Hello,
after the Board approved the licensing policy
(http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy in case
anyone forgot :) ), we have written an EDP on Czech Wikipedia that
allows us to use things like company logos under certain conditions
(okay with US and Czech laws, ie. explicit permission needed; okay with
GFDL, ie. can be nonderivative; no free image available; fair use-like
rationale) and we've been using it for a while. However, I talked to
pfctdayelise about our EDP today and her opinion is that the
Foundation's licensing policy was targeted to "legal loopholes" like
fair use or fair dealing - and as we don't have any such thing in the
Czech Republic (and I'm pretty confident we don't, there have been
numerous discussions about that), our EDP is invalid and we can't make
any exception policy at all.
I think her interpretation is correct and we at Czech Wikipedia should
revoke out EDP, but I'd like to hear more opinions, and as I don't
expect any official reply, I'm trying this mailing list. So, what do you
think? :)
Thanks,
Michal Zlatkovsky, [[m:User:Timichal]]
Dear All,
we have a demo at http://wiki-trust.cse.ucsc.edu/ that features the whole
English Wikipedia, as of its February 6, 2007 snapshot, colored according to
text trust.
This is the first time that even we can look at how the "trust coloring"
looks on the whole of the Wikipedia!
We would be very interested in feedback (the
wikiquality-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org mailing list is the best place).
If you find bugs, you can email us at
http://groups.google.com/group/wiki-trust
Happy Holidays!
Luca
PS: yes, we know, some images look off. It is currently fairly difficult
for a site outside of the Wikipedia to fetch Wikipedia images correctly.
PPS: there are going to be a few planned power outages on our campus in the
next days, so if the demo is off, try again later.
Out of curiosity, how are trademarks derived from Wikimedia/Wikipedia
handled and licensed? Since the Foundation doesn't necessarily impose
content restrictions on other sites (except, perhaps, under legal
constraints?) does the trademark license to non-English chapters
include indemnification against liabilities based on content? Is the
OTRS system effective at policing, say, libel in languages other than
the most common European languages?
Has the Foundation been notified of any trademark infringement
issues/pursued action? Theoretically (in extremis, or a change in
opinion on the part of the majority of those responsible for electing
Board members) could the Foundation could impose additional
restrictions on chapter Wikipedias or revoke license to use the
Wikipedia name? I haven't seen any mention of this in the bylaws, so I
thought I'd ask and see if someone can clue me in.
Thanks,
Nathan
Brian writes:
>> Wikipedia is not, and should not attempt to be, a news source. If
>> you
>> can't
>> accept that news coverage is incomplete and *not encyclopaedic*
>> then you
>> don't understand the differences between the projects.
>>
>> I don't want to get dragged into a prolonged flame war on the
>> subject, but
>> I
>> agree wholeheartedly with the philosophy that Wikipedia should not
>> try to
>> act as a news source.
>>
>> Someone dies? The facts (date/time/cause) go on Wikipedia. The obit
>> goes
>> on
>> Wikinews.
Speaking as a former reporter (and still a sometime journalist), I
respect the distinction Brian is trying to make here. To me, the
problem is partly enforcement (I don't want to add a new restriction
on Wikipedia contributions) and partly user satisfaction. I think this
is less an issue of project rivalry than one of simply trying to
address how users actually use the projects. I know from experience
that en.wiki users value the up-to-dateness of Wikipedia entries
regarding breaking news. I think this particular user community
(en.wiki) would like for that usefulness to continue, and I would be
saddened to see a new class of edit wars start based on whether this
or that addition should be in Wikinews rather than Wikipedia. What I
would like to see more of is Wikipedia articles citing Wikinews as a
source.
---Mike
>
Hoi,
To get rid of some backlog, many projects have been conditionally approved.
The basic rationale for these approvals has been
- it is an unproblematic existing ISO-639-3 code
- often there is an existing project Wikipedia already
I am happy to report that many of the follow up projects already have a
quality localisation (above 90%) and I am sure that this can be achieved for
the other secondary languages as well. For the new languages we expect to
have at least the major messages localised. These messages are grouped
together in the BetaWiki so it is easy to check their status. Many of the
MediaWiki extensions can now be localised in MediaWiki as well. So when
particular extensions are to be part of a particular environment, (cite for
instance in Wikiversity ??) it will be good when you check out their
localisation as well.
All the new languages have been prepared in BetaWiki (
http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Main_Page ) BetaWiki is a really lively
environment and every day over 500 localised messages become part of the
core MediaWiki functionality. This means that you can have your own user
interface in all Wikimedia Foundation projects. When you find that your
experience is not as good as on your home wiki, you can help and make a
difference :)
Thanks,
GerardM
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Maybe someone can help answer this question for me.
