In a message dated 2/20/2008 3:20:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
A better example might be that a number of recordings of Mr P
Tchaikovsky's work which are due to enter the public domain or have
already done so would either be removed from the public domain or fail
to enter.
Or for those fans of classic 70's progressive rock, most of the best work of
the Nice and its successor band, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, which drew heavily
on modern classical sources, could well become verboten.
Danny
(who is playing Brain Salad Surgery in protest)
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
I agree that "theft" might be too loaded a term, but perhaps
"unwarranted/unecessary incursion" is better.
What term would be used to describe a government taking over a public park
so that it could put up municipal offices?
Danny
In a message dated 2/20/2008 3:03:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
innocentkiller(a)gmail.com writes:
"Theft" has my vote. At the same time, I think little-to-no
mention of "improvement of Wikipedia articles" would be
best. This isn't about Wikipedia, it's about free content
in general.
-Chad
On Feb 20, 2008 2:54 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/02/2008, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil(a)wikinewsie.org> wrote:
>
> > I think "theft" is too loaded a word.
> > How about "Depriving the public domain of culturally significant
material"?
>
>
> "theft of the public domain" is a phrase that ties in with the
> campaigns of various digital rights organisations fighting against the
> same copyright extension in the EU.
>
>
>
> - d.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
I've put out a few feelers on getting people involved on this and made a
start on an article for Wikinews - where I won't be putting the questions
due to COI.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Story_preparation/Wikinews_interviews_E
rik_Josefsson_on_working_around_the_EU_and_proposed_copyright_changes
That's just a working title, I'd welcome input from all on this issue.
I've emailed Mike, Jay, and Florence on the issue - primarily with the goal
of having a board resolution condemning the measure to deliver to the EFF on
Friday (short notice, I know). I've Mike's comment on the issue (from
ComCom) which he's said I can pass on, I'm assuming I can pass on a list of
contact emails for this. Same three suspects as already mentioned, but I do
want permission to pass those one.
I trust my fellow Wikinewsie Michael to do a good job on interviewing and
likely get us a few photos. If we can find out who all is attending we may
get some bonus photos for Commons. In the interim, *please* stick questions
on that page. Don't worry about formatting, that'll get sorted. I'll be
taking notes to see what other press is there and if there are any packs
being handed out I'll collect and scan one to mail on here. For my part, I'm
there because I'm on ComCom and WMF should be talking to these guys.
Jokes aside on this mistake, there is a Farsi Wikipedia, and there are
Wikipedians in Iran. Has anyone considered the possible impact that this could
have on them?
Danny
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
On Feb 19, 2008 12:59 PM, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux(a)free.fr> wrote:
> Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> > We just got a death threat regarding the muhammed images. Just wanted
> > to let you guys know it's not a hypothetical any more. (And yes, I saw
> > Mike's message on what to do with them).
> Months ago, prior to the media attention on this issue, I pointed out
> that Wikimania in Alexandria might be suffering from this controversy.
>
> I think we should now reevaluate the possible repercussions of this
> media, political and religious agitation on Wikimania.
>
> I do not want to sound ominous, but Egypt was not so long ago marred by
> Islamist attacks. Some Egyptian politicians and clerics may also want to
> score points for denouncing Western imperialism and alleged contempt for
> Islam. Finally, even if we do not get high-profile problems, Wikimania
> might also suffer from undesirable agitation - remember that in the US,
> it happens that Christian fundamentalists picket geoscience meetings
> because geologists disagree with the Bible's literal chronology.
>
> (Political gesticulations have already happened in Iran about the
> Muhammad pictures on Wikipedia - I'm told they are preparing for an
> election, which in any country is a good period for political posturing.
> In Egypt, some legislators protested Nicolas Sarkozy coming with his
> then girlfriend, in violation of the Islamic prohibition of cohabitation
> and sex outside of marriage.)
>
> So: concretely, have the Foundation and the local organizers thought
> about this issue?
--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
"Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you
have imagined." Henry David Thoreau
_______________________________________________
Otrs-en-l mailing list
Otrs-en-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/otrs-en-l
Recently a git based wiki system git-wiki(
http://github.com/sr/git-wiki/tree/master ) was published on GitHub.
This triggered my thoughts on a fully distributed Wikipedia clone.
Git( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_%28software%29 ) is a
distributed revision control project created by Linus Torvalds,
initially for the Linux kernel development. Just as mentioned by
apenwarr in the article "Git is the next Unix" (
http://www.advogato.org/person/apenwarr/diary/371.html ), git can be
used as a distributed platform potentially. He also pointed out a git
based wiki system.
By my understanding, one of the key points for these kind of possible
Wikipedia clone is the changing of current collaboration model.
Currently Wikipedia is based on a centered wiki site fully shared
(readable and writable) by everyone, a group of trusted users monitor
recent changes to avoid trolls and vandalism, and also conflict
resolving method is needed. As an user of Wikipedia projects, I know
the heavy load for some administrators to fight with the trolls and
vandalism, and full of conflicts in the community.
My friends, Isaac Mao, have pointed out: a layer of trustness is
missing in the design of current Wikipedia software system.
Then how about a fully distributed Wikipedia based on git?
Everybody have their own clone of the whole project, and maybe part of them.
A contributor pull/push changes from/to people they trusted.
Some hub will formed to receive changes by many ones, and will share
their revision to many ones.
A hub network will formed, and maybe the Foundation will own some
nodes of the network, and declare them as official nodes.
The hub network is based on the trustiness among different groups of people.
This is just my imagination. The relationship between the new
collaboration model and the core value of Wikimedia Foundation (
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values )is still a question.
Thanks.
User:Mountain
Check some of teh contributions of our earliest Canadian editors, some of
whom have since left the project.
Eclecticology and Koyanisqaatsi (sp.?) come to mind.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
Koyaanisqatsi, who is Canadian, first posted to the Wikipedia mailing list
in July, 2001. Note, however, that he posted from a nupedia mailing address.
D
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)