There is an ongoing debate in the Hungarian Wikipedia community about
image license policies. I didn't find anything about the Foundation's
position on the issue (except for the rather vague [[m:Foundation
issues]]), so I'll try to ask here:
1) Which copyright law should be followed? The Hungarian law, the law of
the United States or both? (And what about France and the Netherlands,
where IIRC some of the Wikimedia servers are hosted?) This is an
important question, as Hungarian copyright law is a lot more restrictive
(there is no fair use, and works made by the government remain
copyyrighted).
2) What are the rules, if any, for non-free images? Should we follow
[[Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy]], or is every community free to create its
own policies about non-copyleft media content?
3) Is it acceptable to use, in a way similar to fair use, images which
are illegal in the strict sense, but safe to use? (Eg. under the
Hungarian law, logos or book covers probably cannot be used without
proper permission, which is often impossible to obtain - the copyright
holder cannot be contacted, or doesn't understand a problem, or just
doesn't care. On the other hand, it's obvious that no one will sue
Wikipedia for advertising him or his product, especially when that
advertising would be legal in most countries.)
Tgr
WikiGadugi is now 100% functional and renders all the content from the
current Wikipedia XML Dumps without errors, so it's plug and play with
the current Wikipedia. Many thanks to Brion Vibber and Gregory Maxwell
for their awesome help. I am integrating the full suit of mirroring and
translation tools for the MediaWiki appliances and can now ship with
flawless content.
Thanks All.
Jeff
Delphine Ménard wrote:
> On 8/17/06, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And yet all those US people whose involvement in en.wikipedia.org is
>> significant and who should be allowed to come to a conference, if they
>> are interested.
>>
>> The foundation has competing interests with the conference: one
>> predominantly huge-sized project, and the whole of everything
>> including the much smaller ones and the global picture.
>>
>> If the interests of the two collide to some degree, there are
>> solutions: split the conference into World and US conferences,
>> dual-track the conference, etc.
>
> I am not sure I understand you correctly, but I seem to read that you
> are hinting at the fact that the English Wikipedia is predominantely
> US contributors. If that is the case, and although I am not a
> contributor there myself, I believe this is forgetting the diversity
> of our biggest project. My take is there are enough international
> contributors who contribute to the English Wikipedia to never fall
> into a US/rest of the world kind of split, which at any rate, would
> seem to be an ultimate failure of Wikimedia ever pretending to any
> kind of international scope.
Actually, I think the confusion here might be because George may not
have fully understood your earlier point to which he was responding. Not
because of language issues, but experience. Specifically I mean that
George didn't experience the people at Wikimania (at least I don't
believe he was there, correct me if I'm wrong) and may have missed your
point.
Which was not, as I understood, a comment about competing interests
between people involved in Wikimedia projects in the US and people
involved in the same projects elsewhere. If I may restate it, the point
was that for this year's Wikimania, as opposed to last year, many US
attendees had no real personal connection to the projects. They were
there for academics, or curiosity, or networking, or various other
motivations. Nearly all of the international attendees were legitimate
project participants. Meanwhile, many project participants *from the US*
who might have wanted to attend undoubtedly could not, due to the same
time/travel/cost difficulties that hinder international attendance.
Regardless of the numerical distribution by country, I'm confident that
enough US contributors are committed to all projects, including the
English Wikipedia, remaining *international* projects, that they would
reject attempts to create such a split. Similarly, I believe that the
international contributors to the English Wikipedia would reject it. We
have to work together, or our mission will not succeed, in no small part
because it would undermine our commitment to neutrality.
--Michael Snow
Aphia made the following edit:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Translation&diff=prev&oldid=410…
then left the following comments on my talk page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jmerkey
== [[Translators]] ==
I remove your website from the list by consensus of Promotion &
Translation subcommittee. The list is a list of translators, not a
website. You can't use meta for advertising your site.
Thank you for your understanding,
--[[User:Aphaia|Aphaia]] 17:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Removal of a community of translators from wikimedia seems counter
productive to the foundations goals. I'll discuss it on the foundation
mailing list and see if the broader community agrees with your actions.
