Congratulations to Ting Chen, Samuel Klein, and Kat Walsh on your reelection
you have gained again the confidence of the editors so they are reasonably
happy whit things as they are I wish you continue doing this great job and
keeping their confidence.
Thanks to all the other candidates for making innovative and interesting
proposals it seems that we have not been able to offer alternatives
attractive enough but I have had a lot of fun in the process and I hope all
of you too.
Finally thank you to Abbas, Jon, Mardetanha, Mantaya, and Ryan for your job.
I would like to ask for the full pairwise results.
Hi everyone,
Just a quick reminder that Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue
Gardner will be having office hours in about 10 hours, at 17:00 UTC. There
is no pre-set topic for this conversation. As usual, documentation is on
Meta.[1]
We look forward to chatting. :)
pb
___________________
Philippe Beaudette
Head of Reader Relations
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 2106 (reader relations)
philippe(a)wikimedia.org
1. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
Kat Walsh writes:
I'm really happy to see us start getting involved in this kind of
> work; I think it too is part of fulfilling our mission. Thanks for
> your work on this, Geoff.
>
Chiming in here -- I'm very happy to see Geoff's announcement too. As Geoff
and a few others here know, I've favored WMF involvement in this case at
least since it was confirmed that the Supreme Court is going to hear it (and
of course I conferred with my EFF colleagues in the runup to the Supreme
Court's granting certiorari in Golan v. Holder). The case is centrally
important to the Wikimedia Foundation's continuing ability to offer free
knowledge and to preserve and provide access to important cultural and
artistic creative works.
I'm also pleased that another former employer of mine, the Information
Society Project at Yale Law School, is filing an amicus brief as well.
Here's the text of the Yale announcement (and a link to a PDF of the brief)
for those who are interested:
"Today, professors and fellows associated with the Information Society
Project at Yale Law School filed an amicus brief in *Golan v. Holder*, a
case that will be heard before the United States Supreme Court this fall. In
this brief, we argue that the Court should apply strict First Amendment
scrutiny to Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, a law that
allows works to be taken out of the public domain and placed back under
copyright protection. Although the plaintiffs in this case had stipulated
that intermediate scrutiny was the appropriate standard of review under the
First Amendment, we argue that when Congress abrogates a central
constitutional privilege—as it has done here, by stripping away a
traditional speech-protective contour of copyright law—Congress must satisfy
a more rigorous standard of review.
"The brief is available for download here:
http://yaleisp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Golan-Amicus-Brief-filed.pdf
"Many thanks are due to everyone at the ISP who helped in writing,
researching, and thinking about this brief over the past two months!"
--Mike Godwin
>
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 6:26 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > For comparison, I understand that Wikibooks are considered somewhat
> > "owned" by the person starting the book.
>
As an admin on Wikibooks I'd beg to differ. I'll point out this page which
sums up the project's opinion:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Ownership
(Ignore the fact that it's proposed; the majority of the de facto
policies/guidelines are proposals and I've not seen one ratified in the past
two years. Additionally, that page has been present since 2006.)
The talk page brought forth some interesting points, namely the section on
authorship which led to another draft:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Authorship
Those outside the project may conflate Wikibooks' idea of authorship with
that of ownership. Still, this is a significant departure from Wikipedia's
culture. While both of course have page histories, Wikibooks promotes the
use of a contributors/editors/authors page for books for providing credit to
those that helped write the book.
Now, the reality is that despite our decision that one person shouldn't have
supreme control over a book, at any one time you are likely to only have a
single person working on a book and determining the entirety of its
structure and content. Should that person abandon the effort, the book can
go years before another person takes up the reins or, more often, never be
worked on again. There's a distinct desire to control the content and not
have to deal with a previous editor's decisions. So people will start a new
book.
This is seen in the effort I went through to indicate approximate completion
status for all the books present at Wikibooks. Just under 80% of the books
are not even half done.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Category:Books_by_completion_status
-- Adrignola
The problem of content ownership hits any wiki at some point.
