So you're saying that the community is complicit in the agenda against itself? I guess we should just go back to the days when you had to record a half-hour recitation of the GFDL license text in every sound file hosted on Commons.
For the record, I was one of the community members on the License Update Committee (which was mainly comprised of community members, not Foundation employees).
Ryan Kaldari
On 9/8/10 10:19 PM, Teofilo wrote:
2010/9/7, Teofiloteofilowiki@gmail.com:
2010/9/7, Tim Starlingtstarling@wikimedia.org:
Presumably this conspiracy would have to extend beyond the WMF to PediaPress and Purodha Blissenbach, the developers of Collection and mobile.wikipedia.org respectively.
The absence of a history tab in the mobile format is in my view an exact measurement of the temperature of the warmth of the relations between the WMF and its contributors.
Let's not call this a conspiracy. Philosopher Pierre Bourdieu would call it an unconcious strategy (1).
The other reason why we can't call this a conspiracy is that a conspiracy is usually kept secret, while that agenda is known by a lot of people. They even managed to organise a vote and found a majority approving it at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Result
The result is the adding of "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license" on every edit tab footer.
The result is that it is thought that it is OK to distribute contents without the history tab, the author's names remaining in a format not readable on the device the user is using. So all these things are features of the new vastly known agenda. They are not bugs.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l