The foundation's input would be appreciated in resolving this issue. A scanned letter addressed to "Wikipedia" was uploaded to the English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Studentsorry.jpg
The author of the letter did not release it under a free license, and Mike Godwin, the foundation's legal counsel, clarified that the recipient of the letter (Wikipedia) does not have the right to freely license it.
The letter has no encyclopedic use, and was uploaded mainly because it is humorous.
So the question is: is keeping this letter one of the "limited exceptions" to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy?
The idea that en.WP will recieve an offical WMF evaluation of specific case, when the most general pleas for clarification recieve no answer [1] is . . . ambitious.
I really do not understand why en.WP is so dysfuntional that they cannot make common decisions within the community without appealing to the foundation several times a month.[2][3][4] My biggest concern about a meta-arbcom is that it's cases will end up being 90% dire en.WP issues that *must* be appealed higher-up. en.WP seems to be having about 5 issues a month they believe they cannot deal with themselves, and this is *without* any meta-arbcom or other established process to appeal to.
Why can en.WP not come to decisions within their community? Is it because Jimbo's historical special relationship has handicapped them into always looking for a higher authority to step-in? Or are they just bolder than other wikis and have no qualms about making demands on everyone's time for minor issues? Is it that they lack leaders that are willing to close these sorts of cases? Or have they grown so big they can longer be managed at all? Can we simply continue to ignore their dysfunction, or is there something to be done to help them become more self-suficiient?
Birgitte SB
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037363.html [2]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037403.html [3]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037136.html [4]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037636.html
--- Remember the dot rememberthedot@gmail.com wrote:
The foundation's input would be appreciated in resolving this issue. A scanned letter addressed to "Wikipedia" was uploaded to the English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Studentsorry.jpg
The author of the letter did not release it under a free license, and Mike Godwin, the foundation's legal counsel, clarified that the recipient of the letter (Wikipedia) does not have the right to freely license it.
The letter has no encyclopedic use, and was uploaded mainly because it is humorous.
So the question is: is keeping this letter one of the "limited exceptions" to
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy?
-- Remember the dot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Remember_the_dot _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
On Jan 26, 2008 11:22 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
The idea that en.WP will recieve an offical WMF evaluation of specific case, when the most general pleas for clarification recieve no answer [1] is . . . ambitious.
Agreed.
I really do not understand why en.WP is so dysfuntional that they cannot make common decisions within the community without appealing to the foundation several times a month.
[snip]
I think you're misreading it.: En.WP can, but appealing to a higher authority is a frequent way to try to gain advantage in a dispute. (Not that I'm claiming that is what's happening in this instance, just that it's a common factor)
The higher relative frequency of these requests from enwiki is most likely due to size and a lack of language barriers (this list is predominantly in English) and not necessarily dysfunction.
[snip]
Is it because Jimbo's historical special relationship has handicapped them into always looking for a higher authority to step-in?
Authority is a widely used and proven method of resolving issues. It is argued by some that in matters which are highly subjective that authority decision making produces the best outcomes.
In many places authority decision making is the primary method used to resolve disputes, so it is natural that some people really want to use that approach to solve disputes on our projects.
From a foundation perspective I think we should be generally be
neutral to project-internal decision making. If a project wants an authority-based method for deciding some things they could invent one internally.
Since En.Wp's only obvious pre-existing authority for such things is explicitly not intended to deal with this kind of issue, people on enwiki seeking authority come here.
Can we simply continue to ignore their dysfunction, or is there something to be done to help them become more self-suficiient?
[snip]
Since these questions almost never get the authoritarian response they seek I don't see them as evidence of a lack of self-sufficiency. A real lack of self-sufficiency would probably result in dozens of posts per day. :)
Still, I agree with your "don't come here" message. ;) (and I'd extend it to pestering office staff.. i.e. Mike).
Pointing things out which may have significant long term impacts is useful. Coming to foundation-l for a ruling, not so much.
Who is "them"? They are us, we are you, you are they. The English Wikipedia was the first project, it predates the Foundation, it has the largest community by far, it is the project that gets the most attention, it has the most articles and the highest number of readers. It works in English, as does this list. These things explain far more clearly why Foundation-l gets turfed Wikipedia problems than the idea that en.wiki users are whiney pukes who need rational parents to step in. The anti-English Wikipedia sentiment sometimes found on this list does no one any credit.
I don't know necessarily what Remember the dot was hoping to achieve by posting to Foundation-l after already receiving advice from Mike Godwin, but I don't think the "Why does en-wiki bother us and can't they leave us alone?" response is warranted. A simple answer or lack of response would have been much more effective.
