FYI: Final comments requested on the CC 4.0 licenses.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Luis Villa <lvilla(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:19 PM
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] CC nears last call for comments on Creative Commons 4.0
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
As mentioned in a variety of places (mostly, it looks like, on Commons
Village Pump) Creative Commons is revising their licenses to produce a
new 4.0 version. The changes include a variety of things relevant to
Commons and other WM projects, most importantly attribution, but also
improved translations, database rights, and general improvements in
CC is nearing their final version, and have asked me to ask our
community for one last round of review and comment. Consider this that
A few relevant links:
* The best way to comment is through their mailing list:
* The actual drafts, including side-by-side comparisons to 3.0:
* Their complete wiki: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0
This is *not* a call for comments on the adoption of CC 4.0 by WM
projects. That discussion, if it happens, would be after 4.0 has been
finalized, so that we're not speculating about the final terms.
Deputy General Counsel
415.839.6885 ext. 6810
NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about
the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for
legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a
lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
The thing is that if someone is in a subcategory they are then taken out
of the category. So, if the subcategories are applied, nearly everyone
should be removed from the higher category such as American novelist.
Obviously this was not thought through well. If there is to be a female
novelist category there must be a male novelist category. This will
become more and more evident as time passes and situation equalizes.
Obviously we need to quit arguing and change it. Either a man or a woman
mystery writer would be in both a gender category and a genre category,
if we are to have gender categories.
> That doesn't necessarily follow. Surely female American novelists
should appear in both categories.
> On 25 Apr 2013 23:14, "Sarah" <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
>> > What subcategories would American men novelists go into? of course
>> > would also go into them. By centuries would be one set of
>> > and genre: mystery, western, adventure, fantasy, etc.
>> > Hard to see this as a deliberate slight.
>> > Fred
>> Fred, the point is that, if "American women novelists" is to be a
subcategory, then "American male novelists" would have to be a subcat
>> Otherwise the "American novelists" category would be default male,
>> apparently what happened.
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
I think of interest to this discussion list.
Luyt, B. (2012). The inclusivity of Wikipedia and the drawing of expert
boundaries: An examination of talk pages and reference lists. *Journal Of
The American Society For Information Science & Technology*, *63*(9),
*Wikipedia* is frequently viewed as an inclusive medium. But inclusivity
within this online encyclopedia is not a simple matter of just allowing
anyone to contribute. In its quest for legitimacy as an encyclopedia,*
Wikipedia* relies on outsiders to judge claims championed by rival editors.
In choosing these experts, Wikipedians define the boundaries of acceptable
comment on any given subject. Inclusivity then becomes a matter of how the
boundaries of expertise are drawn. In this article I examine the nature of
these boundaries and the implications they have for inclusivity and
credibility as revealed through the talk pages produced and sources used by
a particular subset of *Wikipedia*'s creators-those involved in writing
articles on the topic of Philippine history.
Some recent musings reminded me that I never did find a good answer
for an old question of mine: does anything predict whether an editor
will lean towards deletionism?
More specifically, it seems to me that attitudes towards articles take
on almost emotional or moral dimensions, perhaps related to various
psychological factors. Does anyone remember ever seeing any research
touching on this? For example, perhaps someone surveyed editors,
asking for self-identified preference and doing an inventory measuring
personality factors like the OCEAN/Big Five? Of course I checked
and Google but nothing particularly germane appears to have popped up
besides random speculation and analogies to Adorno's famous
The problem I've consistently seen with incivility as a tactic is that, the
longer someone is around, the more of it they can get away with.
Administrators and other high-profile, long-term editors should be held to
the highest standards of civility, but the enablers just make excuses for
them, and lackeys tend to form around them, stalling, preventing, or just
complicating any attempt to deal with their behavior.
I got really sick of meeting rude, or even abusive, editors, only to
realize they were admins, too. They have long dragged down the project as a
whole, but no-one ever seems interested in actually doing anything about
I agree with you, Charles. These fallacies are quite transparent. And it is
too bad that much good effort and input to the Wikipedia initiative can be
lost due to those who feel it is their to be "forthright" (wiggle word)
rather than helpful. There is nothing wrong with being helpful. There
is everything wrong with a nasty officious edge. Even the Rutgers coach
behaviors was finally seen as unacceptable and he sure wasn't as
"forthright" as some editors.
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Charles Matthews <
> On 16 April 2013 02:07, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Incivility is difficult to deal with.
> That may be the case; but it's not for the reasons usually given.
> > One of the reasons is because there is a school of thought that a
> > certain level of frankness and brusqueness is necessary in a place
> > like Wikipedia. The trouble with that is that people draw the line in
> > different places, partly due to cultural differences, partly due to
> > personal levels of what they will accept.
> Yes, well, one of the "differences" is between people who think that
> what they find acceptable should constitute a universal standard; and
> those who realise this is no way to set universal standards.
> > Some people also treat this as a matter of principle, rather than as
> > one of being nice. The way I would describe it (though you really need
> > to find an exponent of this view to describe it properly, as I don't
> > support this view myself) is that it is more honest to say what you
> > really think in simple language, than to dissemble and use careful and
> > diplomatic language to essentially say the same thing. I favour the
> > latter approach until a certain tipping point is reached, and will
> > then be more frank myself.
> Excessive frankness usually does nothing for relationships. "To be
> frank" usually prefaces something that can usefully be omitted.
> > I can see the point people are making when they say that being more
> > forthright earlier on and consistently on a matter of principle is
> > better, but the end result tends to be the same. Hurt feelings all
> > round for those who don't get that viewpoint, and those who have a
> > tendency towards the more brusque approach sometimes (not always)
> > being baited by those who like winding people up. The other effect,
> > most damagingly of all, is that the 'community' (which is a localised,
> > nebulous entity that is in flux at the best of times and varies
> > depending on location and timing) ends up polarised over the issue.
> > So you get periodic flare-ups, exacerbated by the nature of online
> > communications (the lack of body language to and verbal tone) and the
> > lack of empathy for others that some who are drawn to Wikipedia
> > exhibit.
> The point being that those who actually use incivility as a wedge to
> divide the community are quite well aware of that, and this is what
> needs to be stamped out as disruption, not intermittent breakdowns of
> the civility code.
> I saw a recent study suggesting, alarmingly, that online many people
> find angry language and comment relatively persuasive; presumably
> because they assume it is sincere, and assume that sincerity has
> something to do with being right. I find this much more worrying than
> the traditional "lack of affect" argument, because you'd assume over
> time people would adapt to that (have we not adapted to the phone?)
> I think there are probably a couple of serious fallacies being allowed
> to dominate this discussion, still.
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
I am looking for a Wiki representative to assist in a change that needs to be made to Tom Strickland's Wikipedia page<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Strickland>. I need assistance because he requested that his page be locked several years ago because outside contacts were maliciously tampering with the content.
He now needs a few edits to the page, but is not able since it has been locked for content protection. Can you please let me know who can, or who I can contact, to make the changes?
Brecke Latham | WilmerHale
Senior Public Relations Specialist
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20006 USA
+1 202 247 2492 (t)
+1 202 663 6363 (f)
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
This email message and any attachments are being sent by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately-by replying to this message or by sending an email to postmaster(a)wilmerhale.com<mailto:email@example.com>-and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you.
For more information about WilmerHale, please visit us at http://www.wilmerhale.com.