Wikimedia-l June 2011

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

147 participants
123 discussions

Re: [Foundation-l] Election results?
by Joan Goma 23 Jun '11

23 Jun '11

Congratulations to Ting Chen, Samuel Klein, and Kat Walsh on your reelection you have gained again the confidence of the editors so they are reasonably happy whit things as they are I wish you continue doing this great job and keeping their confidence. Thanks to all the other candidates for making innovative and interesting proposals it seems that we have not been able to offer alternatives attractive enough but I have had a lot of fun in the process and I hope all of you too. Finally thank you to Abbas, Jon, Mardetanha, Mantaya, and Ryan for your job. I would like to ask for the full pairwise results.

5 4

[Foundation-l] IRC Office Hours
by Philippe Beaudette 23 Jun '11

23 Jun '11

Hi everyone, Just a quick reminder that Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner will be having office hours in about 10 hours, at 17:00 UTC. There is no pre-set topic for this conversation. As usual, documentation is on Meta.[1] We look forward to chatting. :) pb ___________________ Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 415-839-6885, x 2106 (reader relations) philippe(a)wikimedia.org 1. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Amicus Brief Filed in Golan v. Holder: Fighting for the Public Domain
by Mike Godwin 22 Jun '11

22 Jun '11

Kat Walsh writes: I'm really happy to see us start getting involved in this kind of > work; I think it too is part of fulfilling our mission. Thanks for > your work on this, Geoff. > Chiming in here -- I'm very happy to see Geoff's announcement too. As Geoff and a few others here know, I've favored WMF involvement in this case at least since it was confirmed that the Supreme Court is going to hear it (and of course I conferred with my EFF colleagues in the runup to the Supreme Court's granting certiorari in Golan v. Holder). The case is centrally important to the Wikimedia Foundation's continuing ability to offer free knowledge and to preserve and provide access to important cultural and artistic creative works. I'm also pleased that another former employer of mine, the Information Society Project at Yale Law School, is filing an amicus brief as well. Here's the text of the Yale announcement (and a link to a PDF of the brief) for those who are interested: "Today, professors and fellows associated with the Information Society Project at Yale Law School filed an amicus brief in *Golan v. Holder*, a case that will be heard before the United States Supreme Court this fall. In this brief, we argue that the Court should apply strict First Amendment scrutiny to Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, a law that allows works to be taken out of the public domain and placed back under copyright protection. Although the plaintiffs in this case had stipulated that intermediate scrutiny was the appropriate standard of review under the First Amendment, we argue that when Congress abrogates a central constitutional privilege—as it has done here, by stripping away a traditional speech-protective contour of copyright law—Congress must satisfy a more rigorous standard of review. "The brief is available for download here: http://yaleisp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Golan-Amicus-Brief-filed.pdf "Many thanks are due to everyone at the ISP who helped in writing, researching, and thinking about this brief over the past two months!" --Mike Godwin

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] content ownership in different projects
by Aaron Adrignola 22 Jun '11

22 Jun '11

> > On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 6:26 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > For comparison, I understand that Wikibooks are considered somewhat > > "owned" by the person starting the book. > As an admin on Wikibooks I'd beg to differ. I'll point out this page which sums up the project's opinion: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Ownership (Ignore the fact that it's proposed; the majority of the de facto policies/guidelines are proposals and I've not seen one ratified in the past two years. Additionally, that page has been present since 2006.) The talk page brought forth some interesting points, namely the section on authorship which led to another draft: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Authorship Those outside the project may conflate Wikibooks' idea of authorship with that of ownership. Still, this is a significant departure from Wikipedia's culture. While both of course have page histories, Wikibooks promotes the use of a contributors/editors/authors page for books for providing credit to those that helped write the book. Now, the reality is that despite our decision that one person shouldn't have supreme control over a book, at any one time you are likely to only have a single person working on a book and determining the entirety of its structure and content. Should that person abandon the effort, the book can go years before another person takes up the reins or, more often, never be worked on again. There's a distinct desire to control the content and not have to deal with a previous editor's decisions. So people will start a new book. This is seen in the effort I went through to indicate approximate completion status for all the books present at Wikibooks. Just under 80% of the books are not even half done. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Category:Books_by_completion_status -- Adrignola

1 0

[Foundation-l] content ownership in different projects
by Amir E. Aharoni 21 Jun '11