[[User:Jmerkey|Jmerkey]] 17:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Aphia's contributions shows no such discussion occurring anywhere
discussing such an action:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aphaia
I personally could care less, I am translating content as a service to
the Native Community and the Foundation. I find it odd that Angela who
supposedly is public relations for a firm whose purpose and goals are to
promote the creation of new communities and her triumverate of
associates are so bent on running off contributors to other languages
they peronally don't like. Concensus from whom? a triumverate of three?
At any rate, discussion is open on the topic. If having a Cherokee
based community website is so offensive, I'll maintain it off site and
the ANA and Federal Government finanacial contributors are welcome to
help us with the program.
Jeff
If you upload images in Commons you follow rules established for
Commons and used in any countries. If you upload images in Hungarian
Wikipedia you use hungarian law and these images could be used only
for hungarian side of Wikipedia.
For example the italian law allows the use of screenshot of films
but with limited use, since this is only an italian law these images
are uploaded only in Italian database and not in Commons.
Ilario
----Messaggio originale----
Da: saintonge(a)telus.net
Data: 17.08.06 5.39
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation's position on non-free
images
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz wrote:
>Tisza Gergo wrote:
>
>
>>There is an ongoing debate in the Hungarian Wikipedia community
about
>>image license policies. I didn't find anything about the
Foundation's
>>position on the issue (except for the rather vague [[m:
Foundation
>>issues]]), so I'll try to ask here:
>>
>>
>The same is on Polish :-) I think there should be an official
Foundation
>policy about it. When we were asking people from Foundation around
1
>year ago, the answers where different from one person to another,
and
>then two groups of users (pro fair-use and anti fair-use) were
using
>these diffrent answers as a key argument. Finally, someone asked
simple
> question: do we really want to make Polish Wikipedia to
constantly
>break Polish Law?
>
I very much disagree that there should be a single policy on this
that
affects all projects. There is too much variation in the laws of
different countries, and in the needs of different projects (not
just
Wikipedias). It should be up to each project to find its own level
of
comfort in this, as long as it is carried on in a general
atmosphere of
copyright respect. The question of whether or not someone is
"breaking"
the law is rarely very clear.
Ec
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This conversation had jumped back and forth from single-instance expenses
(eg. babysitting costs) to much larger issues such as speakers fees. With the
number of speaking requests pouring in to the Foundation (and they come in at
an ever increasing rate), I want to suggest the following guidelines for board
members and others giving talks about the Foundation. Much of this is based
on my belief that it is possible to say no to speaker requests too. We are
big enough to set the terms by which we offer to send speakers, and the
benefits of participating in various conferences etc. should be weighed against the
real needs and interests of the Foundation. My proposal is as follows.
1. Requests for speakers from the Foundation will be approved by a
subcommittee of the Communications Committee to be known as the "Speakers
Subcommittee.".
2. The Speakers Subcommittee will determine whether and how fulfilling the
request furthers the goals of the Foundation. This will be called Speaker
Objectives.
3. The Speakers Subcommittee will then determine whether the Speaker
Objectives are equal or greater to the costs involved in sending a speaker to the
event.
4. The Speaker Subcommittee will then determine which representative of the
WMF is best suited to deliver the talk, based on considerations of language,
geography, skills, conference needs, availability, etc.
5. Basic costs for speakers will include
a. transportation
b. per diem (hotel, food)
c. ancillary (babysitting, formal wear such as renting a tux, other)
6. The Speaker Subcommittee will negotiate with the requesting organization
to ensure that they cover as much of these costs as possible. Should the event
be deemed worthwhile, but the requesting organization is unable to cover
these basic costs, the Speakers Committee will determine a budget for the
speaker to participate.
7. The Speaker Subcommittee will also request an honorarium, to be paid to
the Foundation, for providing a speaker.
8. A calendar of speaking engagements and speakers will be maintained in a
public space, such as wikimediafoundation.org.
9. Only speakers approved and appointed by the Speakers Subcommittee will be
entitled to speak on behalf of the Foundation in such public forums and to
make use of Foundation property such as logos, registered tm's, etc. in their
presentations.
