Dear community,
after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Wikipedia was
overwhelmed by people expressing their sympathy for the victims,
adding material about affected organizations, and generally flooding
us with content that was inappropriate. Rather than turning these
people away, the decision was made to set up a separate wiki,
sep11.wikipedia.org, which still exists today.
A poll on Meta for closing the project showed 104 people in support
and 6 people in opposition. A volunteer, Jeff Merkey, has offered to
host the content under a dedicated domain name, sep11memories.org, in
a read-only state. It will from then onward be completely separate
from the Wikimedia Foundation.
Before we make this move, I would like to call all volunteers to help
review the state of the wiki. Remove comments or pages which are
inappropriate, remove inappropriate references to Wikipedia which
suggest an ongoing association (pointing out the historical
association is fine), and so on. An alternative logo would also be
helpful; otherwise the logo will have to be turned off.
To help, do the following:
1) Create an account on http://sep11.wikipedia.org/
2) Add yourself to the "Cleanup Group" on
http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_Portal
3) Start working. :-) If you need admin rights, leave a note on my
talk page (User:Eloquence).
I hope people will help. I believe our own project history is
important and deserves respect and attention, even if we decide that a
project is not within the scope of the Wikimedia Foundation, and
especially when dealing with a subject such as this.
I would suggest a cleanup period of 4 weeks at most. Remember, this is
not a call for reviving the project and adding new information (though
new navigation structure is fine), but to get it into a state where it
can exist as a separate, valuable resource.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
For Turin, IMHO, could be interesting also to have a defined rule to
choose the bids.
I have followed three years of candidatures and each year different
rules.
My question is... in this choice what is the role of the
communities?
Last year the final bidders (Toronto e Boston) have been choosed
after a poll (IMHO unnecessary because the two towns are in the same
continent with a little bit difference of proposal)... and this
year?
Who has a limited knowledge of marketing knows that a poll is
important to investigate the crowd of wikipedians. It's not a must,
but it's important because the board of examiners could take a choice
with impartial data without taking in charge the weight of an
important choice.
Without a poll *seems* that the choice has been already taken
previously.
I ask for more importance of Wikipedians.
Regards
Ilario
----Messaggio originale----
Da: jwales(a)wikia.com
Data: 28.09.06 10.57
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Taipei chosen to host Wikimania 2007
Not that it is up to me, nor should it be, but I intend to be a
strong
personal supporter of Turin for 2008, and encourage the concept
that we
should settle this fairly soon.
Gianluigi Gamba wrote:
> I congratulate with Taipei team and I'm sure they'll organize a
memorable
> event.
>
> As a member of the Turin bidding team, let me voice a choral "too
bad".
> We had a sort of incredible "astral conjunction" of sponsors
*really eager*
> to have the Wikimania event, the enthusiasm of the whole
community, the
> honeymoon with the media and the commitment of many people from
national
> (and not only) institutions.
> I wonder if such combination will return in a future. I hope so.
>
I'm not saying there will be no problems at all, but we will devote
ourselves to solve the issues and problems if there is any.
Thanks and best regards,
H.T.
In Taipei Wikipedian Weekly Meetup
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 8:54 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Taipei chosen to host Wikimania 2007
On 28/09/06, Hsiang-Tai Chien <htchien1225(a)yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
> Taipei, as other bidding team, also pad their volunteer time and
> effort on this bid. And, we do not know if the jury will choice us or
> not before the final result comes out.
> We, just like all of you, are only volunteers who are willing to
> devote ourselves to the WM projects and share the knowledge to benefit
> all human beings.
Are you saying you consider there's no problem?
- d.
___________________________________________________
您的生活即時通 － 溝通、娛樂、生活、工作一次搞定！
http://messenger.yahoo.com.tw/
Taipei, as other bidding team, also pad their volunteer time and effort on
this bid. And, we do not know if the jury will choice us or not before the
final result comes out.
We, just like all of you, are only volunteers who are willing to devote
ourselves to the WM projects and share the knowledge to benefit all human
beings.
H.T.
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 7:07 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Taipei chosen to host Wikimania 2007
On 28/09/06, effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> If you mean here that we should now already pick Turin to "do"
> wikimania 2008, I think that would be inappropriate. There are a lot
> of other cities working on a bid right now, and it would be extremely
> unfair to change the rules now and don't give others the chance to
> make their bid up, which might be better, as you don't know what you
> can expect. Please let's just follow the procedure as stated by the "
> picking committee" (how should I call them? ;-) ) before and let
> people prepare their bid, and pick one about november, december.
> If you meant otherwise, please forgive my lack of english :-)
The procedure as it is evidently needs work, since other bidders (e.g.
London) are disappointed at their hard work being pretty much wasted.
The current system seems to ensure a lot of volunteer time and effort being
futile. This is damaging to the project.
- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___________________________________________________
您的生活即時通 － 溝通、娛樂、生活、工作一次搞定！
http://messenger.yahoo.com.tw/
Today there was a question in the Dutch Pub about whether a certain
website would be allowed to use the wikipedia logo. I don't want to go
into details, not do I want an answer now, but I just wanted to check
it on the official Logo Policy of the WMF.
I searched on the for me most logical place, [[m:logo]], and found,
after a lot of searching and help through IRC, these urls:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Logo_and_trademark_policyhttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines
The second is policy, and deals a lot on *how* to use the logo. Was
nice, but not for the questions i needed an answer on. I needed to
know *when* a company, foundation, community, person is allowed to use
the logo. The first appeared not to be official policy. It was usefull
in principle, but I couldn't direct people to there, as it wasn't
official. (can't check because of db-down when it was last changed)
To my best knowledge, there is already quite some time a trademark
committee (since february 2006?), of whom I thikn they could be taking
care of this.
