Hi all -- I just signed up to this list and was looking atht e
archives a bit. I noticed the discussion about the Wikimania German
site, and was curious after reading this comment:
> Part of their logo, however, is a distorted version of the Wikipedia
logo, which I believe is not kosher; whoever contacts them to request
they change their logo should also press them to change the name of the
project.
I went to the site and it did look a lot like our logo. But I found a
little section on their page about themselves which talks about their
logo:
http://www.wikimania.co.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Wikimania:Über_Wikimania
See the "Unser LOGO" section. My German isn't that great anymore but
they basically say they got theirs from a book which came out in 2001
and that it is very sad that we picked a similar logo (if I'm not
reading it wrong, they are subtlely claiming that we stole in from
them).
The book: http://www.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~gutsche/ideen-werkstatt/Ssingh2.jpg
This is from 2001, our current logo didn't evolve until 2003 according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logos_and_slogans
So... yeah. Looking over the logo discussion, I don't see any evidence
that our current logo was influenced by that book or the German
website:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Paullusmagnus-logo_%28small%29.png
Our progression was:
1. Text on a ball
2. Ball made of puzzle
3. Text on puzzle
4. Individual letters on puzzle
It seems like an independent visual genealogy, unless I'm missing
something. Very odd. Anyway, I don't think we have a strong claim
about them copying us.
So.. beyond that.. hi! Glad to be here!
FF
The wikimania wiki is being archived, with new text put up; as we are
planning to link to it from the Call for Participation which is going
out to perhaps a few thousand people this week. We have a proposed
2006 banner, using a CC-by-SA background image:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimania_2006
I hope to put it up on the Wikimania site, which clearly shouldn't
have the 2005 banner. If you're interested in helping clean up and
beautify the conference wiki, this would be a great week to do it :-)
The text of the CfP should now be final:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimania_2006
Once more, if you have lists and groups we should send it to, please
add them on the CfP talk page.
SJ
--
++SJ
Greetings,
We will shortly be sending out a Call for Participation to groups
around the world:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_CfP
If you would like to help organize one of these themes, please add
yourself here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2006/Program_Team
We are also gathering a list of groups to contact (which will
eventually be used for more than just this one mailing); if you are on
lists or in touch with publishers/people you would send the CfP to,
list them here so we don't double-hit any person or list:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2006_Call_for_Participation/Distri…
The most promising software package we have looked at for processing
papers so far is Indico,
free in all the ways that matter, relatively cleanly written, and
ready to be tested out:
http://indico.cern.ch/categoryDisplay.py?categId=1l12http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceTimeTable.py?confId=048http://radian.org:8080
Please visit the test site (http://radian.org:8080), beat on it a
little, see what registration and abstract-submission is like. There
is much customization that can be done, but with only a little
customization we could have this ready for would-be presenters to use
in a couple of days. Share your thoughts on the software:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimania_2006_Call_for_Participation
Finally, two upcoming program meetings to note:
* We will have a (very) short meeting on Tuesday night at 23:00 UTC,
to verify that the CfP and the instructions on how to submit an
abstract are good to go. Barring any problems, the CfP will go out by
February 1.
* We need a proper Program meeting, to discuss how to organize each
theme and find speakers; and everything other than the CfP. I propose
22:00 UTC Saturday evening, as that has worked well in the past.
Please sign up if you can make it, and leave comments if you want to
make such meetings but can't at this time.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2006/Planning#Future_meetings
Regards,
SJ
<s>Dear Maniawikiites</s>
<s>Dear Wikipaloosians</s>
<s>To all Wikimedia Conferencers</s>
Dear Wikimaniacs,
Please check out the draft Call for Participation :
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2006_Call_for_Participation
Comment on it, and suggest where to send it, on its talk page :
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimania_2006_Call_for_Participation
For inspiration, you may enjoy watching the short video montage from
Wikimania 2005, compiled by Rory O'Connor : http://rdr.to/I0
Now is also the time to suggest speakers and panels for Wikimania,
from all parts of the world :
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2006/Program#Speakers
We will have a brief Program meeting, primarily to discuss the CfP and
launch it on its way, this Sunday, at 23:59 UTC, in #wikimania.
Please note any suggested changes or additions to the text before then
on meta.