10. Upon completing their speaking engagement, speakers will provide a
written report to the Speakers Subcommittee in which they describe whether and how
the Speaker Objectives were met.
11. The written report will include a summary of the talk, major questions
asked, and a copy of handouts, PowerPoint presentations, etc. as necessary.
12. These materials will be made easily available to other speakers so as to
enhance their own presentations.
13. Upon completing their speaking engagement, speakers will also submit any
receipts for *approved* expenses.
14. Upon submission of receipts, the written report, and ancillary
materials--and only upon their submission--the speaker will be reimbursed for any
out-of-pocket expenses.
While this may seem bureaucratic to some, I believe that it is a common
sense approach to dealing with the growing influx of requests for speakers that
the Foundation is facing. It will help us to avoid what Mr. Merkey wisely
called "poaching speaking engagements," and ensure that previous experiences as a
speaker are shared with others.
Rather than dwell upon what happened in the past, let's move forward by
improving this initial proposal and submitting it to the Board for vote.
Danny
Next Wikimania;
How about Wellington, New Zealand? The most wired city in the worlds
most wired country (NZ has the highest captia of internet users in the
world).
User:Hamedog
On 17/08/06, foundation-l-request(a)wikimedia.org
<foundation-l-request(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
> foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> foundation-l-request(a)wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> foundation-l-owner(a)wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Wikimania 2007 - get ready for the third edition. (Anthere)
> 2. Re: Foundation's position on non-free images (Anthere)
> 3. Re: Foundation's position on non-free images (Erik Moeller)
> 4. Re: Foundation's position on non-free images (geni)
> 5. Re: Wikimania 2007 - get ready for the third edition.
> (Alphax (Wikipedia email))
> 6. Re: bylaws (second call) (Anthere)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:44:17 +0200
> From: Anthere <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2007 - get ready for the third
> edition.
> To: foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <ec03gl$3rf$1(a)sea.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Damian Finol wrote:
> > Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >
> >>Kelly Martin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On 8/16/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Wikimania 2006 just closed its doors a week or so ago, and it is
> >>>>already time to think about the next edition.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Actually, it was time to do that about six months ago. We really need
> >>>to be planning these things more aggressively. In my opinion, we
> >>>should know where the next year's Wikimania is going to be before we
> >>>start the planning for the current year.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Good Point,
> >>
> >>Greg mentioned this this morning as well this was a hot topic of
> >>discussion that needed addressing.
> >>
> >>A few suggestions I'll put on the main site:
> >>
> >>Polynesian Language Institute, Hawaii
> >>Sidney, Australia. (great place but very expensive for a lot of folks)
> >>Vancouver, BC (vansterdam)
> >>Salt Lake City, Utah (UofU)
> >>Mexico City
> >>Cayman Islands
> >>Dussledorf, FRG
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>foundation-l mailing list
> >>foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
> >>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I love those cities a couple of comments though:
> >
> > USA: Doing it in the USA is great, however there is a VISA issue when it
> > comes to people not from the WAIVER Program (Mostly non-europeans). This
> > year Berkman and Harvard where really good and provided an invitation
> > letter that helped many people get their Visa (Although in most of Latin
> > America appointments for Visa interviews are given within 5-6 month of
> > calling)
> >
> > The one I like the most of all those cities, Is Mexico City, although I
> > think some place like Cancun would be better (Mexico City is a great
> > city and all but it's really, really overcrowded and maybe a bit
> > unsafe). Cancun has a lot of hotels and there are a lot of Flights
> > coming and going, plus it's in a central location for people in the
> > Americas and Europe (Most people from Europe will connect in Miami or
> > DFW). Not to mention, Cancun is Mexico's tourist city so many hotels and
> > locals can speak English.
> >
> > I would love to say Rio De Janeiro In Brasil, but Americans will need a
> > visa to enter Brasil.
> >
> > Either way, I think just like the World Cup and the Olympics, Wikimania
> > should jump continents, Last year it was Europe, this year was North
> > America, next year should be either Asia or Latin America.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
>
> Good point. Kelly is right as well that we should be planning ahead.
