Does anyone know of other uses of a globe icon rotated to that longitude?

A project which prides itself on being free content gains nothing from treating logos as precious intellectual property that needs to be protected from evil.

Erik Moeller a écrit: If I dare say something here... I do not think this position is mentionned anywhere. At least, it is not cited on meta, nor on the foundation website. As far as I am concerned, this position unfortunately does not exist. But I see where the confusion stands of course. Perhaps it should be discussed by the board as well as which liberty of decision it provides ?

On 4/18/05, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: A question came to me; if we have already mentioned other officers as is in a clear way? As for mav I can found -Two Quarto pages (vol.1 & 2) -His own user page -Some meeting logs

Before update, should we create a brief list of WMF officer(s)? Or it s okay to add a brief note on "Trustees" page? (The latter idea seems however to me a bit confused. One of my friend confused Tim Shell and Tim Starling ...)

Currently, the only officer I am aware of is Mav.

Yes. These were handled before the board was elected and when we discussed official positions, these were not confirmed. Not being discussed, nor listed in any official place, I considered them not valid any more. I am sorry if I misunderstood this. This said, Yann has continued to believe himself the porte parole of Foundation, in spite of discussion and private mention to him by Jimbo than he was no more. He still considers he is and acts as if he is.

Consequently, I suggest that this be rediscussed again between the 5 of us and that these positions are confirmed or infirmed. Ihmo, if these positions are still valid, it is so secret that even board members are not aware of it :-) My biggest point anyway would be that having an official position does not give the right to take a big decision on behalf of the Foundation. I do not feel that right myself.

Yann Forget a écrit: http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=283514

Yann Forget a écrit: valid Jimbo Foundation. fact that I You have been asked several times to be careful to restore the information and to indicate which role you were holding each time you talked about something. This in particular true for all topics which are related to the Foundation proper. Typically, no articles about a potential agreement with Google should appear in the press, with comments from you, speaking in the name of the Foundation. This is not correct. Each time you let such an article go public, you feed the idea you are the porte parole and has more authority to talk about this than anyone else. It does not make things easier when you send our ***official*** 100 000 article press release and carefully remove the names of all the contacts listed in the press release. You further fuel the idea you are the *only* point of contact for any press relation for wikipedia and the *only* one who has authority to talk about such matters. Anyone has the right to talk about wikipedia. Removing other people names is again incorrect. So, as much as you told me several times you recognised you were not the porte parole; I would like to ask you again to clarify in which name you talk to any outside person, to remove from you CV the fact you are this porte parole and to avoid sending press release without any of the contacts mentionned but you only. Other than this, I have little to say on the quality of your participation which is appreciated.

While the current placement doesn't qualify, I don't see why they need "authorization" to use the logo to link to Wikipedia. That's a clearly factual use of the logo covered by fair use, and in fact we do the same thing with other companies' logos in thousands of Wikipedia articles.

In the long term, I think having a standard logo *with* a text like this would be useful for all Wikimedia projects -- then people can use e.g. a "Powered by Wikipedia" logo on a CD or printout without there being a misconception that it is a Wikimedia-approved endeavor. (Note that "Powered by" has the problem that it is frequently used for software.)

http://www.theworldforum.org/ World Forum is not just using the logo. It is also claiming to be "In Association With Wikinews", which implies a lot more than simply making use of our content. The logo appears directly underneath a "Visit our advertisers" notice. This needs to be removed to prevent people being misled into thinking that their donations to the Foundation are being wasted on paying for advertising on such sites. Something stating that _some_ content is from Wikinews would be more appropriate. At the moment, the Wikinews logo appears more prominently than the site's own logo, giving the impression that Wikinews has far more influence over the site than it does. Angela.