We need to have elections for the board of directors within some time
period after the bylaws are signed, which isn't quite yet. (I have
signatures from the other two, but I've delayed signing myself just to
prevent this clock from starting to tick too soon!)
There are two seats up for election, and I need to refresh my memory
by re-reading the bylaws to get everything setup for the elections. I
believe we need a couple of volunteers who are not running for
election to serve as election administrators or something like that.
Please volunteer! And I'll post more tomorrow about what we need to
do.
--Jimbo
"Guillaume Blanchard" <gblanchard(a)arcsy.co.jp> schrieb:
> A license' flag for medias may be a very nice idea!
> And imho, the combo-box may be a god way to force people to choose one of
> the available licenses.
Looking at the French box, I miss a few options, though. First, CC-BY, or
even better "CC-BY or similar" for stuff that can be used freely when
attributed. Second, I would like to split PD in "PD - granted to PD" and
"PD - copyright expired". Finally, a choice "Other - specify on image page".
And indeed, the author field would also be useful.
Andre Engels
>>What do you think about force user to choose a licence
>>(in a combo box) when
>>uploading a media (pictures, sound, etc.) to Wikipedia.
I second this proposal. Too many pictures just don't have _any_ information.
Nicolas / Ryo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I would think that we would be able to use work originally licensed under
the cc license on wikipedia even if we relicense it under the GFDL. There
is nothing in the cc license that says we can't. I think some wikipedians
even use photos that are licensed under the cc.
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 09:38:20 -0800 Evan Prodromou <evan(a)wikitravel.org>
wrote:
>>>>>> "GB" == Guillaume Blanchard <gblanchard(a)arcsy.co.jp> writes:
>
> GB> This statement is right? License compatible with GFDL:
>
>That depends on what you mean by "compatible". If you mean, "you
>can
>include works under license X with works under the GFDL", practically
>any value of X will work.
>
>If you mean, "You can re-license a work made under the license X
>under
>the GFDL", then X can only be "public domain", "GFDL", or something
>BSD-like (such as CC-BY).
>
>If you mean "You can re-license a work made under the GFDL under
>license X", then it's just the GFDL.
>
>If you mean, "You can dual-license a work under both license X and
>the
>GFDL," then it can be practically any license. HOWEVER, dual-licensing
>with copyleft licenses only lasts for one generation: people who
>make
>derivative works have to decide which license to choose, and license
>under only that. No current copyleft license allows you to re-license
>under a license with a similar spirit but different details.
>
>If it's not clear already, dual licensing is a lot of trouble. The
>idea is nice, but it makes for a lot of head-scratching.
>
> GB> By the way, no one answer my question about if derivation
>is
> GB> allowed with fair use image and who decide the fairness
>of a
> GB> picture?
>
>There's a good Web site here with info on fair use:
>
> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
>
>Fair use (or fair dealing) is not a license. It is an exception
>to US
>and Commonwealth country copyright law that says that you can make
>unauthorized copies or excerpts of work under certain circumstances.
>
>Fair use is a _defense_ if you are sued for copyright violation.
>The
>courts decide if your unauthorized copying is excusable under the
>principle of fair use. In the US, it depends who you are, why you're
>using the copyrighted work, how much you're using, and what the
>effect
>is on the copyright holder and the market. It is a complicated and
>subjective decision. In other countries, the rules are different.
>
>~ESP
>
>--
>Evan Prodromou <evan(a)wikitravel.org>
>Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
>The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.3
wkYEARECAAYFAkBTAvIACgkQImu8Pbyf50H98QCgj4o5fsmvNRkLMlcHNDxO3WrFb/YA
oIfLBCAPDh9xSZCBK+oDlcMkP4js
=1I9o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2
Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger
https://www.hushmail.com/services.php?subloc=messenger&l=434
Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate Program:
https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427
Imran Ghory wrote:
>>>>What do you think about force user to choose a licence
>>>>(in a combo box) when
>>>>uploading a media (pictures, sound, etc.) to Wikipedia.
>>>>
>>>>
>>I second this proposal. Too many pictures just don't have _any_ information.
>>
>>
>Ditto, along with a required "source" text field.
>
Requiring source information is far more important than giving users a
choice about what license to use. We should have done it a long time
ago. If we want any basis in international law to claim "fair use" on
images, the Berne Convention requires that we indicate the source and
the name of the author.
I don't know that it's such a good idea to give people a smorgasbord of
licenses to choose from, though. Trying to comply exactly with the terms
of the GFDL is enough work already. We'd be better off if we had a
uniform licensing policy for images, so that people don't have to keep
track of responsibilities that are different under each license. We
could just decide to tell everyone that all images you contribute must
be licensed under the GFDL, just like text.
--Michael Snow
Hello all & happy Pi day,
I had recently some problems with uploading images to Wikipedia.
I think the interface doesn't work very well and someone of the
programmers should look at it.
I uploaded a small image of a braille calendar
(braille_calendar_cs.jpg) and everything was ok. But then I noticed it
would be much better to upload a big image and use the new image
syntax to produce a thumbdail for the [[braille]] article.
