I am getting extremely impatient with RonaldB he seems to have a fetish
for blocking Thai IP addresses on the Dutch wikipedia and he doesn't
answerd emails send to him. I cannot even edit when I am logged in, not
from a friends computer which uses a different provider. Is it the
wikimedia foundations goal to block me??
The last two weeks I have found the IP adresses of my provider
constantly blocked, pre-emptively by RonaldB without any sign of
vandalism by those IP adresses. Wikipedia can be editted by anyone? Not
by me!
Waerth
The Communist Vandal trashed the entire Dine (Navajo) Wikipedia at
nv.wikipedia.org sometime earlier today.
I have reverted all of his edits -- it took a while. He managed to
vandalize every single article on this wiki in a matter of minutes.
Jeff
Geni said:
> >/ To me, these include, among others://
/>/ * military operations and hardware
/
> US military photos and trade fairs. Also various open days. About the
> only think you won't get is NK stuff such as Ch'onma-ho
So, only US hardware and activities. So much for NPOV. (There are tons of interesting things
that you won't see unless you're in operations. Trade fairs will show only small arms.)
>/ * spacecraft
/
> NASA for a lot of stuff and countries tend to put a lot of their space
> hardware on display
NASA => only US
You've therefore made the point that our current policies favor the broadcasting of the
activities of the US government. So much for NPOV. :-)
Greetings.
My associates and I are looking to build a new Wiki using MediaWiki.
We are looking to have lots of audio and video content.
I was hoping you could suggest servers which are optimized for this purpose.
I am particularly concerned with the expandability.
Do the MediaWiki servers serve other projects, or can you suggest any
servers are being used by other MediaWiki sites?
If not, are there any considerations we need to be aware of for deciding
on for supplying good performance for MediaWiki?
Thank you
Frazer Kirkman
Hello all!
I'm happy to announce that version 1.0 of the Definition of Free
Cultural Works has been released. This definition is directly
referenced in the draft Wikimedia licensing policy and is likely to
become our future guideline to distinguish free and non-free content.
The definition itself is developed using a wiki process & a group of
moderators (see below), so I'd appreciate "bug reports" on the wiki.
Specifically for the Wikimedia Commons folks:
We're developing a set of buttons to identify free licenses, using our
own "Free Cultural Works" logo. Any contribution here would be
welcome.
Full announcement & links below. Please forward & distribute to
relevant mailing lists.
- - - -
New "Definition of Free Cultural Works" Challenges Authors to Rethink
Copyright Law
''The Internet, February 14, 2007.''
A diverse group of writers has released the first version of the
"Definition of Free Cultural Works." The authors have identified a
minimum set of freedoms which they believe should be granted to all
users of copyrighted materials. Created on a wiki with the feedback of
Wikipedia users, open source hackers, artists, scientists, and
lawyers, the definition lists the following core freedoms:
* The freedom to use and perform the work
* The freedom to study the work and apply the information
* The freedom to redistribute copies
* The freedom to distribute derivative works.
Inspired by the Free Software Definition and the ideals of the free
software and open source movements, these conditions are meant to
apply to any conceivable work. In reality, these freedoms must be
granted explicitly by authors, through the use of licenses which
confer them. On the website of the definition,
<http://freedomdefined.org/>, a list of these licenses can be found.
Furthermore, authors are encouraged to identify their works as Free
Cultural Works using a set of logos and buttons.
The definition was initiated by Benjamin Mako Hill, a Debian GNU/Linux
developer, and Erik Möller, an author and long-time Wikipedia user.
Wikipedia already follows similar principles to those established by
the definition. Angela Beesley, Wikimedia Advisory Board Chair and
co-founder of Wikia.com; Mia Garlick, general counsel of Creative
Commons; and Elizabeth Stark of the Free Culture Student Movement
acted as moderators, while Richard Stallman of the Free Software
Foundation and Lawrence Lessig of Creative Commons provided helpful
feedback.
As more and more people recognize that there are alternatives to
traditional copyright, phrases like "open source," "open access,"
"open content," "free content," and "commons" are increasingly used.
But many of these phrases are ambiguous when it comes to
distinguishing works and licenses which grant all the above freedoms,
and those which only confer limited rights. For example, a popular
license restricts the commercial use of works, whereas the authors
believe that such use must be permitted for a work to be considered
Free. Instead of limiting commercial use, they recommend using a
clever legal trick called "copyleft:" requiring all users of the work
to make their combined and derivative works freely available.