In the English Wikipedia it is governed by a policy called "WP:OWN"
[1]. There's a similar policy in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Is this policy
any different in other projects?
I am asking, because i agree with the English Wikipedia's policy in
principle, but the reality is that sometimes instead of helping people
write together, this policy drives people away from the project -
people who could be very positive contributors, but who don't like
their contributions edited by others without being asked. So i am
wondering: maybe en.wp and he.wp can learn something from other
languages here?
Thank you,
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
"We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace." - T. Moore
Actually, it is. I expect Wikipedia to outlast the U.S. Dollar at least in some form, or at least stick around as long as literature like "The Oddessy" and "The Epic of Gilgamesh" and be a part of human culture longer than the civilizations that produced that literature. Why would it be otherwise? Something like Bitcoin may outlast these other world currencies too.
Also, these currencies can collapse and such collapse doesn't have to necessarily be a result of World War III and an epic version of Armageddon. Computer networks transcend cultures and particular civilizations. That doesn't mean times will be easy if those currencies collapse, but it doesn't have to mean that civilization has been completely destroyed. BTW, I lived under a government that went through three different currencies during the relatively brief time I lived in that country. I know what a collapsed currency is like from first hand experience, yet the country still exists as do its people.
I'm just pointing out that arguments about how something like Bitcoin is just "play money" apply equally to other more recognized fiat currencies and you are digging yourself into an intellectual hole if you try to defend them and bash alternative currencies.
-- Robert Horning
---------- Original Message ----------
From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
On 21 June 2011 17:52, robert_horning(a)netzero.net
<robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote:
> I'd be far more worried about the stability of currencies like the U.S. Dollar and the Euro as their basis in reality is even shakier than Bitcoins, yet the collapse of either or both currencies could substantially impact the WMF and the lives of most Wikimedians far more.
The Bitcoin system is robustly designed to continue past the collapse
of the US dollar and the world economy, as the Internet, fast
computers and reliable electricity are all expected to be readily
available when barbarian hordes are wandering the burnt-out
post-apocalyptic remnants of civilisation.
- d.
____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4e00e04ce162712e8b9st01vuc
The claims of "Bitcoin advocates" about the legality of the currency have always been questioned. Frankly I don't know of anybody involved with Bitcoins and understood it on a technical level that wasn't also sure that it was simply breaking new ground on both a technological as well as a legal basis. Theoretical speculation about various kinds of attacks upon Bitcoin has been the mainstay of discussion on the forums, where even I came up with a pretty good attack that was debated for some time (and I still think is a pretty interesting potential.... see "cartel attack" on the Bitcoin forums if you care to look it up).
It is an untested concept, and the basic idea is not going to go away anytime soon, even if the particular implementation associated with this particular program may prove to be fatally flawed.
BTW, the Mt. Gox crash is really nothing new to the Bitcoin community either. There have been other similar disasters in the past, but at that point the entire supply of Bitcoins was relatively worthless so it didn't have nearly the same impact as this particular incident. Also, the problem here wasn't with the actual Bitcoin software, but rather with the exchange mechanism being employed to convert bitcoins to other currencies. I suppose that is part of what gives Bitcoins value, so it matters after a fashion, but I've always been wary of websites running proprietary code and saying "trust us with your money". This is especially true when I don't know anything at all about the operator of that website. Yes, for me that even includes websites for banks so I am being consistent here. The Mt. Gox website was put together by somebody who certainly had a clue about web programming, but clearly it wasn't bullet proof and could be hacked.
Anyway, I've been involved somewhat with the intersection of Bitcoins and Wikimedia, being a semi-active participant on the en.wikipedia webpage about the topic and having guided that article through the Wikipedia Incubator. It is surprising that a topic so ignoble that it was deleted (multiple times I might add) from Wikipedia has become a topic of conversation on Foundation-l is to me all that more surprising.
