying images they've clearly copied from other
websites to remove such notices.
--Michael Snow
On 4 Apr 2006 at 11:01, David Alexander Russell <webmaster(a)davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
> True - but could I add that if everyone put their message ABOVE the
> quoted text, rather than below, then this issue would be moot anyway
> (since we wouldn't need to go through the endless footers in order to
> get to the message)
Digest-mode readers (such as myself) still have to scroll through all
of that excrement in order to get to the next message.
It can also be difficult to follow a list with lots of topics going
on at once if there isn't any contextual quoting (carefully trimmed)
above the response to remind you of what is being replied to.
Reading the context *after* the reply is awkwardly backward.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
I don't usually advertise Wikipedia meetups on the mailing list, but
the Santa Barbara one is looking like it's going to be the smallest
ever at this rate, with just me and Antandrus, so if anyone is close
to Santa Barbara this Saturday, please sign up at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Santa_Barbara
Angela.
--
Angela Beesley
Wikimedia.org || Wikia.com
Aim/MSN/Yahoo/Jabber: Wikiangela
Gmail/Skype: Beesley
...was that they thought it was advantageous to respond to it at all.
Their response struck me as being lame and as tending to call
attention to the very things they'd just as soon have people forget:
that Nature, which has a stellar reputation among its readership,
even put Britannica and WIkipedia in the same category.
It is as if Nature were to say "Britannica eats shit and bays at the
moon," and Britannica were to respond by saying "That conclusion is
false, because Nature's research was invalid. We don't eat nearly as
much shit as Nature claims we eat, and some of what we ate, which
Nature imprecisely referred to as 'shit,' was actually putrescent
offal, and as for baying at the moon, we take issue with that
characterization of our vocalizations, and anyway we only do it when
the moon is full, which is less than 3% of the time. So, when Nature
says we eat shit and bay at the moon, our response is that we do not
eat shit and bay at the moon, so when you think of eating shit and
baying at the moon, don't think of us, and when you think of us,
don't think of eating shit and baying at the moon, because it is
really not very true at all, hardly. Eating shit. Baying. Moon. Not
us. Not really. Not much. Did I mention we don't eat shit and bay at
the moon? Even though Nature says we do?"
How about Katefan0's format of 4 Apr 2006 18:30:44, which consisted
of quoting back a paragraph from an earlier message without
attribution line or quoting markers, followed immediately (with no
indicator of where the quote ended and the reply began) with the
reply... and then *that* was followed by a fullquote of the original
message (including a second copy of the paragraph already quoted
above it). Can *anybody* come up with a coherent defense of such a
quoting format as *that*?
They really ought to bring back the punishment of tying people up in
stocks in the village square and pelting them with rotten fruit, and
apply it to people who post to e-mail lists in senseless formats.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 4/4/06, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:
> Also, if Mediawiki can do everything, why do we need a Mailman mailing list?
Because all wikis are crap for in depth discussion of topical issues.
Steve
On 4 Apr 2006 at 15:54, "Steve Bennett" <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Why does bottom posting suck?
>
[crap flushed]
>
> Because you had to wade your way through all that crap just for this
> stupid remark. Ok, let's move on, shall we?
That would be the fault of... oh, I don't know, the person who
*failed to trim* the crap when quoting it?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Someone asked me to comment on the meta cleanup project, and
foundation-l is subscription-only, so I guess I'll comment here.
Basically, I agree with a lot of what Anthere said on the
foundation-list. I think a lot of people that come to meta freak out a
lot when they see the funky essays and don't realize that meta is sort
of a seperate project. What Walter said on Meta:Babel is pretty
accurate too - it is the bus station for several wiki projects. In
terms of the cleanup project in general though I thought/think it is a
great idea - cleanup on meta is always welcome - however, there were
just a lot of bad tags, perhaps due to recent changes in deletion
policy (or rather, more recent ambiguity), and I myself was a little
abrupt at times. The whole ironic part is that even though several were
claiming there wasn't a "meta community" I think a few prospectives for
administrator are finding out that there indeed is a bit of one...
I also stated in agreement with David that at times it is a bit the
"personal wiki" of the stewards on Meta:Babel. Really though, it is
sort of a semi-serious thing, I mean there isn't exactly a whole lot of
policy debates there relating to meta because it itself is fairly
clearly defined as to what it is - i.e. a sort of MeatBall-esque wiki -
and there isn't a TON of activity. Personally, I find it as a "feature"
that you can still track things with recent changes :). Besides, the
stewards there are by far doing a good portion of that work so the fact
that it is "run" by them is probably a result of activity more then
anything else.
Anyway, I hope people don't give up on cleaning up meta. You can still
have nearly all the interproject pages you need - and just having the
essays there isn't going to hurt that too much.
P.S. "Don't be a dick" is up for being moved AGAIN. Really, this thing
should just be on english because while it is tolerable there in
non-english languages it can be unnecessarily unruly. "Don't be a jerk"
is probably a decent replacement, albiet less traditional.
Your en and meta administrator
[[w:User:RN]]
[[m:User:RN]]
On 3 Apr 2006 at 21:43, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
> Bravo! We can have a serious discussion of the photo without it on the
> site.
"Shoot first, ask questions later", huh?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
> Can you give us a little more context? I can see that there is a
>proposal to create a separate meta wiki just for the english
>wikipedia, presumably because many things currently on meta.wikipedia
>are not really applicable to other wikipedias?
This isn't a proposal for an English meta at all. It was an attempt to
make Meta actually useful as a cross-project work wiki, rather than a
disorganised collection of historical documents with a few working
pages camped out in the archaeological rubble.
Linuxbeak started the latest attempt ( [[m:WM:OM]] ); Jimbo gave his
blessing, but warned that many had tried and failed before. The reason
appears to be that there are enough people who like it as it is that
they don't care it's all but unusable and frequently actively
misleading, and that those of us who would like a cross-project work
wiki are regarded as a bunch of dicks for trying.
Anthere has also said, when asked directly, that there is an active
meta community but they don't actually do their work on meta, rather
on mailing lists and IRC. Which doesn't sound to me like a work wiki,
but evidently does to her and others. So I proposed a "meta2", which
can actually be used as a work wiki. The current meta incumbents have
decided this is in fact a proposal for an en: wikipedia Meta, when it
wasn't actually anything of the sort, but anyway.
Meta is evidently not a cross-project work wiki or service wiki for
other projects, but a separate community unto itself, somewhat like
Commons. (Recall en:'s problems with vandalism of images stored on
Commons, and how we eventually had to resort to storing featured
images directly on en: owing to the recalcitrance of Commons admins
who insisted they were an independent project, never mind Commons was
*invented* as a service wiki.) I'm not entirely sure what the point
is, but I'm sure someone will follow up with what makes a wiki where
the community do their actual work in IRC and mailing lists into a
work wiki whose use is clear to those not in the inner circle.
- d.