>
> Ultimately, choices will depend a lot on the quality of the bid.
> It will also help that the organisers of the first two wikimania are
> involved in the choice of next city, as they are primary sources of
> information to identify what was best in both locations.
>
> Just after Wikimania, a discussion took place to identify the good sides
> and the bad sides of Wikimania 2006. Obvious important points to
> consider for the future are the visa issue, the cost of travel for most
> participants, the easiness to reach the city (international airport) etc...
> More specifically, whilst Boston was identified as a very pretty place
> where it was real cool to hang out, it appears that the participants had
> less opportunities (or did not identified these opportunities) to hang
> out together than in Frankfurt. Amongst reasons, the fact the conference
> took place in two different buildings, the dorms were in yet another
> place, the "village pump" was not clearly labelled as such etc...
> Good points were the common breakfast/lunch area, in that big room where
> people could chat.
>
> Next Wikimania should be particularly careful to choose locations where
> people can stay together and have full opportunities to "bump" in other
> editors every minute. By the way, we suggested a wall where pictures of
> participants could be pasted as the conference proceeds (to facilitate
> recognition between participants).
>
> A big point in any cases will be to identify the "size" of the audience.
> One does not have the same requirements and the same timeline for a
> conference of 400 people or 1000 people, or even more. We will need to
> see how we want that to evolve.
>
> Last, as for the past two years, an important point in selecting the
> city was to check whether there was a local team of very motivated
> wikipedians on the spot, to help organising. It is not so obvious now
> that this should be amongst a primary motive to select a city. It may be
> that we choose to outsource more of the organisation (as opposed to
> heavily rely on volunteers).
>
> In any cases, the organisation is not an easy task, kudos to those who
> did the job this year. But it all begins with bids :-)
>
> ant
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:57:12 +0200
> From: Anthere <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation's position on non-free images
> To: foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <ec048s$60j$1(a)sea.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Good question.
>
> Two resolutions were proposed on this matter by some contributors.
>
> Let me copy them below, as well as the outcome.
>
> -----------
> Resolution:NDNC
> Proposed by : contributor, copied by Anthere
>
> Motion to vote: Angela 05:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
> Motion Seconded: Anthere
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation aims to promote free and collaborative content
> Non-commercial and non-derivative licenses are not compatible with the
> notion of free content supported by the Wikimedia Foundation and the
> Free Software Foundation, as defined at freecontentdefinition.org
>
> In order to clarify this situation, the Board resolves that:
> Content under "non-derivative" or "non-commercial" licenses is not
> sufficiently free to allow use on Wikimedia projects. Content dual
> licensed under one of these with a free license continues to be acceptable.
>
> Outcome: The resolution dropped was dropped at a meeting 5 aug 2006. The
> conclusion was essentially that the board should not get involved in
> that (not a policy) but that recommandations would be suitable. It was
> concluded that Jimbo would blog about it.
>
> ----------
>
> Resolution:Fair Use
> Proposed by : an editor, copied by Anthere
>
>
> Given that fair-use content has been widely tolerated for historical
> reasons on the Wikimedia Foundation's projects
> Given that fair-use content is, by essence, non-free
> Given that the Wikimedia Foundation objectives are to promote free
> material in the whole world, not only in the United States of America
> where the fair-use can apply
> Outcome of the resolution: Given that free content is now widely
> available for all the Wikimedia's Foundation projects through Wikimedia
> Commons
> The board resolves :
> ? That starting from today (insert date), no fair use content shall be
> added to the Wikimedia Foundation's projects
> ? and that the existing fair-use content shall not be deleted until
> replaced by free content
>
> Outcome: the resolution was inactive for two months with no motion to
> vote. It was consequently dropped.
>
>
> --------------
>
> I think this resumes pretty well the position of the Foundation on the
> issue :-)
>
> I will actually say it more plainly.
> I think the projects are not (should not be) managed by the Foundation.
> The Foundation supports the projects, which is very different. Jimbo or
> others may provide some guidance, but it is not the role of the
> Foundation to say "fair use is allowed" or "fair use is not allowed".