For myself, I'd say wait and see in terms of having the WMF accept Bitcoins as a donation option. Back a couple of years ago when the WMF was brand new and desperate for cash, it might have made sense to accept this method for donations, and perhaps it still could be done at least on an informal basis, but otherwise there isn't a need right now. There certainly isn't a need for the WMF to be on the bleeding edge of society with this particular concept of currency exchange.
As for the "major issues", I could dissect those at this time but I choose not to get into advocacy as it really doesn't matter. It is something that the WMF should keep a fairly good distance from at the moment, or at least that would be my recommendation as somebody who has been a long-time supporter of Wikimedia projects and also somebody who has studied Bitcoins to some substantial degree of depth to at least understand the concept better than you can get from reading the Wikipedia page. Indeed I choose not to write much on the en.wikipedia page mainly because much of what I'd write would be construed as "original research".
Distributed and decentralized currencies like Bitcoins will be something that will eventually work its way into society in some form or another, and it is something that the legal system will eventually adapt to and work with in due time. It may take a generation or two for that to happen, so I'm taking the long term view on the whole thing. It isn't something that has to be worried about on the order of a few days, weeks, months, or even years and is still an experimental concept at best. I'd be far more worried about the stability of currencies like the U.S. Dollar and the Euro as their basis in reality is even shakier than Bitcoins, yet the collapse of either or both currencies could substantially impact the WMF and the lives of most Wikimedians far more.
There may come a time to be involved with Bitcoins, but the time is not now or any time in the near future, at least for the WMF.
-- Robert Horning
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] EFF & Bitcoins
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:42:05 +0100
I'm guessing it is related to a dawning reality that while Bitcoin isn't at
the whim of some government it *is* at the whim of "lots of people on the
internet". There are major issues there; of a lack of oversight, a lack of
security in the market (i.e. the recent hacking and crashinng of the market
at MtGox) and so forth.
The MtGox crash will potentially be the turning point for BTC, I fear -
notably because it raises the point that a decentralised currency can be
attacked and scammed and you can't do anything about it without breaking the
claim of "a currency no one can control" (which is what they did). This is
what one of my favourite commentators had to say:
*The Bitcoin "community" is an emergent, distributed boiler
room<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiler_room_(business)>.
They could just as easily be selling pink clam shells, tulips, or shares in
an insolvent company that had a business plan to make pool cleaning agents.
The underlying commodity doesn't matter. What does matter is that the widely
disbursing the underlying commodity early gave them enough of a following,
including folks who are savvy enough to think that they are the ones getting
rich off the marks (a classic element of fraud), to attempt to convince
other people that there is actually intrinsic value in what they are
selling.*
Also a lot of the claims by BTC advocates are turning out to likely be
legally unsound, which is leading a lot of commentators into the attitude of
"there could be trouble brewing here".
Just in case BTC's were every logistically on the table... this should all
be taken under consideration :)
Tom
____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4e00cc7c8a34412933bst05vuc
Hi
I know I am in the wrong place for this. Normally this kind of thing would/
should go on the "discuss" pages, but category discuss pages don't attract
much attention.
If you consult Categories: Sailors/ Navigators/ Explorers, you will see that
quite a number of people are listed in these arguably (or not) overlapping
categories for the same activity/ feat/ achievement.
To put it into perspective, it makes sense to list a person in the
categories of [[poet]], [[playwright]], etc, but in each of these categories
such people would be different 'personae', with different works that make
them merit being classified a poet or a playwright.
On the other hand, to list - for example - Henry the Navigator/ Captain Cook
as [[sailor]], [[navigator]], [[explorer]] looks odd as the activity
undertaken to merit being given that title is only one. This is like calling
a farmer a tiller/ sower/ weeder/ harvester/ etc.
Generally, there is a problem with Categories, as many were created without
any regard to hierarchy - we have examples of names that appear under
"British explorers" or "15th century explorers", but then they are not
listed under "explorers".
Any ideas?
Best regards,
Rui
--
_________________________
Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308
Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308
I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African
numbers
Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos
meus números sul-africanos
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
Angola Liaison Consultant
_______________