I heard that you have the biggest encyclopedia in the world. Is it true that there are no other English encyclopedias with about 3,000,000 articles? And what are the top 7 MediaWiki wikis as far ar number of articles?
It writes in Japanese.
I am not good at English. time is necessary for the reply.
I say, user "山吹色の御菓子" of Wikipedia Japanese version.
It questions as case of the entire Wikipedia.
There is Wikipedia 's principles in Wikipedia English version.
Can this be freely changed by the participant's discretion in each language
version?
Is it possible to make the one that principle and guidelines that existed in
Wikipedia English version was purely Copy and Paste principle and guidelines
even if the community doesn't agree?
Is principle and guidelines in which the community doesn't agree effective?
In Wikipedia Japanese version, the document with the template of principle
and guidelines up to the present time was operated from the start without
obtaining the mutual agreement of the community. In Wikipedia Japanese
version, the participant was doing principle and guidelines without
permission until 2007. The community simply solved by the decision by
majority without understanding Wikipedia 's principles until February, 2010.
It has come to my attention that the Wikimedia Foundation through its "Office actions" policy removed and oversighted the signing keys for Texas Instruments calculators under a DMCA takedown notice on October 7, 2009. Cary Bass then oversighted all revisions that had the signing keys. Let me just say it might not be necessary to continue to block the signing keys. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has reported that they warned Texas Instruments about the DMCA notices as noted, "the DMCA explicitly allows reverse engineering to create interoperable custom software like the programs the hobbyists are using." [1]. Further Texas Instruments failed to respond to the letter and the deadline, so the bloggers who put up the codes put them back up. [2] Also a student at a university who posted the keys to his own personal page at the university filed a DMCA 512 counternotice. With all of this is mind, as since the keys are still up today, could we please remove the Office action and allow the keys to be posted, and un-oversight all the revisions so we could end all this vandalism and controversy on-wiki? It would be a good step to tell Texas Instruments that this is just a "Baseless Legal Threat". Also, if it's not lifted, could the Foundation explain why isn't removing the Office action? If we do allow the keys on Wikipedia, I pretty much think the EFF would support us all the way.
Thanks,
Techman224
Links:
[1] http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/10/13
[2] http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/texas-instruments-stop-digging-holes
Forwarded as per request.
-Ryan
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Keegan Paul <kgnpaul(a)gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:49 PM
Subject: Next IRC hours for the Living People Task Force
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>,
foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Hello, all.
The next IRC hours will begin at 4:00 UTC, Monday, March 8. The discussion
will be publicly logged and posted.
You can find the agenda here: <
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/IRC_Agendas>
If you haven't been paying attention to the task force, you can find more
information <http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People<http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/IRC_Agendas>>.
Everyone is invited and encouraged to participate in this effort to create
a functional strategy to dealing with living people on a global scale. Hope
to see you all on the wiki!
~Keegan
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
--
[[User:Ral315]]
Which means of course that a person could claim copyright to the very
technology underlying Wikipedia, and demand the entire project be taken down.
In fact a different mentally ill person could make this claim every month
and force the project offline.
That's the world you're advocating? No responsibility on the part of the
office to even make the slightest attempt to verify the claim?
W.J.
In a message dated 3/4/2010 6:08:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
swatjester(a)gmail.com writes:
You've identified one of the criticisms of OCILLA/DMCA -- that it can be
easily abused by copyright holder to keep stuff offline. (This is what the
EFF is probably getting involved over). However, the proper response to
that
is for the alleged infringer to request sanctions against the copyright
holder for misrepresentation. It's not the Foundation's place to get
involved, nor the proper use of their resources to second and third-guess
these decisions. They take the office action, remove whatever it is, and if
the underlying legal battle gets fought, they can then go and reverse it.
So
no, there's no obligation to interject ourselves, but more importantly I
think we DO have an obligation to respect the existing legal system as well
as protect the entire project from litigation.
I cannot speak English very much.
It is the ’山吹色の御菓子’ the wikipedia Japanese edition user.
There is doubt in a policy and a guideline.
The Japanese edition did copy and paste of a document of the English version
and used it.
Are a policy without the agreement and the guideline effective in community?
Hi,
The Werner Icking Music Archive has announced it's no longer capable of
coping with the large amount of visitors to the site. They are
considering hosting the content somewhere else.
This archive contains much sheet music of public domain music. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Icking_Music_Archivehttp://icking-music-archive.org
I'm not sure if the content they published is in the public domain or
under a free license (by WMF's definition), but it seems worthwhile to
examine this in detail. Perhaps even offering to (temporarily?) host the
website (readonly or allow editing?) or convert it into a new Wiki
project (which – without doubt – would be a huge amount of work).
What do you think?
Regards,
--User:Church of emacs
The recent 6-month financial report indicates at the end of 2008,
there was $6.67 million sitting in a savings account. At the end of
2009, it's $12.56 million. Do individual contributors and
organizations who are donating to the Wikimedia Foundation realize
that nearly $6 million of last year's funds were simply put into the
bank? Do you think donors think this is an important mission, to
build up the savings account?
--
Gregory Kohs