James, that's very helpful and I see at least one book on that list that
violates the licence, and hence breaches my copyright, in content that I
wrote. What's the best way forward? Should the WMF represent the
community by engaging directly with the company responsible? Or should it
coordinate and advise individual contributors making numerous individual
approaches? Or should it do nothing? What's best?
"Rogol"
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:39 AM, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Rupert here is a list of 213,000 books that are based
on Wikipedia without
proper attribution.
https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22CTI+Reviews%22
James
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:47 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This thread is notably long on hypothetical and
meta-level discussions
and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
what we're actually talking about here?
- d.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>