Möller and Hill encourage authors to rethink copyright law and use one
of the Free Culture Licenses to help build a genuine free and open
culture.
== Links ==
* http://freedomdefined.org/ - Official homepage of the definition
* http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses - Information about specific licenses
* http://freedomdefined.org/Logos_and_buttons - Logos and buttons for
identifying free cultural works
== Contact ==
* Erik Möller - eloquence (at) gmail (dot) com - +49-30-45491008
* Benjamin Mako Hill - mako (at) atdot (dot) cc
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
Hello,
Would there be any objection to setting up a daily-image-l mailing
list akin to English Wikipedia's daily-article-l, but for featured
pictures from Commons?
Of course, for bandwidth reasons, we would only link to the image,
instead of emailing it to each subscriber :) with brief multilingual
labels and copyright credit.
[[m:Mailing list]] just says to contact a dev to start a new list, but
I imagine they like to know that the idea has been run past other
people first. :)
cheers
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise
This is obvious in many cases - MediaWiki.org has the manual... but then
Meta has the extensions? ...or they're being moved to the former. But the
latter also has "manual"-like elements. Where are you actually *meant* to
document proposals? ...for new wikis on Meta, for software upgrades on
MediaWiki, or just put it all on BugZilla? And... I'm confused.
Just, what are the actual distinct purposes of the two wikis? What kind of
information should always go on one and never the other? Thanks.
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> This is not the case at all.. You can continue to accept "with
> permissions" images, so long as they would also qualify as Fair Use.
>
> If what you are saying is completely true, that you only use "with
> permissions" because there is no fair use in your local law then no
> images would need to be deleted at all.
>
> However, this does not appear to be the case on itwiki:
> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:PuntanoQui/Template:Copyrighted
>
> Where very many of these images could have be recreated as free works
> by anyone.. many of them are even the works of wikipedians but they
> are not released as free content.
Ok. A partial cleanup like you propose is different from the "remove all" we have understood up to now.
Roberto (Snowdog)
------------------------------------------------------
Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom
http://click.libero.it/infostrada12feb07
This is a discussion from cc-licenses, the Creative Commons mailing
list, that might be of interest to some. See the thread here:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2007-February/004960.html
I've also asked Larry Lessig for his thoughts on the matter. I think
that if we cannot achieve this with CC-BY-SA, it may be necessary to
create a stronger copyleft license that does. But the answer isn't
clear yet, and it might be helpful if some Wikimedians weigh in on the
discussion.
Mailing list subscription info:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Feb 9, 2007 4:44 AM
Subject: Fwd: Share-Alike with images
To: lessig(a)pobox.com
Hello Larry,
I have received no clear response to this on the cc-licenses mailing
list. It would be helpful to discuss this a bit. If CC doesn't want to
explicitly make copyleft apply to, e.g., the combination of an article
and an image, it might be useful to create a separate, stronger
copyleft license for this purpose.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Feb 5, 2007 3:01 AM
Subject: Share-Alike with images
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
<cc-licenses(a)lists.ibiblio.org>
The Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike license currently states:
"For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition
or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation
with a moving image ('synching') will be considered a Derivative Work
for the purpose of this License."
This is cool and helps to clarify copyleft in the context of music.
What about the case where a photo is used in a newspaper or
encyclopedia article? Like a musical piece in a movie, there is a
clear semantic relationship between the two; one is directly enriched
in its meaning by the other.
I think the license is currently ambiguous about such uses. However, I
think it would be clearly in line with the copyleft philosophy to
demand free licensing of the combined whole in such a case (not in the
case of mere aggregation within e.g. a collection of photos where
there's no semantic relationship between them). In my discussions with
photographers, I've found that many use NC licenses because they worry
about commercial exploitation of their works. If we could clarify
copyleft in the context of images, many of these fears could be
alleviated.
The simple fact is that a photo by itself is not likely to be modified
much, especially if it's of very high quality to begin with. That's
why I think it's important that we establish a clear and unambiguous
reciprocity when images are used in larger works. Perhaps the
movie-specific phrase in the current SA license text could be
generalized:
"For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is semantically combined
with another (a film with time-synchronized music, an article with
pictures, and so on), the combined Work will be considered a
Derivative Work for the purpose of this license."
I don't think the "Collective Work" portion would need to be modified,
as it already speaks of "separate and independent" works, which would
be clarified by a phrase like the above.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.