Nathan
On Jan 26, 2008 11:22 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
The idea that en.WP will recieve an offical WMF evaluation of specific case, when the most general pleas for clarification recieve no answer [1] is . . . ambitious.
I really do not understand why en.WP is so dysfuntional that they cannot make common decisions within the community without appealing to the foundation several times a month.[2][3][4] My biggest concern about a meta-arbcom is that it's cases will end up being 90% dire en.WP issues that *must* be appealed higher-up. en.WP seems to be having about 5 issues a month they believe they cannot deal with themselves, and this is *without* any meta-arbcom or other established process to appeal to.
Why can en.WP not come to decisions within their community? Is it because Jimbo's historical special relationship has handicapped them into always looking for a higher authority to step-in? Or are they just bolder than other wikis and have no qualms about making demands on everyone's time for minor issues? Is it that they lack leaders that are willing to close these sorts of cases? Or have they grown so big they can longer be managed at all? Can we simply continue to ignore their dysfunction, or is there something to be done to help them become more self-suficiient?
Birgitte SB
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037363.html [2]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037403.html [3]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037136.html [4]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037636.html
--- Remember the dot rememberthedot@gmail.com wrote:
The foundation's input would be appreciated in resolving this issue. A scanned letter addressed to "Wikipedia" was uploaded to the English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Studentsorry.jpg
The author of the letter did not release it under a free license, and Mike Godwin, the foundation's legal counsel, clarified that the recipient of the letter (Wikipedia) does not have the right to freely license it.
The letter has no encyclopedic use, and was uploaded mainly because it is humorous.
So the question is: is keeping this letter one of the "limited exceptions" to
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy?
-- Remember the dot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Remember_the_dot _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
We is the "foundation-l" list which is here to discuss matters which affect multiple WMF wikis or the WMF in general. They is en.WP and those who primarily post about en.WP, who have a dedicated mailing list for en.WP internal issues ("wikien-l"). I am not against en.WP. But this is not the first, or even the fifth time, I have suggested that an en.WP internal issue be dealt with elsewhere. And it seems to be increasing lately, so I was thinking there is an underlying dysfuntion that needs to be addressed. But perhaps Greg is correct that there is not such an underlying dysfuntion. That fact the list is in English may simply make it easier for them to come here on slighter inclinations than wikis in other languages.
Birgitte SB
--- Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Who is "them"? They are us, we are you, you are they. The English Wikipedia was the first project, it predates the Foundation, it has the largest community by far, it is the project that gets the most attention, it has the most articles and the highest number of readers. It works in English, as does this list. These things explain far more clearly why Foundation-l gets turfed Wikipedia problems than the idea that en.wiki users are whiney pukes who need rational parents to step in. The anti-English Wikipedia sentiment sometimes found on this list does no one any credit.
I don't know necessarily what Remember the dot was hoping to achieve by posting to Foundation-l after already receiving advice from Mike Godwin, but I don't think the "Why does en-wiki bother us and can't they leave us alone?" response is warranted. A simple answer or lack of response would have been much more effective.
Nathan
On Jan 26, 2008 11:22 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
The idea that en.WP will recieve an offical WMF evaluation of specific case, when the most general pleas for clarification recieve no answer [1] is .
. .
ambitious.
I really do not understand why en.WP is so dysfuntional that they cannot make common
decisions
within the community without appealing to the foundation several times a month.[2][3][4] My
biggest
concern about a meta-arbcom is that it's cases
will
end up being 90% dire en.WP issues that *must* be appealed higher-up. en.WP seems to be having
about 5
issues a month they believe they cannot deal with themselves, and this is *without* any meta-arbcom
or
other established process to appeal to.
Why can en.WP not come to decisions within their community? Is it because Jimbo's historical
special
relationship has handicapped them into always
looking
for a higher authority to step-in? Or are they
just
bolder than other wikis and have no qualms about making demands on everyone's time for minor
issues? Is
it that they lack leaders that are willing to
close
these sorts of cases? Or have they grown so big
they
can longer be managed at all? Can we simply
continue
to ignore their dysfunction, or is there something
to
be done to help them become more self-suficiient?
Birgitte SB
[1]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037363.html
[2]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037403.html
[3]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037136.html
[4]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037636.html
--- Remember the dot rememberthedot@gmail.com
wrote:
The foundation's input would be appreciated in resolving this issue. A scanned letter addressed to "Wikipedia" was
uploaded
to the English Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Studentsorry.jpg
The author of the letter did not release it
under a
free license, and Mike Godwin, the foundation's legal counsel,
clarified
that the recipient of the letter (Wikipedia) does not have the right to
freely
license it.