Cheers,
SJ
Cutting the thread that's getting too long.
Do I need to say IANAL? Well, IANAL.
On 1/6/06, Florence Devouard <anthere(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I asked Soufron to give you an explanation of why it would be best to
> change the name "from a legal perspective".
> His answer on juriwiki-l was :
>
> "It's simply that we already lost a few major wikimania domain names. It
> is also likely that our german friend begun registering wikimania tm in
> europe.
> There is a lot of uncertainty around the name wikimania, when choosing a
> new one could help us ensure that everything will be right and fine. "
Yes, well, there may be a lot of uncertainty at this point, but a
Google search returns us more than anyone else. The press around
Wikimania gives us a headstart and some anteriority.
> This is quite a short explanation, so I asked him if he could detail
> further.
> But the point is, I am not sure it is a good idea he explains further...
> I will try to explain below, but I am not a lawyer, so maybe I will say
> stupid things. If so, please correct me, it will allow me to understand
> better as well :-)
>
> Domain names
>
> As I understood, the Wikimania2006 and Wikimania2007 .org domains were
> secured yesterday *in case* (by a wikipedian, on his/her own money).
Yes, they have, you can say it, a whois will return it anyway, I did
it. I love the name ;-).
And I'm not a wikipedian, I'm a wikimedian. :P
> If we stick to this kind of idea (why not ?), that means the domain
> should be registered for many years to come [snip]
Yes, but then, the more we go in time and the more we use it, the less
interesting it is for people to "steal" the domain name, for they know
what it's used for. They can do it of course, but what's the point?
Bother us? As we grow, we're going to have more of those
cybersquatters (we already have a few) and at the most it will cost us
a couple hundred dollars to get the name back because they know they
can't win a suit if we decide to go that route.
> Now, yes, the big question is "does it matter or not that we own the
> domain name ?" I invite the discussion on this.
> If someone takes all the domain names in .org, .com, .whatever before
> us, does that matter ?
I would say no. But then that's me. I believe that we will never avoid
cybersquatters, we cannot register every single domain that comes up
through our head.
> Tm
>
> Registering a name is not necessarily an easy business. It does not help
> that it should be registered in several countries (I suppose that once
> we are registered in USA, Europe, Canada etc... we would be somehow
> covered), and I presume you would all agree the tm must be protected in
> more than *just* the USA ? So, that implies several registrations... to
> do each year (in advance).
> Besides, registering is not "free", nor even low cost. It costs money,
> it costs time for the one doing the registration and it takes time to
> get the mark (about a year and a half at best it seems?). Will we do
> that every year, to secure WikimaniaXXXX ? I do not think so.
> Better not counting on it.
No no, we would *never* register the trademark Wikimania+year, that
makes absolutely no sense and I am not even sure it *can* be done. We
might want to register the trademark Wikimania of course, but even
that might not be so useful.
You have to remember that if registering a trademark is expensive for
us, it is also expensive for others. And while I can imagine that some
people would do it just to bother us, I don't think in the long run
that anyone would want to get into that kind of battle/money every
year, or on every trademark we're thinking about. There are things
such as priority, usage, anteriority etc. that will play in our favor.
The question is do we want to get into that battle in the first place.
That's a strategic decision. If we do it once, and win, we'll be cured
of these conversations and any cyber squatting for the rest of our
life.
> Let's go one step further : what if we decide to ask the tm nevertheless
> and someone else oppose it ? What about the costs to fight the
> opposition ? What about the costs if the other asked wikimania2006
> before us, and we have to oppose ?
As I said, there is no way we would ever register wikimania2006 as a
trademark, it makes no sense whatsoever.
> The next good question might then be : what are the benefits of owning
> the tm of Wikimania2006 ? Will that be worth the costs and time spend on
> getting it ? Does it matter that someone else own the trademarks of say
> Wikimania2006 ? What are the consequences ?
No benefits wahtsoever. See above.
> And btw, if someone else own Wikimania, will we be granted Wikimania2008 ?
No, we won't, that's why registering the TM per year is not even an option.
> As you can see, there are "costs" and "benefits" to any decision,
> sticking to Wikimania, changing to WikimaniaXXXX every year or changing
> to Wikipapouasi. The benefits may be for everyone. The costs (money,
> time) will be solely for the Foundation.