>
> Ant
>
>
> ----------Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz wrote:
> > Tisza Gergo wrote:
> >
> >>There is an ongoing debate in the Hungarian Wikipedia community about
> >>image license policies. I didn't find anything about the Foundation's
> >>position on the issue (except for the rather vague [[m:Foundation
> >>issues]]), so I'll try to ask here:
> >
> >
> > The same is on Polish :-) I think there should be an official Foundation
> > policy about it. When we were asking people from Foundation around 1
> > year ago, the answers where different from one person to another, and
> > then two groups of users (pro fair-use and anti fair-use) were using
> > these diffrent answers as a key argument. Finally, someone asked simple
> > question: do we really want to make Polish Wikipedia to constantly
> > break Polish Law?
> >
> >
> >>1) Which copyright law should be followed? The Hungarian law, the law of
> >>the United States or both? (And what about France and the Netherlands,
> >>where IIRC some of the Wikimedia servers are hosted?) This is an
> >>important question, as Hungarian copyright law is a lot more restrictive
> >>(there is no fair use, and works made by the government remain
> >>copyyrighted).
> >
> >
> > On Polish Wikipedia it was decided that due to:
> > a) vast majority of contributors live in Poland
> > b) we don't want to give an impression that Polish Wikipedia ignores
> > Polish law
> >
> > we have to strictly follow Polish law.
> >
> > In fact, no matter where the servers are placed, when you contribute to
> > any webpage from Polish territory, you have to follow Polish law. You
> > are making copyright violation by sending from Polish territory pictures
> > or text - no matter where is it going to be published. So, the question
> > is where you are - not where is the server.
> >
> > In Poland something similar to fair use is allowed, but using it in any
> > encyclopedia requires:
> > a) only educational purposes (Wikipedia can be used for non-educational,
> > even strictly commercial purposes)
> > b) documented attempt to obtain the copyright's owner permission
> >
> > Therefore, technically, fair use in Wikipedia circumstances is rather
> > useless if you want to follow Polish law, and therefore we have decided
> > not to allow any fair use materials.
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 00:21:39 +0200
> From: "Erik Moeller" <eloquence(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation's position on non-free images
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <b80736c80608161521q750d94eaye8f997df3d128c61(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 8/16/06, Anthere <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I think the projects are not (should not be) managed by the Foundation.
> > The Foundation supports the projects, which is very different. Jimbo or
> > others may provide some guidance, but it is not the role of the
> > Foundation to say "fair use is allowed" or "fair use is not allowed".
>
> I'll state for the record my disagreement with that. I think copyright
> policy should be made on the Foundation level in cooperation with the
> projects. The current situation is an unsustainable mess.
>
> Erik
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:35:48 +0100
> From: geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation's position on non-free images
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <f80608430608161535j68490dc8o6031cca5a48a676b(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed
>
> On 8/16/06, Tisza Gerg? <tgergo(a)inf.elte.hu> wrote:
> I cannot speak for the foundation but I deal with copyright stuff
> rather a lot on en and from time to time other wikis
>
> > 1) Which copyright law should be followed? The Hungarian law, the law of
> > the United States or both? (And what about France and the Netherlands,
> > where IIRC some of the Wikimedia servers are hosted?) This is an
> > important question, as Hungarian copyright law is a lot more restrictive
> > (there is no fair use, and works made by the government remain
> > copyyrighted).
> >
> United States law must be followed. Following other more restrictive
> laws appears to be the choice of individual project (the works made by
> the goverment thing is a red herring works made by the US goverement
> are still PD and works made by almost any other goverment are not).
>
>
>
>
> > 2) What are the rules, if any, for non-free images? Should we follow
> > [[Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy]], or is every community free to create its
> > own policies about non-copyleft media content?
> >
>
> As long as the policy stays within US law it appears communities are
> free to do what they like. That said the foundation retains the right
> to remove any image at any time.
>
> > 3) Is it acceptable to use, in a way similar to fair use, images which
> > are illegal in the strict sense, but safe to use?
>
> As far as US law goes no. Outside that I think the choice reverts to
> the indivdual project
>
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:06:49 +0930
> From: "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2007 - get ready for the third
> edition.
