I'm afraid I haven't been keeping up with posts to the list so I hope
this hasn't already been broadcast.
It's plausible to regard Britannica as a competitor to Wikipedia,
although I doubt whether many of us actually wish them harm. They've
come to an agreement with Fora.tv. I've viewed quite a lot of material
on Fora. It's a great site, well worth a search or five.
The European Copyright Code is the result of the Wittem Project that
was established in 2002 as a collaboration between copyright scholars
across the European Union concerned with the future development of
European copyright law. The project has its roots in an International
Network Program run by three Dutch universities (Radboud University of
Nijmegen, University of Amsterdam and Leiden University), and
sponsored by the government-funded Dutch ITeR Program.
The aim of the Wittem Project and this Code is to promote transparency
and consistency in European copyright law. The members of the Wittem
Group share a concern that the process of copyright law making at the
European level lacks transparency and that the voice of academia all
too often remains unheard. The Group believes that a European
Copyright Code drafted by legal scholars might serve as a model or
reference tool for future harmonization or unification of copyright at
the European level. Nevertheless, the Group does not take a position
on the desirability as such of introducing a unified European legal
The Code was drafted by a Drafting Committee composed of seven
members. Each chapter of the Code was originally drafted by one or two
members of the Drafting Committee, acting as rapporteurs. The
rapporteurs for each chapter were: Prof. Quaedvlieg (Chapter 1:
Works), Prof. Hugenholtz (Chapter 2: Authorship and ownership), Prof.
Strowel (Chapter 3: Moral rights), Prof. Visser (Chapter 4: Economic
rights) and Professors Dreier and Hilty (Chapter 5: Limitations).
Each draft Chapter, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, was
discussed in a plenary session with the members of the Wittem Advisory
Board and other experts that were invited ad hoc. The proceedings of
these plenary sessions were fed into the second versions of each
chapter, and thereafter redacted and integrated into a final
consolidated version by the Drafting Committee. Although discussions
with the Advisory Board and experts have greatly influenced the final
product, responsibility for the Code lies solely with the Drafting
While drafted in the form of a legislative instrument and thereby
exceeding the level of detail normally associated with common
principles of law, this Code is not comprehensive. It concentrates on
the main elements of any codification of copyright: subject matter of
copyright (Chapter 1), authorship and ownership (Chapter 2), moral
rights (Chapter 3), economic rights (Chapter 4) and limitations
(Chapter 5). The Code does not, for instance, treat such remuneration
rights as public lending right and droit de suite, nor does it deal
with the legal protection of technical measures. Also, the Code does
not contain rules on copyright liability or enforcement, nor does it
touch upon neighbouring (related) rights and database right.
This Code is not a recodification of EU copyright law tabula rasa.
Since European copyright law must operate within the confines of the
international commitments of the European Union and its Member States,
the Code takes account of the substantive norms of the Berne
Convention and the TRIPs Agreement. Also, the members of the Group
have found it hard to ignore the aqcuis communautaire in the form of
seven Directives that the European legislature has produced in this
field since 1991. However, the Code does on occasion deviate from the
acquis, and therefore cannot be considered a mere restatement or
consolidation of the norms of the directives.
The members of the Wittem Group hope that this European Copyright Code
will contribute to the establishment of a body of transparent and
consistent copyright law that protects the moral and economic
interests of creators, while serving the public interest by promoting
the production and dissemination of works in the field of literature,
art and science.
The European Copyright Code is available at www.copyrightcode.eu
A number of editors at Wikiproject:Medicine are working on a collaborative
paper regarding Wikipedia and Medicine. We are currently writing it using
Google docs but would prefer to do it in a wiki environment. Does anyone
know if it is possible to set up a semi private wiki with Wikimedia
"The primary function of the Wikipedias is to educate in the sciences,
philosophy, technology and all that truly useful stuff. Nevertheless
there's an argument for a Featured Article on South Park because it
brings in new blood. Such an article can pique the interest of teens
and twenties and get them involved. Discuss."
My reply would be:
There's a difficulty in that you get trapped. At the moment, the task
I've set myself is to review Featured Article candidates. You might
set yourself a task and find yourself dealing with stuff that,
frankly, isn't very educational. I proofread an article on a Bob Dylan
album because it came up for review. But should I really be
proofreading articles on biology, chemistry and physics?