The letter has no encyclopedic use, and was
uploaded
mainly because it is humorous.
So the question is: is keeping this letter one
of
the "limited exceptions" to
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy?
-- Remember the dot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Remember_the_dot
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
On Jan 27, 2008 5:41 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Who is "them"? They are us, we are you, you are they. The English Wikipedia was the first project, it predates the Foundation, it has the largest community by far, it is the project that gets the most attention, it has the most articles and the highest number of readers. It works in English, as does this list. These things explain far more clearly why Foundation-l gets turfed Wikipedia problems than the idea that en.wiki users are whiney pukes who need rational parents to step in. The anti-English Wikipedia sentiment sometimes found on this list does no one any credit.
Just take a step back and read again the description of this list (it is at http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l for your convenience).
Read also http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists#Wikimedia_Foundation_mailing_li... especially the sentence "Posting in languages other than English is welcome, although English is a language most of the audience can understand. Multilingual posts (where the poster repeats the same text in another language) are also welcome."
And then, please reconsider whether it is so clear that and why en.wikipedia should have any "predominance" on foundation-l. The German Wikipedia is the second largest project and, in relation to its 'rank', it is hardly ever present on foundation-l. Same goes for French Wikipedia etc. etc. Astounding, is it not?
Michael
And then, please reconsider whether it is so clear that and why en.wikipedia should have any "predominance" on foundation-l. The German Wikipedia is the second largest project and, in relation to its 'rank', it is hardly ever present on foundation-l. Same goes for French Wikipedia etc. etc. Astounding, is it not?
Not really. While non-English posts are welcome, they are understandably rare and responses to them even rarer. The large non-English projects are large enough to get by on their own, and it's easier to do so than to discuss the matters here in English. The English projects could get by on their own if they had to, but it's easy to come here for clarification on certain issues, so why not do so? Smaller projects sometimes can't get by on their own, and have no choice but to come here.
It makes perfect sense that foundation-l is dominated by English projects with most of the rest being from small projects (in addition to the stuff concerning all projects, of course).
On Jan 27, 2008 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
And then, please reconsider whether it is so clear that and why en.wikipedia should have any "predominance" on foundation-l. The German Wikipedia is the second largest project and, in relation to its 'rank', it is hardly ever present on foundation-l. Same goes for French Wikipedia etc. etc. Astounding, is it not?
Not really. While non-English posts are welcome, they are understandably rare and responses to them even rarer. The large non-English projects are large enough to get by on their own, and it's easier to do so than to discuss the matters here in English. The English projects could get by on their own if they had to, but it's easy to come here for clarification on certain issues, so why not do so?
Non sequitur... [Let me take the German WP as an example for a large non-English Wikipedia]
"The German Wikipedia is large enough to get by on its own. It doesn't need to appeal to (the) foundation(-l) for every micro-dispute and doesn't need to get Mike's advice on every picture. The English Wikipedia is even larger and would be able to act in the same way. However, it is too lazy or too incapable or whatever, and thus it considers it in order to clutter foundation-l with petty grievances every other day, demanding an ultimate foundation-level verdict on cases which are of no interest for anyone but English Wikipedians".
Granted, it is a bit polemic, but in my opinion it quite accurately reflects your reasoning...
Michael
On 27/01/2008, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 27, 2008 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
And then, please reconsider whether it is so clear that and why en.wikipedia should have any "predominance" on foundation-l. The German Wikipedia is the second largest project and, in relation to its 'rank', it is hardly ever present on foundation-l. Same goes for French Wikipedia etc. etc. Astounding, is it not?
Not really. While non-English posts are welcome, they are understandably rare and responses to them even rarer. The large non-English projects are large enough to get by on their own, and it's easier to do so than to discuss the matters here in English. The English projects could get by on their own if they had to, but it's easy to come here for clarification on certain issues, so why not do so?
Non sequitur... [Let me take the German WP as an example for a large non-English Wikipedia]
"The German Wikipedia is large enough to get by on its own. It doesn't need to appeal to (the) foundation(-l) for every micro-dispute and doesn't need to get Mike's advice on every picture. The English Wikipedia is even larger and would be able to act in the same way. However, it is too lazy or too incapable or whatever, and thus it considers it in order to clutter foundation-l with petty grievances every other day, demanding an ultimate foundation-level verdict on cases which are of no interest for anyone but English Wikipedians".