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <44E3BA21.1060901(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > Kelly Martin wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/16/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Wikimania 2006 just closed its doors a week or so ago, and it is
> >>> already time to think about the next edition.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Actually, it was time to do that about six months ago. We really need
> >> to be planning these things more aggressively. In my opinion, we
> >> should know where the next year's Wikimania is going to be before we
> >> start the planning for the current year.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Good Point,
> >
> > Greg mentioned this this morning as well this was a hot topic of
> > discussion that needed addressing.
> >
> > A few suggestions I'll put on the main site:
> >
> > Polynesian Language Institute, Hawaii
> > Sidney, Australia. (great place but very expensive for a lot of folks)
>
> It's spelt "Sydney", and there's already a lot of discussion at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimania_2007/Australia and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AWNB#Wikimania wrt. this.
>
> --
> 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
>
>
Dear all,
Wikimania 2006 just closed its doors a week or so ago, and it is
already time to think about the next edition.
As happened in 2005 and 2006, the city hosting Wikimania in 2007 will
be chosen among whichever candidate cities dare/deign/want to
participate in the "hosting Wikimania" contest.
All information concerning how to launch a bid for your city/location
can be found on meta:
*http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2007
*http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2007/Bids
*http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2007/Official_requirements_for_bidding_cities
Please follow the instructions on that last page to build your bid.
The Wikimania 2007 organizing team stays at your disposal for any
questions you might have concerning the bidding process and/or the
bidding requirements.
Happy bidding!
Delphine
PS. I have removed all red links to non-existing unoffical bids.
Please only add a link when there is some kind of content to the bid
and make sure the bid is classified with the name of the city, not the
country.
PPS. Dear translators, thank you for translating this message and
sending it to your respective home lists.
--
~notafish
Brad Patrick wrote
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2008 and reflecting on what
> >> On the subject of size. I am personally not in favour of an
> >> *international Wikimedia conference* (keywords international and
> >> Wikimedia) that will hold more than 500 people, ever. The reason for
> >
> The barrier to entry to edit in your pajamas is far different from the
> barrier to entry of international travel for many, if not most,
> contributors or admins. We also skew heavily towards students. The
> difference among people from our different pockets of interest was
> obvious from this year's conference, and our international delegations
> were tiny. We must do a much better job of international visitation,
> scholarships, and the like.
It would be a good idea to think to do, as well the annual internation
(that is worldwide) wikimania edition, some continental or
subcontinental edition. My idea is not to think at these continental
wikimania as a local meeting, but as addictional editions where can go
people who can not go to the main international edition. Of course the
will be somehow smaller than the "big" one, but I would like to still
call (and consider) them international.
Of course it is not an easy thing to do.
AnyFile
>> present
>> and organized.
>Actually, allow me to disagree. I believe that Wikimania city
ideas
>should come from whoever feels like supporting them, whether or
not
>they are from a chapter. Of course, in a country with a chapter,
help
>from the chapter is appreciated, but not *needed*.
I agree. I said "strongly" support not "must".
>For the record, Frankfurt last year, as far as I can remember, was
a
>bid springing out from three individuals and was supported by
>Wikimedia Deutschland *after* the city was chosen, not before.
Yes, but in 2005 there were few possibilities.
In 2006 Toronto said that there was no Chapter in Canada to support
the initiative.
>> At moment I could read a lot of proposed towns without
connection
>> with local chapters (i.e. Geneva) which are only a "nice to
have".
>> In
>> this moment these proposals seems to be only a brainstorming.
>Yes, but brainstorming are gooooooood! I don't think the chapters
>should try to take the bids into their stride or phagocytize them,
but
>rather allow for individuals to come with fresh ideas and help
them
>along the way if their ideas make sense, or not help them if they
>don't want to.
>Wikimania is a an international conference, not a national one...
Brainstorming is brainstorming and people know that in the
brainstorming all is possible ("Wikimania on the moon? OK, it's
brainstorming"). I think that we should be in the first step (after
brainstorming) and we should be more concrete (at least following the
requirements).
Ilario