Is there a reason why this policy is waiting this long? Is the
foundation currently working on this, is there already a resolution
waiting maybe even? Is the Trademark committee indeed responsible and
working on this issue? I don't want the proposal to be half-good, but
I want the discussion going on, and get a good result as soon as it is
possible. I hope this is something that hase not disappeared from your
thoughts yet.
Greetz, Lodewijk
i started [[Metapub]] at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metapub
hoping to have some more to-the-point on-topic discussions, as well as
having a more or less central page on meta for focussing attention.
it hopefully will also take some load of the lists, as there are so many to
which not all are subscribed.
if it helps to make meta more intellegible or accessable it already served
its purpose imho.
oscar
can anyone please help me concerning the following, thx :-)
is anything yet published concerning the elected candidate having been
approved as a board member?
has this actually been done already?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Board_of_Trustees&oldid=438600d…'t
mention it at the time of my writing this.
is there an agreement or a resolution covering eloquence having today been
made steward by tim starling?
was the board election also covering these rights?
or was he appointed as such by the board? did i miss something?
best greetings from a bewildered
oscar
Upper case original. Good news.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Hart <hart(a)pglaf.org>
Date: Sep 27, 2006 3:11 PM
Subject: [BP] BRITISH LIBRARY SAYS COPYRIGHT LAW NEEDS UPDATING
To: Book People <bookpeople(a)pobox.upenn.edu>
The British Library has called for a wide-scale revision of existing
copyright law, which, it said, inadequately addresses digital content,
putting too much control into the hands of content producers and
owners. Lynne Brindley, chief executive of the British Library, took
aim at digital rights management (DRM) technology in particular, saying
that it allows content producers to prevent legitimate uses of content,
such as for academic purposes, for archival efforts, or for making
content available to people with disabilities. Calling the problem a
global issue, Brindley said that without "a serious updating of
copyright law to recognize the changing technological environment, the
law becomes an ass." The Open Rights Group supported the library's
call for revising copyright law, saying that the current situation
"allows publishers to write whatever license they like, which is what
is happening now." The British Library also said the question of
orphaned works should be addressed--works whose proper copyright owners
cannot be located easily or at all.
CNET, 25 September 2006
http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-6119043.html
from Edupage via today's Project Gutenberg Weekly Newsletter
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent via the Book People mailing list.
Posting address: bookpeople(a)pobox.upenn.edu
Admin. & unsubscribe address: bookpeople-request(a)pobox.upenn.edu
Charter & archive: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/bplist/
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
On 9/26/06, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
> I haven't gone through it in detail, but a few things that pop out:
>
> Section 2: Verbatim copies of the entire work now no longer need to
> include a copy of the GFDL if the redistributors: "have registered the
> work's license with a national agency that maintains a network server
> through which the general public can find out its license."
> -- I'm not too sure what this means. Do such registries even exist?
>
I don't think they do, yet. We'll have to wait and see what the FSF
says about this.
> Section 2: There is new anti-DRM language
> -- Seems reasonable.
>
This language is also in version 1.2, though it was *slightly*
modified. According to Bruce Perens the old language is a huge flaw
which makes it "unlawful to host the wikipedia on a computer running
any contemporary operating system". Hopefully he'll comment on the
new language, but unfortunately it seems to not have changed in terms
of this interpretation.
> Section 4, point b: For derived works, the primary author of the
> modified version must now be listed on the title page, in addition to
> the previous requirement that the publisher of the modified version be
> thus listed.
> -- Not sure what the impetus for this change is, but I don't see a
> problem with it.
>
This also was in GFDL v1.2. The language was changed though so that
it is only a requirement if there is a title page in the first place.
Along with a change to the definition of "title page", it removes the
requirement from some works (perhaps even Wikipedia depending on how
you apply the GFDL to it).
> Section 4, point c: The requirement to credit on the title page the 5
> principal authors of the version you derived from is waived if the
> version you derived from constitutes no more than 1/4 of your derived
> work. You must still maintain all authors' copyright notices, and the
> history section, but may put their names somewhere other than the title
> page in this case.
> -- Seems reasonable, although I don't care that much either way.
>
I don't like the language of this part at all. How would this apply
to an aggregate, or a collection? What about incremental changes by
multiple different people?
> Section 6a: Excerpts, defined as anything up to 20,000 characters of
> text (excluding markup) or 12 normal printed pages, or a minute of audio
> or video, may have essentially all the required information (license,
> title page, history, etc.) linked via a URL instead of distributed with
> the work itself.
> -- The most relevant to Wikipedia; this would greatly ease publishing
> things like info sheets and pamphlets. I'd personally be inclined to
> even up the limits a bit, to maybe 20 pages. Should also be extended to
> include photographs, IMO.
>
Well, the *most* relevant to Wikipedia is what I'm going to call the
Wikipedia clause:
[8b. WIKI RELICENSING
If the Work was previously published, with no Cover Texts, no
Invariant Sections, and no Acknowledgements or Dedications or
Endorsements section, in a system for massive public collaboration
under version 1.2 of this License, and if all the material in the Work
was either initially developed in that collaboration system or had
been imported into it before 1 June 2006, then you may relicense the
Work under the GNU Wiki License.]
But yes, this will make things easier for certain reuses of Wikipedia.
Things will still be a huge PITA for certain other reuses. For
instance, what about audio distributions of Wikipedia articles longer
than one minute? If anything this section makes them *more*
problematic. At least before you could say that just reading out the
URL was an implied permission. But not that it's spelled out for
works less than one minute it removes that argument. IOW, audio
readings of Wikipedia articles have to include the entire text of the
GFDL, presumably read out loud (especially if not distributed
digitally where the text perhaps could be embedded in the OGG or
whatever).
Anthony