Granted, it is a bit polemic, but in my opinion it quite accurately reflects your reasoning...
No, it doesn't. It's nothing to do with laziness or incompetence. Both enwiki and dewiki want to make the best encyclopaedia they can. For dewiki, the best way to do that is by working on their own. For enwiki, the best way is to get advice from elsewhere when it could be useful. They are both valid methods, just one works better for some projects and the other works better for other projects.
On Jan 27, 2008 10:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Not really. While non-English posts are welcome, they are understandably rare and responses to them even rarer.
Agreed.
The large non-English projects are large enough to get by on their own, and it's easier to do so than to discuss the matters here in English.
Oh wait. As an English Wikiquote admin, I tend to disagree. Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikisource ... while we may argue if they are "large", but at least three of them are ranked within 5,000 in Alexa. But I can hardly recall an issue, which is related to one of those particularly, was discussed here. Wiktionary logo issue may be mentioned, but it is no English Wiktionary local issue, rather Wiktionary as a whole.
So it is not only a language issue: I admit (lack of) language barrier may be a factor but it doesn't explain why other English project issues are rarely raised here. Are they still small and sort of Arcadia? Hmmm hope so but sadly I say no. It is still small and cozy but not far from any painful disputes. And some would be legal issues.
The English projects could get by on their own if they had to, but it's easy to come here for clarification on certain issues, so why not do so? Smaller projects sometimes can't get by on their own, and have no choice but to come here. It makes perfect sense that foundation-l is dominated by English projects with most of the rest being from small projects (in addition to the stuff concerning all projects, of course).
Sorry I faild to see this logic ... specially for English Wikipedia, which has its own mailinglist.
Oh wait. As an English Wikiquote admin, I tend to disagree. Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikisource ... while we may argue if they are "large", but at least three of them are ranked within 5,000 in Alexa. But I can hardly recall an issue, which is related to one of those particularly, was discussed here. Wiktionary logo issue may be mentioned, but it is no English Wiktionary local issue, rather Wiktionary as a whole.
So it is not only a language issue: I admit (lack of) language barrier may be a factor but it doesn't explain why other English project issues are rarely raised here. Are they still small and sort of Arcadia? Hmmm hope so but sadly I say no. It is still small and cozy but not far from any painful disputes. And some would be legal issues.
A good point. There must be something more to it that just language, you're right. I think language does play a significant role, though.
Sorry I faild to see this logic ... specially for English Wikipedia, which has its own mailinglist.
wikien-l only helps get the views of other members of the enwiki community, foundation-l helps get the views of the foundation (and member of other projects from time to time).
--- Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 27, 2008 10:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Not really. While non-English posts are welcome,
they are
understandably rare and responses to them even
rarer.
Agreed.
The large non-English projects are large enough to
get by on their own, and it's
easier to do so than to discuss the matters here
in English.
Oh wait. As an English Wikiquote admin, I tend to disagree. Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikisource ... while we may argue if they are "large", but at least three of them are ranked within 5,000 in Alexa. But I can hardly recall an issue, which is related to one of those particularly, was discussed here. Wiktionary logo issue may be mentioned, but it is no English Wiktionary local issue, rather Wiktionary as a whole.
So it is not only a language issue: I admit (lack of) language barrier may be a factor but it doesn't explain why other English project issues are rarely raised here. Are they still small and sort of Arcadia? Hmmm hope so but sadly I say no. It is still small and cozy but not far from any painful disputes. And some would be legal issues.
I can say en.WS definitely has had it's share of painful copyright disputes. We have several items going through undeletion right now because of a disputed legal interpretation that was recently clarified by Mike Godwin. The deletion of those items definitely had one side crying foul and still is surrounded by bitter feelings. Unfortunately, en.WS does not lack divisive disputes. I can't imagine the divisions over fair use at en.WP can be stronger the the divisions at en.WS over the grey area of Public Domain.
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Hoi, The foundation is list is NOT there to seek clarification of issues of the English Wikipedia. Given what this list is about it is noise. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 27, 2008 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
And then, please reconsider whether it is so clear that and why en.wikipedia should have any "predominance" on foundation-l. The German Wikipedia is the second largest project and, in relation to its 'rank', it is hardly ever present on foundation-l. Same goes for French Wikipedia etc. etc. Astounding, is it not?
Not really. While non-English posts are welcome, they are understandably rare and responses to them even rarer. The large non-English projects are large enough to get by on their own, and it's easier to do so than to discuss the matters here in English. The English projects could get by on their own if they had to, but it's easy to come here for clarification on certain issues, so why not do so? Smaller projects sometimes can't get by on their own, and have no choice but to come here.
