Hello,
I think the title of the message says it all :-)
You may find the resolution here:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions#November_2007
There is very little to add really, but for the fact we have been very
pleased with Sue's job so far (and have no reason to expect different
for the future), so it is a real pleasure to announce this appointment.
Thanks Sue !
Florence Devouard
Chair of Wikimedia Foundation
Any wiki markup appears to render in order from left to right, take
effect at the opening code, and end at either closing code or paragraph,
so closing code is effectively unnecessary if the end of a paragraph
accomplishes the same result:
''italics test''<br>
... works as well as
''italics test<br>
... and so on. On the one hand, I'd like this NOT to generate an error.
On the other hand ... well, if Word Perfect would just take over
CFKeditor or FCKeditor or FCUKeditor or whatever it's dang name is, then
we'd have a true reveal codes window "dashboard" below a true wysiwyg
window "windshield" the way Word Perfect and the web were supposed to be
... hasn't this all been worked out already 20 years ago?!? Why are we
reinventing word processors from scratch on every new toy / environment
that gets invented? </rant>
Thomas Dalton writes:
> If the contributions in question are extensive, that involves
> rewriting whole articles - ie. we lose enormous amounts of content.
I think this problem is overstated. Not all edits are additions of
content.
> Like I've said before, it only takes one.
I think running a project in fear of the one case where someone
decides to impose massive litigation costs on us is probably not
optimal decision-making strategy. There is so much we already do that
poses greater risks of litigation that the migration would that I
can't take seriously the proposition that a migration to new GFDL
significant new problems.
> So we can be reasonably confident about winning any such cases. Are
> you equally confident about being able to win full legal costs?
That's not how legal risk assessment works.
> An American court would enforce a foreign law that doesn't exist in
> the US? Maybe. I have very little experience of the American legal
> system, however my experience of the US in general would suggest that
> they wouldn't give a damn about foreign laws...
Yes, an American court might enforce a foreign judgment that would
have led to a different result if brought initially in an American
court. That's first-year civil procedure (i.e., an early lesson in
the basic training of every American law student).
--Mike
Steve Bennett has been writing a parser grammar, and investigating how
the present parser *actually* works.
Turns out the apostrophe-italic combination only works once a para. Is
this expected?
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com>
Date: 27 Nov 2007 15:05
Subject: Re: [Wikitext-l] Determining the behaviour of apostrophes
To: Wikitext-l <wikitext-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
On 11/28/07, Jared Williams <jared.williams1(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> The code is still missing the searching for an single-letter preceeding a
> bold to split at. Seems none of the tests exercise that particular bit of
> code.
That's a relief. Now that I understand this rule, I think it's a
complete load of bollocks, and should be removed from any notion of
"correct" treatement of wikitext. Mismatched apostrophe groupings
should be considered erroneous input whose rendering is undefined.
Why?
For starters, as discussed, the French wikipedia doesn't even use this
construct. Worse, it only works *once* per paragraph. Look at how this
renders:
* L'''amour'' is great the first time. But l'''amour'' fails the second time.
You guessed it, bold from the first ''' to the second ''', and italics
from the first '' to the second ''. And why would it be any different?
The treatment of 4 apostrophes is much less offensive. This renders correctly:
* L''''amour''' is bold the first time. And l''''amour''' is still
bold the second time.
The 4 apostrophes -> apostrophe, bold rule is at least consistent,
though it's still not intuitive that this: ''''blah'''' put the first
apostrophe in normal text, while the second one is bold. Hard to
believe the user really wants that...
Of course, the only time 4 apostrophes ever renders as anything
*other* than apostrophe followed by bold is when the crazy rule above
is invoked, turning it into two apostrophes followed by italics.
Steve (rambly late at night)
_______________________________________________
Wikitext-l mailing list
Wikitext-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitext-l
Ray Saintonge writes:
> Yes and no. It's self-explanatory for these plaintiffs, but these
> defendants have little money and even less sense.
I defer to your undoubtedly greater experience in copyright litigation.
> Do we? When money grows at a faster rate than sense it becomes
> subject
> to the Law of Diminishing Returns.
I never said anything about money growing at a faster rate than sense.
--Mike
Ray Saintonge writes:
> I'm sure that Dante should have set up a circle in hell where
> plaintiffs
> with more money than sense were forever litigating against defendants
> with less sense than money.
"More money than sense" = "less sense than money", n'est-ce pas?
Without making any claim as to the absolute amount of sense we have, I
think we probably have more sense than money, by some appreciable
margin. (I am hoping Dante would not count that self-assessment as a
sin.) We look forward to the day when we have a lot of sense and even
more money.
--Mike
We are officially starting the process to select new Wikibooks and
Wikijunior logos. The pages for these are at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikibooks/Logohttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikijunior/Logo
We would like to get input from people in the foundation, as well as
people on the Marketing Committee, so that this time the logo
selection process goes a little more smoothly then it did last time.
We are also trying to start a marketing blitz to attract wikibookians
from all language projects (or as many as possible), and we are going
to try to attract graphic artists from commons, and possibly some
outside artists as well.
Feedback would be certainly appreciated.
--Andrew Whitworth
Thomas Dalton writes:
> The number of people doing something, and the likelihood of someone
> doing it are different things. I think there is a significant (while
> still probably quite low) chance of at least one person suing, and as
> I've said, that's all it takes to cause a very big and expensive
> problem.
Remember that it's expensive to the plaintiff as well as to the
defendant.
> My guess (and that's all it is at this stage),
> is that the changes required to unify GFDL and CC-by-SA would be
> fairly large, and it would end up being dependant on people's views of
> the "spirit" of the license.
What is the basis of this guess? Most people who've reviewed CC-BY-SA
and compared it to GFDL see lots of similarities.
> Would you care to enlighten me? Risk assessment involves assessing
> potential damage and the chance of that happening. Is legal risk
> assessment somehow different?
Yes, in the sense that Pascal's Wager is wholly unhelpful in assessing
risk. (I think it's wholly unhelpful in other contexts as well, but
you certainly can't conduct an enterprise by applying "it only takes
one" logic to a legal question.)
> I can't see how it would be. Legal costs
> are just as damaging as any other similar sized cost.
Apparently you are under the impression that legal costs are not
damaging to plaintiffs as well as to defendants.
Let's boil this down to what the real argument is:
1) It would be wrong to relicense GFDL content on Wikipedia to a new
GFDL that's like CC-BY-SA.
2) Allowing those who object to the content would do no good because
it's impossible.
3) Therefore, people will sue us because they object to the new license.
4) What will they sue for? Damages (unclear how to calculate those,
since there's no market value or lost profit calculation that's
obvious, and since the content isn't registered, which is a
requirement for statutory damages), plus removal of the content.
So ... either removal of the content is impossible, in which case why
sue? Or it's possible, in which case, why spend the money on a
lawsuit when you can get the same result by asking. (You don't even
have to ask nicely.)
It helps in analysis of this question to be familiar with how
copyright litigation actual works, and what it actually costs
plaintiffs to bring one.
>> Yes, an American court might enforce a foreign judgment that would
>> have led to a different result if brought initially in an American
>> court. That's first-year civil procedure (i.e., an early lesson in
>> the basic training of every American law student).
>
> I'm not saying it wouldn't be legal, I'm asking if it would actually
> happen.
No one can tell you whether it would happen in any given instance. It
has happened, however, in the past.
--Mike