No, costs will be for anyone who decides they want to beat us to it.
Again, while domain costs are marginal, trademark registration is
expensive and long, you said it yourself.
The problem with wikipapouasi is that if we discuss it on a public
mailing list, or on meta, there's bound to be someone who will beat us
to the domain name. I don't mind registering two domain names, I *do*
mind registering every single idea that goes through the head of
wikimedians and has a chance to be an accepted name.
In the end, I would follow up on Angela's point earlier. Let us call
it the "Annual Wikimedia Conference" as an official name, let us call
it wikimania as the funky name, let us make the
wikimania.wikimedia.org the official domain for now, and if someone
decides to take the time and money to register wikimania as a
trademark before we do (or because we don't want to, or because we
decide not to oppose -and I believe we would be granted the
opposition), well, we'll change it to conference.wikimedia.org and be
done with it. Anyway, in our heads and that of the public, it'll
always be Wikimania :-).
While I believe that registering trademarks is a very important thing,
I don't believe we should get over our heads with this whole wikimania
thing. But if we have to, let us do it strategically, and just decide
it's going to be wikitagada, buy the domain name, register the
trademark, and stop *talking* about it where anyone can do it before
us.
Delphine
--
~notafish
I'm not sure about the nostalgia around the i, but I still think we can do
better, and I'm going to sleep on it. I say we open this up to more people
(I think I accidentally e-mailed only you, so I'm correcting that), through
the Village Pump and other means. Sound good to you?
On 1/4/06, Kereluk, Darren L. <dlkereluk(a)sasktel.net> wrote:
>
> **
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* mysekurity [mailto:mysekurity@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 03, 2006 23:59
> *To:* dlkereluk(a)sasktel.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania: name of a conference...
>
>
> On 1/4/06, Kereluk, Darren L. <dlkereluk(a)sasktel.net> wrote:
> >
> > *The best that I can come up with right now is Wikifinity.*
> > **
> > *Darren.*
> >
>
> Well, it's a start, but it could still use some work, IMO. That's not a
> bad idea to play with the last i, however, but I think it could be something
> along the lines of WikInfinity, or similar.
>
> Question: do we really want to use CamelCase? Wasn't the whole point of
> MediaWiki to do away with it? :)
> *[Kereluk, Darren L.] It might be the time to revisit the idea of using
> it. It seems that everybody and their dog is starting to use it (just read
> Wikipedia's own article on the subject).*
>
> *I had intended to suggest Wikiverse, but that term was taken (or so
> says Sam Spade) as a .com already.*
>
> *I was going for a Wiki affinity type thing with my suggestion, but it
> just doesn't work with the "i" being there. The next best thing that
> I can come up with now is Wikaffinity, but does the community want to lose
> the "i" from Wiki?*
> **
> *Darren.*
>
> --
> No virus found in Darren L. Kereluk's outgoing email.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.12/220 - Release Date: 1/3/2006
>
This is my first post to the list; am I going about this in the right way? I propose ManiaWiki not be considered, since it has a horrible clanking sound. Dactyl-trochee is not a conventional English structure; the phrase lacks a sense of completeness, and thus lacks impact, since the final unstressed syllable trails off . . . the concept is not resolved by the sound, so to speak.
WikiMania (trochee-dactyl) is metrically effective, but as some have pointed out, it might not be desirable to promote the event as being manic. In any case, the name is taken; no great loss.
WikiSym is 1) opaque and 2) too exclusively academic, though why not ressurect the classical notion as symposia for deep drinking no less than for deep thinking. WikiSem, from Wiki Seminar, is overly narrow. If this is to be more than a single-session, "seminar" is not an accurate categorization.
I'd vote for Wiki2006 as being very workable. I am surprised WikiWorld has not been offered, or some derivative e.g. "Wiki World Congress." WikiThrong, WikiCrush, Wiki Ass (for assembly), and WikiCauc (for caucus) should probably be discarded outright. Why not WikiCamp?
I SUGGEST WikiFest: it contains both social and professional connotations, the connotation of being annual, and an atmosphere that is celebratory, festive, and purposive. I muchly prefer it to Wikimania.
Zachary
.png){kind=link}