It makes perfect sense that foundation-l is dominated by English projects with most of the rest being from small projects (in addition to the stuff concerning all projects, of course).
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 27/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The foundation is list is NOT there to seek clarification of issues of the English Wikipedia. Given what this list is about it is noise.
This list is for communication with the foundation - seeking clarification from the foundation on an issue is a legitimate use of this list.
No, this list is for communication about the foundation. If you want to communicate *with* the foundation, you need to find out who your contact person is, and contact him/her.
Lodewijk
2008/1/27, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
On 27/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The foundation is list is NOT there to seek clarification of issues of the English Wikipedia. Given what this list is about it is noise.
This list is for communication with the foundation - seeking clarification from the foundation on an issue is a legitimate use of this list.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 27/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The foundation is list is NOT there to seek clarification of issues of the English Wikipedia. Given what this list is about it is noise.
This list is for communication with the foundation - seeking clarification from the foundation on an issue is a legitimate use of this list.
Foundation members can see the enwiki-l just as easily as anyone else. If you put your question there, and they consider it important enough they will answer.
After all, the question is only about a policy issue on one single project.
Ec
On 27/01/2008, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
The idea that en.WP will recieve an offical WMF evaluation of specific case, when the most general pleas for clarification recieve no answer [1] is . . . ambitious.
Yes and no. Broad hypothetical cases are often much harder to answer.
I really do not understand why en.WP is so dysfuntional that they cannot make common decisions within the community without appealing to the foundation several times a month.[2][3][4] My biggest concern about a meta-arbcom is that it's cases will end up being 90% dire en.WP issues that *must* be appealed higher-up. en.WP seems to be having about 5 issues a month they believe they cannot deal with themselves, and this is *without* any meta-arbcom or other established process to appeal to.
Why can en.WP not come to decisions within their community? Is it because Jimbo's historical special relationship has handicapped them into always looking for a higher authority to step-in? Or are they just bolder than other wikis and have no qualms about making demands on everyone's time for minor issues? Is it that they lack leaders that are willing to close these sorts of cases? Or have they grown so big they can longer be managed at all? Can we simply continue to ignore their dysfunction, or is there something to be done to help them become more self-suficiient?
En would probably be able to become entirely self-sufficient within a few months. Of course the loss of it's lead project would remove a significant amount of the foundation's relevance and cash. Assuming you didn't mean to that extent they the answer is to stop messing in en's day to day affairs no matter how tempting. This would of course mean the the foundation would be largely limited to the role of a shoestring IP but there are worse results.
On 27/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/01/2008, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
The idea that en.WP will recieve an offical WMF evaluation of specific case, when the most general pleas for clarification recieve no answer [1] is . . . ambitious.
Yes and no. Broad hypothetical cases are often much harder to answer.
And much more likely to be misinterpreted. Giving general legal advice to people with no legal experience is a minefield, since they can easily apply it to situations where it doesn't fit. Answering the specific question "Is XYZ legal?" is much safer, if not necessarily easier.
I really do not understand why en.WP is so dysfuntional that they cannot make common decisions within the community without appealing to the foundation several times a month.
If it's a foundation policy that is under dispute, it makes sense to get the foundation involved. The same applies for legal issues. The enwiki community are not lawyers and need professional advice when there is confusion over the legality of a situation.
If the community did just make its own decisions without regards to anyone else you'd be complaining that we were arrogant know-it-alls that refuse to take advice from people that know better.
Remember the dot wrote:
The foundation's input would be appreciated in resolving this issue. A scanned letter addressed to "Wikipedia" was uploaded to the English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Studentsorry.jpg
The author of the letter did not release it under a free license, and Mike Godwin, the foundation's legal counsel, clarified that the recipient of the letter (Wikipedia) does not have the right to freely license it.
The letter has no encyclopedic use, and was uploaded mainly because it is humorous.
So the question is: is keeping this letter one of the "limited exceptions" to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy?
The fact anyone is even talking about licensing is itself dysfunctional.
The English Wikipedia has long been anti-community. They will use what existing rules they can, and invent new policy where necessary, to suppress significant content related to the community or its members.
Copyright is routinely ignored for images in the main namespace, with the "fair use" concept extended to farce. But it is rigorously enforced outside the main namespace. I think it should be the other way around, but what do I know?
I think the only solution is to rely on external links to off-wiki content. Set up a blog or something where you can post this stuff. Use external links.
-- Tim Starling
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org