I don't have expertise in those areas but I may at least change an
"its" to an "it's" or vice versa.
I think at the heart of the question is; do you find yourself sticking
to a routine without questioning the relative value of what you're
doing? Is fighting vandalism on a South Park article equal to fighting
vandalism on science? We all only have a certain number of hours in
someone asked me about wikimania 2011 and I realized I only sent this
to wikimania-l -- sorry.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: phoebe ayers <phoebe.ayers(a)gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 2:34 PM
Subject: [Wikimania-l] 2011 delay
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
The ashcloud disrupted many things, including the chapters meeting...
and among other things it distracted a bunch of people who are on the
wikimania jury :) We're not going to reach a decision by the original
announcement date (next Tuesday)... I'm guessing discussions can be
wrapped up in two weeks from now. Stay tuned. Sorry guys (especially
since I know all the bids have worked really really hard).
As always, questions to the jury can go through me or to individual
2011 Wikimania Jury moderator (non-voting, cat-herder)
I just wanted to let you know about new features Facebook is planning on
launching later today that involve articles from Wikipedia. Facebook is
going to begin integrating Wikipedia’s free knowledge into a new part of
the Facebook.com site experience to help users be more connected and
informed about the topics and activities that interest them. They're
calling this service Facebook Community Pages, portal pages which will
be owned and managed by the Facebook community.
Wikipedia articles on Facebook will further increase the reach of free
knowledge on the internet. Facebook has hundreds of millions of users,
and now more than 70% of their traffic is coming from outside of the US.
Our hope is that many Facebook users (if they are not already) will also
be inclined to join the large community of Wikipedia contributors.
Facebook will follow the free licenses (CC-BY-SA) and help us find more
ways people can share knowledge. Furthermore, we will be looking at
other ways that both parties can cooperate in the future.
Initially it looks like this service will be focussed on English
Wikipedia, but considering Facebook's multi-lingual community it seems
likely that other languages will be brought in quickly. Because Facebook
members build the Community Pages, they will be able to suggest or add
more Wikipedia articles (as well as other relevant content from the
web). They will also have a built-in feedback system in case the
article provided is not correct or has any display problems.
It's going to be a learning situation for both us and them so we'll see
how this goes.
Kul Takanao Wadhwa
Head of Business Development
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
(415) 839-6885 ext. 603
Dear world: Help wanted. Plz send a rowboat and a few paddles.
It’s no secret by now that a volcano in Iceland with an
unpronounceable name decided to get cranky this week and stranded
hundreds of thousands of people all over the world.
With that out of the way, Did you know… that half the Wikimedia
Foundation staff and a lot of volunteers who were in Berlin for the
Wikimedia Developers and Chapters conferences (since renamed,
collectively, “Ashcon”), were among those who were stuck?
We’re making the best of it… we’ve got it better than a lot of
people. We’re in a very nice hotel in downtown Berlin, and we’ve got
food and drink. We’re missing our families and really want to be
home, but the whole trip has a very “summer camp” feeling to it now.
We’ve done laundry, and “the boys” (as Danese affectionately calls
them) are whacking some Mediawiki bugs from our makeshift office in
the lobby. The kind people at Wikimedia-Germany have been wonderful
hosts, arranging outings, giving tours of their office, and connecting
us with local Wikimedians for sight-seeing tours.
We’re getting pretty good at ordering curry-wurst, and we’ve found the
local Ka-De-We department store (which Danese affectionately labeled
“heaven”). On the whole, we’re doing okay. Some of us are even
optimistic about making it home someday soon. Others are practicing
their German. But Iceland, you’re on notice: we’re holding a grudge.
Facilitator, Strategy Project
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
There was lately a lot of research about making Wikipedia's usability better
Is there any research about the way in which Wikipedia's Actual Readers use
hyperlinks in Wikipedia, both internal and external?
I am wondering about it, because you know, we have Manual of Style for
internal and external links, essays about the pros and cons of red links,
bots that remove over-linking etc. - yet time after time i meet Actual
Readers that tell me that they didn't understand a word in an article, even
though this word was linked to a good article that explained its meaning.
But they didn't click it and because of that they gave up on understanding
the whole article.
If One Stupid Reader would tell me such a thing, i wouldn't mind, but Many
Clever Readers told me that. Did anyone try to think about it deeply?
אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
Amir Elisha Aharoni
"We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace." - T. Moore