21 Jun '11

The problem of content ownership hits any wiki at some point. In the English Wikipedia it is governed by a policy called "WP:OWN" [1]. There's a similar policy in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Is this policy any different in other projects? I am asking, because i agree with the English Wikipedia's policy in principle, but the reality is that sometimes instead of helping people write together, this policy drives people away from the project - people who could be very positive contributors, but who don't like their contributions edited by others without being asked. So i am wondering: maybe en.wp and he.wp can learn something from other languages here? Thank you, [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com "We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace." - T. Moore

12 24

[Foundation-l] Brain Calisthenics for Abstract Ideas
by Marc Riddell 21 Jun '11

21 Jun '11

Hi. I realize this has nothing directly to do with the WP Project, but here's an article I thought many of you might find interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/07/health/07learn.html?emc=tnt&tntemail0=y Enjoy. Marc Riddell

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] EFF & Bitcoins
by robert_horning＠netzero.net 21 Jun '11

21 Jun '11

Actually, it is. I expect Wikipedia to outlast the U.S. Dollar at least in some form, or at least stick around as long as literature like "The Oddessy" and "The Epic of Gilgamesh" and be a part of human culture longer than the civilizations that produced that literature. Why would it be otherwise? Something like Bitcoin may outlast these other world currencies too. Also, these currencies can collapse and such collapse doesn't have to necessarily be a result of World War III and an epic version of Armageddon. Computer networks transcend cultures and particular civilizations. That doesn't mean times will be easy if those currencies collapse, but it doesn't have to mean that civilization has been completely destroyed. BTW, I lived under a government that went through three different currencies during the relatively brief time I lived in that country. I know what a collapsed currency is like from first hand experience, yet the country still exists as do its people. I'm just pointing out that arguments about how something like Bitcoin is just "play money" apply equally to other more recognized fiat currencies and you are digging yourself into an intellectual hole if you try to defend them and bash alternative currencies. -- Robert Horning ---------- Original Message ---------- From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> On 21 June 2011 17:52, robert_horning(a)netzero.net <robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote: > I'd be far more worried about the stability of currencies like the U.S. Dollar and the Euro as their basis in reality is even shakier than Bitcoins, yet the collapse of either or both currencies could substantially impact the WMF and the lives of most Wikimedians far more. The Bitcoin system is robustly designed to continue past the collapse of the US dollar and the world economy, as the Internet, fast computers and reliable electricity are all expected to be readily available when barbarian hordes are wandering the burnt-out post-apocalyptic remnants of civilisation. - d. ____________________________________________________________ 57 Year Old Mom Looks 27! Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4e00e04ce162712e8b9st01vuc

