Just FYI :-)
The German Verein has just received a legal opinion they ordered some
time ago, concerning various legal issues for wikipedia and German law.
It turns out that, according to the legal opinion, German law prohibits
the collection of quotes, or quotes as such, if they are not used in a
That would mean the German wikiquote project's legal status is shaky at
The German PDF with the legal opinion is at , and as wiki code at .
A story on the Podcasting News website describes Wikipedia as one of the
"partners in the effort" to launch the Ourmedia project. Is this true? I
realize that Angela is one of their advisors, but I hadn't heard that
there was any kind of official partnership. Is there some kind of
ongoing discussion that the community doesn't know about, or are people
just being sloppy about the nature of the connection?
--- Neil Harris <usenet(a)tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> I agree: there can be many partners, and there's no reason not to
> partners with many people and organizations. But with the Wikipedia
> brand becoming more and more valuable, and official trademark
> recognition in the offing, there needs to be an official process
> registration of Wikipedia/Wikimedia partners. In particular, I
> that the Foundation will have a legal requirement to defend its
> trademarks Real Soon Now, and not doing so risks losing the rights
> that trademark and becoming a [[genericized trademark]].
Any value the wikipedia brand has comes from the content of the
wikipedia. The content itself does not "belong" to the Wikimedia
Foundation. The brand, well, I could not care less. Be careful that
you recognize value where it really is.
> The Foundation urgently needs an official policy before anything
> damaging occurs to the Wikipedia/Wikimedia brand. An official
> list page would be a good idea: so the Foundation can say "if
> you're not
> on this page, you're not an official partner, and here's how to
> apply to
> be a Wikimedia partner, dear Bill/Melinda [delete as applicable]"
Do we? Is it so important that we "recognize" our "partners"?
I say the opposite is true. We should have a policy that says: "It
does not matter how much money, content, or goodwill you send our
way, we are not putting your logo or anything else in the wikipedia.
Our NPOV policy would prohibit that, now that I think about it.
It would be kind of like saying "This unbiased beverage report
brought to you by our Partner: Pepsi"
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
* Gerard Meijssen:
> This user is the persona of a known anonymous vandal who has a
> history of using different IP-numbers.
...which could be his provider's policy, and cannot be used as a
charge against him.
> When he was banned for a week, he started with sockpupputs.
It is not proven the aliases were his. One of the aliases
posted on Wikipedia that he is not the 'troll', and the 'troll'
has always denied he had these sockpuppets.
> In the mean time one users tried to mediate, but made the
> mistake to identify to much with one party and not listening to
> the others.
Not one user. A mediating committee has been created, on the
initiative of this user. More people are part of this committee,
This user might have identified too much with one party, but on
the other hand the other party did not really co-operate in the
> It resulted in the discussion being moved to another wikipedia
Yes, the discussion turned into a chaos, and the person who
initiated the mediating committee created a space on another
wikipedia, where the mediating could take place without too much
interference of other users.
> For your information I am NOT involved in this quarrel.
But you did take a standpoint in the vote about a ban for the
(I tried only to make corrections, and to omit my personal
In accordance with the language policy, the Italian edition of Wikinews
has been set up and announced in the proper channels:
Following the recommended process for new language editions, the
participants have also prepared several pages on Meta, which should be
imported into the live site shortly.
In wikinews there has been an ongoing discussion regarding the
unresponsiveness of the mediawiki team to issues considered critical to
the project. This has now become a discussion regarding a fork of both
hardware and software, and contributors are actively working toward
doing so. I don't think this is the best choice, but it is beginning to
look like the only choice.
The board has received a mail concerning the german wikiquote.
The issue has been ongoing for ... a very long time now.... but to
''By the german law, every cite is normaly copyrighted.''
In the past, Erich Kästner allready claimed against people quoting him
with success. The only way out of this problem would be, to cite them
all in a context about every cite - in the moment we still have only
less then the half with an source, so this would also be impossible. I
dunno how much is the chance, to get claimed. Maybe someone is
translation the "Rechtsgutachten" from the german wikimedia e.V. for a
solution. (Quotes from poesie, books or small lyrics are high difficult,
quotes from Dieter Bohlen are less in trouble)''
This is reported by Michael Diederich.
Michael is wondering what to do, in particular since a german editor is
asking that the whole wikiquote be deleted.
Any suggestion to help on the topic ?
Since yesterday the blocklist of SORBS is used on the wikimedia servers
to block open proxies.
If someone is having troubles to edit now, here are the steps he can do
to solve the problem:
* he first has to determine the IP address wikipedia is blocking, that's
not too hard, it's on the blocking page
* then he has to get someone on another computer to check if it's an
open proxy. the procedure is described here:
* if it is, then he should complain to whoever controls the server to
fix the configuration
* if not, he should request a retest
(http://www.sorbs.net/faq/retest.shtml) to be taken out of the list. the
status of the proxy might have changed since it was last scanned.
Please translate/forward this to your project to inform people.