So I tried to update this picture with a larger one with the same
name by uploading the new version. But something went wrong, because
now the picture (braille_calendar_cs.jpg) has a horrible quality.
This is not caused by strict compression, it was ok on my local system.
Because I thaught that the problem is only that the first image was
of a different size, I tried to upload it under a different name.
I choosed braille_calendar_cs-2.jpg, but it didn't work. No image
is displayed on the corresponding image page. I tried to do it again
with no result. Yet the path on my local system is correct and the
image is also correct. No problems under gqview, gimp, gnome eyes.
Then I finally managed to upload the file under the name
braille_calendar_cs_2.jpg and it's finally correct. But I got the
impression that the uploading subsystem is quite buggy or not well
finished.
It would be great if some of the programmers could devote some of
its time to carefully test it and fix some of the problems.
Also, could someone please point out to me, how do I delete these
"garbage" pictures? Please don't delete them now, because they might
serve as a reference for the bug-hunters, but if something like this
happens to me in the future, I'd like to be able to clean after myself.
(Because there is a risk that someone finds the bad quality picture,
not knowing about the better variants, and uses it somewhere -- which
is highly suboptimal.)
Thank you & thanks everyone for Wikipedia!
Hynek Hanke
http://www.freebsoft.org
"Erik Zachte" <e.p.zachte(a)chello.nl> schrieb:
> Thanks for the translation Bernd, very interesting.
>
> The German press release has been really succesful, large articles in major
> newspapers, several TV shows. I wonder why we don't hear any stories like
> this from other Wikipedias. Has the press release really gone unnoticed
> eveywhere else?
In Dutch we got a short article in the Telegraaf
(http://www.telegraaf.nl/i-mail/article8365111.ece). I don't know about any
other newspapers or such; at least there has been noone who actually
contacted us.
Andre Engels
There is no sense in giving developers administrative power. Developers
are good at programming, not management of a community. By wrapping up
their ability to contribute with their ability to rule, they are made
effectively unaccountable. Nobody wants to remove someone's developer
access if it means they can't do much needed progrmaming work.
Administration of the encyclopedia also distracts them from programming,
a task which they have a rare skill and motivation for.
Wikipedia should not be a technocracy, ruled by those with knowledge of
computer systems. Wikipedia should be a democracy. Those in power should
be accountable to the community at large, and ideally selected from and
by the community at large.
I have written a feature giving people with the "developer" flag set in
their wiki user accounts a level of administrative ability similar to
what developers with shell access are capable of. Specifically, such
users are able to set arbitrary user rights for any user on any
Wikimedia project. They may create sysops, desysop, create bureaucrats
or other developers, or any other user-rights operation you care to
mention. This feature is operational right now, and I've been using it
for the last couple of weeks to make bureaucrats on various wikis.
The feature is easy to use and does not carry the security risks of
write-access to the database. At the moment, it is not possible to
rename user accounts or change the history of articles through the web
interface, but such features are planned.
I suggest we use this feature to split the roles of developer and site
administrator. Specifically, here is what I think should happen:
1. A policy should be instituted disallowing any developer from using
their power for administrative purposes, except where there is no other
way to perform the relevant operation. New developers applying for shell
access should be made aware of this policy.
By "administrative purposes", I mean exercises of power for any other
purpose than testing and implementing software.
2. A small number of users should be made "honorary developers" (perhaps
a better title can be found). These users should be selected by putting
forward nominations and then conducting a vote, similar to the vote now
conducted at the English Wikipedia for sysop access.
3. These "honorary developers" can lose their developer access by a
community vote giving a majority in favour, by an arbitration committee
ruling, or by Jimbo's decree.
It should be possible for a developer to hold both shell access and
community blessing. Such people would take the role of both programmer
and administrator. However as I said above, we really have a lot of
programming work to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll also take this opportunity to drop a few subtle hints.
Maveric149
Wikipedia's most active contributor, Maveric149 has done a tremendous
amount of work for Wikipedia over the last two years. Mav is always cool
and rational when dealing with a dispute, and works hard to find a
compromise amenable to all parties. Respect for him in the community is
universal.
Angela
Angela has been extremely active in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk
namespaces over the last 6 months, organising the formation of many
policies. In her enthusiasm for weeding and quality control, she has
edited almost every functioning Wikimedia wiki. She also lives in a
different time zone to Mav, so she'll be able to deal with situations
arising when Mav is unavailable.
-- Tim Starling
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Acting as a member advocate on the behalf of 168..., I request that his
case be referred (by Jimbo if necessary) to arbitration as soon as possible.
In addition, I propose that his administration powers be reinstated,
as they were removed without due process. Thank you.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.3
wkYEARECAAYFAkBS2+wACgkQImu8Pbyf50GtXQCgs7hBvWN9HZxlEoK1/WQYOyFrxQAA
n1+vB+mHXXQ7k3ZX/wZpt9PUCH45
=AiFw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2
Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger
https://www.hushmail.com/services.php?subloc=messenger&l=434
Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate Program:
https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427