2 1

Re: [Foundation-l] EFF & Bitcoins
by robert_horning＠netzero.net 21 Jun '11

21 Jun '11

The claims of "Bitcoin advocates" about the legality of the currency have always been questioned. Frankly I don't know of anybody involved with Bitcoins and understood it on a technical level that wasn't also sure that it was simply breaking new ground on both a technological as well as a legal basis. Theoretical speculation about various kinds of attacks upon Bitcoin has been the mainstay of discussion on the forums, where even I came up with a pretty good attack that was debated for some time (and I still think is a pretty interesting potential.... see "cartel attack" on the Bitcoin forums if you care to look it up). It is an untested concept, and the basic idea is not going to go away anytime soon, even if the particular implementation associated with this particular program may prove to be fatally flawed. BTW, the Mt. Gox crash is really nothing new to the Bitcoin community either. There have been other similar disasters in the past, but at that point the entire supply of Bitcoins was relatively worthless so it didn't have nearly the same impact as this particular incident. Also, the problem here wasn't with the actual Bitcoin software, but rather with the exchange mechanism being employed to convert bitcoins to other currencies. I suppose that is part of what gives Bitcoins value, so it matters after a fashion, but I've always been wary of websites running proprietary code and saying "trust us with your money". This is especially true when I don't know anything at all about the operator of that website. Yes, for me that even includes websites for banks so I am being consistent here. The Mt. Gox website was put together by somebody who certainly had a clue about web programming, but clearly it wasn't bullet proof and could be hacked. Anyway, I've been involved somewhat with the intersection of Bitcoins and Wikimedia, being a semi-active participant on the en.wikipedia webpage about the topic and having guided that article through the Wikipedia Incubator. It is surprising that a topic so ignoble that it was deleted (multiple times I might add) from Wikipedia has become a topic of conversation on Foundation-l is to me all that more surprising. For myself, I'd say wait and see in terms of having the WMF accept Bitcoins as a donation option. Back a couple of years ago when the WMF was brand new and desperate for cash, it might have made sense to accept this method for donations, and perhaps it still could be done at least on an informal basis, but otherwise there isn't a need right now. There certainly isn't a need for the WMF to be on the bleeding edge of society with this particular concept of currency exchange. As for the "major issues", I could dissect those at this time but I choose not to get into advocacy as it really doesn't matter. It is something that the WMF should keep a fairly good distance from at the moment, or at least that would be my recommendation as somebody who has been a long-time supporter of Wikimedia projects and also somebody who has studied Bitcoins to some substantial degree of depth to at least understand the concept better than you can get from reading the Wikipedia page. Indeed I choose not to write much on the en.wikipedia page mainly because much of what I'd write would be construed as "original research". Distributed and decentralized currencies like Bitcoins will be something that will eventually work its way into society in some form or another, and it is something that the legal system will eventually adapt to and work with in due time. It may take a generation or two for that to happen, so I'm taking the long term view on the whole thing. It isn't something that has to be worried about on the order of a few days, weeks, months, or even years and is still an experimental concept at best. I'd be far more worried about the stability of currencies like the U.S. Dollar and the Euro as their basis in reality is even shakier than Bitcoins, yet the collapse of either or both currencies could substantially impact the WMF and the lives of most Wikimedians far more. There may come a time to be involved with Bitcoins, but the time is not now or any time in the near future, at least for the WMF. -- Robert Horning ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] EFF & Bitcoins Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:42:05 +0100 I'm guessing it is related to a dawning reality that while Bitcoin isn't at the whim of some government it *is* at the whim of "lots of people on the internet". There are major issues there; of a lack of oversight, a lack of security in the market (i.e. the recent hacking and crashinng of the market at MtGox) and so forth. The MtGox crash will potentially be the turning point for BTC, I fear - notably because it raises the point that a decentralised currency can be attacked and scammed and you can't do anything about it without breaking the claim of "a currency no one can control" (which is what they did). This is what one of my favourite commentators had to say: *The Bitcoin "community" is an emergent, distributed boiler room<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiler_room_(business)>. They could just as easily be selling pink clam shells, tulips, or shares in an insolvent company that had a business plan to make pool cleaning agents. The underlying commodity doesn't matter. What does matter is that the widely disbursing the underlying commodity early gave them enough of a following, including folks who are savvy enough to think that they are the ones getting rich off the marks (a classic element of fraud), to attempt to convince other people that there is actually intrinsic value in what they are selling.* Also a lot of the claims by BTC advocates are turning out to likely be legally unsound, which is leading a lot of commentators into the attitude of "there could be trouble brewing here". Just in case BTC's were every logistically on the table... this should all be taken under consideration :) Tom ____________________________________________________________ 57 Year Old Mom Looks 27! Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4e00cc7c8a34412933bst05vuc

2 1

[Foundation-l] Plethora of overlapping Categories
by Rui Correia 21 Jun '11

21 Jun '11

Hi I know I am in the wrong place for this. Normally this kind of thing would/ should go on the "discuss" pages, but category discuss pages don't attract much attention. If you consult Categories: Sailors/ Navigators/ Explorers, you will see that quite a number of people are listed in these arguably (or not) overlapping categories for the same activity/ feat/ achievement. To put it into perspective, it makes sense to list a person in the categories of [[poet]], [[playwright]], etc, but in each of these categories such people would be different 'personae', with different works that make them merit being classified a poet or a playwright. On the other hand, to list - for example - Henry the Navigator/ Captain Cook as [[sailor]], [[navigator]], [[explorer]] looks odd as the activity undertaken to merit being given that title is only one. This is like calling a farmer a tiller/ sower/ weeder/ harvester/ etc. Generally, there is a problem with Categories, as many were created without any regard to hierarchy - we have examples of names that appear under "British explorers" or "15th century explorers", but then they are not listed under "explorers". Any ideas? Best regards, Rui -- _________________________ Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African numbers Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos meus números sul-africanos Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant _______________

8 9

[Foundation-l] The Signpost – Volume 7, Issue 25 – 20 June 2011
by Wikipedia Signpost 21 Jun '11

21 Jun '11

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
13
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l June 2011