>
> Erik is now the Deputy ED. I assume that this is the position that was
> budgeted for in the ED's budget. Erik presumably approved that budget
> while he was on the board. Now he is the recipient of a salary that he
> approved in his board tenure? Is that correct?
>
No, I don't believe it is. Perhaps you missed the announcement last week
on this list, which identified Cheryl Steffen as the new personal
assistant to the Executive Director.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-December/035917.html
I'm not sure what part of the budget Erik's salary would come from.
Since the plan is for Brion to report to Erik, perhaps it's anticipated
that it would fall under the "Technology" area. Given the position, it
could also be considered "Finance and Administration", or the budget
might split the assignment of his salary across multiple areas. The
published "planned spending distribution" doesn't go into detail about
individual salaries, nor would it necessarily be expected to.
I also note that the budget was approved October 6, whereas the
resolution appointing Sue as Executive Director (from which Erik recused
himself) was passed November 26. If his new position was offered between
those two dates, then I wouldn't consider it improper for him to have
voted to approve the budget.
--Michael Snow
Maybe someone can help answer this question for me.
Erik is now the Deputy ED. I assume that this is the position that was
budgeted for in the ED's budget. Erik presumably approved that budget
while he was on the board. Now he is the recipient of a salary that he
approved in his board tenure? Is that correct?
-Dan Rosenthal
cc'ed to Foundation-L.
On Dec 18, 2007 3:44 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/19/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/18/why-the-focus-on-creating-quality-co…
> >
> > Interesting thoughts on quality.
>
> For me the telling line in that blog post is:
>
> "Even if we don't get it right, someone eventually will, because it is
> possible and because there is such a huge potential demand for it. I
> look forward to that day!"
>
> That is pretty much what citizendium is relying on. That there is a
> "huge potential
> demand" for perfection instead of "just good enough". I don't see that
> this is a gimme, but it could be true. I cast my lot with "just good
> enough", so will have
> to forego perfection.
Without getting absolutist, I think there's clearly a spectrum here.
We've picked one point; it works for us, and our editors and our
readership, and we're taken credibly by outside organizations and
society as a whole.
It may be that other points in the spectrum are both workable as
volunteer projects (critical mass of contributors and content) and
higher in the quality spectrum, and seen as more valuable by society
as a whole.
This is something that the Foundation may want to keep in mind;
"English Wikipedia" as currently structured may not be the only
english language encyclopedia project worth supporting. Why let Larry
and Google have all the fun exploring the corners and diversity
options in the space we're in?
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
Hi folks,
I am delighted to announce Erik Moeller as Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. Erik will take up his new responsibilities in our San Francisco headquarters beginning January 10, and will report directly to me. As part of this transition, and as you know already from Florence's announcement yesterday, Erik has resigned from his role as Board member.
Erik is well-known in the Wikimedia community. A twice-elected board member, he has been active in the projects since 2001. Through his six years of volunteer participation, he has made thousands of edits and uploads, contributed to the MediaWiki software, helped launch Wikinews and Commons, and supported the organization in numerous other ways. He is also the author of "Die heimliche Medienrevolution," one of the first books to include an in-depth analysis of wiki collaboration.
Most recently, Erik has been Chief Technology Officer of Stichting Open Progress, where he managed a decentralized team of developers in the implementation of OmegaWiki, a collaborative ontology database. He also provides hosting for several wiki communities, including WikiEducator.org, and has project-managed other wiki software development projects such as the LiquidThreads discussion system.
Our chief technical officer, Brion Vibber, will report to Erik. In addition, I will be delegating specific projects to him, and he will act on my behalf when I am traveling or otherwise unavailable. He will also play an important role in orienting the new San Francisco staff, and helping them to understand the processes, history and values of the Wikimedia projects.
Since I joined the Foundation in June, I have been impressed with Erik's commitment, hard work and evangelism on behalf of Wikimedia. I know he will now be able to make an even greater contribution to what we do, and I'm very pleased he's agreed to join the staff in the new office.
Please join me in welcoming Erik to the staff of the foundation.
Sue Gardner
Executive Director,
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Pascal Belouin <pbelouin(a)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 17, 2007 4:54 PM
Subject: for an academic endorsement of wikipedia articles?
To: foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Hello,
I was thinking about the fact that wikipedia was
still a tricky subject regarding its use for referencing in the academic world.
I was wondering if it would not be possible to obtain from official academic
bodies a sort of endorsement that would qualify a wikipedia article for
"official" academic referencing?
Regards,
Pascal Belouin
www.belouin.com