Hi folks - apologies for starting a new thread on this topic...
We've just posted a short blog post on the topic of the unfolding issues around Italian Wikipedia
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/10/04/regarding-recent-events-on-italian-wiki...
We've had a few calls to WMF - not many, and we've responded with the basic messages in this post.
Thanks, jay
"The Wikimedia Foundation supports the rights of all people to access our free knowledge content everywhere in the world"
The Wikimedia Foundation supports a damn.
Now, all Wikipedias know that it is allowed to blank the entire site when community doesn't like things. For example, the image filter.
2011/10/5 Jay Walsh jwalsh@wikimedia.org
Hi folks - apologies for starting a new thread on this topic...
We've just posted a short blog post on the topic of the unfolding issues around Italian Wikipedia
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/10/04/regarding-recent-events-on-italian-wiki...
We've had a few calls to WMF - not many, and we've responded with the basic messages in this post.
Thanks, jay
-- Jay Walsh Head of Communications WikimediaFoundation.org blog.wikimedia.org +1 (415) 839 6885 x 6609, @jansonw _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If you even think that is a comparable situation, then you clearly don't understand at all what this law is all about.
Lodewijk
No dia 5 de Outubro de 2011 09:39, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com escreveu:
"The Wikimedia Foundation supports the rights of all people to access our free knowledge content everywhere in the world"
The Wikimedia Foundation supports a damn.
Now, all Wikipedias know that it is allowed to blank the entire site when community doesn't like things. For example, the image filter.
2011/10/5 Jay Walsh jwalsh@wikimedia.org
Hi folks - apologies for starting a new thread on this topic...
We've just posted a short blog post on the topic of the unfolding issues around Italian Wikipedia
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/10/04/regarding-recent-events-on-italian-wiki...
We've had a few calls to WMF - not many, and we've responded with the
basic
messages in this post.
Thanks, jay
-- Jay Walsh Head of Communications WikimediaFoundation.org blog.wikimedia.org +1 (415) 839 6885 x 6609, @jansonw _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If you don't even think that is a comparable situation, then you clearly don't understand at all what some people think the image filter is all about.
2011/10/5 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org
If you even think that is a comparable situation, then you clearly don't understand at all what this law is all about.
Lodewijk
No dia 5 de Outubro de 2011 09:39, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com escreveu:
"The Wikimedia Foundation supports the rights of all people to access our free knowledge content everywhere in the world"
The Wikimedia Foundation supports a damn.
Now, all Wikipedias know that it is allowed to blank the entire site when community doesn't like things. For example, the image filter.
2011/10/5 Jay Walsh jwalsh@wikimedia.org
Hi folks - apologies for starting a new thread on this topic...
We've just posted a short blog post on the topic of the unfolding
issues
around Italian Wikipedia
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/10/04/regarding-recent-events-on-italian-wiki...
We've had a few calls to WMF - not many, and we've responded with the
basic
messages in this post.
Thanks, jay
-- Jay Walsh Head of Communications WikimediaFoundation.org blog.wikimedia.org +1 (415) 839 6885 x 6609, @jansonw _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 5 October 2011 09:03, M. Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
If you don't even think that is a comparable situation, then you clearly don't understand at all what some people think the image filter is all about.
Indeed. As a supporter (to some extent) of an image filter; I can entirely see how it could quite legitimately be seen in the same light by people opposed to it.
Dismissing that view as "incomparable" is amusingly short sighted.
If anything; such a protest has more legitimacy than this political action - because it would be a protest against the foundation, hijacking foundation resources and attempting to inform their readers of the issue they perceive.
I don't approve; but I wish de.wiki good luck if that is the option they take.
Tom
If you don't even think that is a comparable situation, then you clearly don't understand at all what some people think the image filter is all about.
You're comparing a wiki without images with a world (the italian world) without wiki. <mumble> To me, it seems to be "slightly" different
Jalo, it's all about perception: perceived effects and perceived consequences. People's reactions are based on their perceptions and judgements, since we're not robots. So if a group of people perceives it to be equally bad, they may take an equal action, regardless of whether or not you agree with their action. Acehnese Wikipedians decided to leave Wikimedia altogether over an issue they clearly felt to be comparable, regardless of what you or I may think of it.
2011/10/5 Jalo jalo75@gmail.com
If you don't even think that is a comparable situation, then you clearly don't understand at all what some people think the image filter is all about.
You're comparing a wiki without images with a world (the italian world) without wiki. <mumble> To me, it seems to be "slightly" different _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 5 October 2011 09:26, Jalo jalo75@gmail.com wrote:
If you don't even think that is a comparable situation, then you clearly don't understand at all what some people think the image filter is all about.
You're comparing a wiki without images with a world (the italian world) without wiki. <mumble> To me, it seems to be "slightly" different
it.wiki are specifically saying that they feel this new law would impact their ability to provide free and open content.
de.wiki are saying much the same about the image filter...
Tom
It is comparable, but only partially. That Italian law has an effect on the content itself, the image filter only on the availability of the content. But still, both issues are worth a community strike in the way the Italian community chose, anyway.
Th.
2011/10/5 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org:
If you even think that is a comparable situation, then you clearly don't understand at all what this law is all about.
Lodewijk
A good moment to remember this.
*Permit mirror sites.*
When information is available on the web only at one site, its availability is vulnerable. A local problem—a computer crash, an earthquake or flood, a budget cut, a change in policy of the school administration—could cut off access for everyone forever. To guard against loss of the encyclopedia's material, we should make sure that every piece of the encyclopedia is available from many sites on the Internet, and that new copies can be put up if some disappear.
There is no need to set up an organization or a bureaucracy to do this, because Internet users like to set up “mirror sites” which hold duplicate copies of interesting web pages. What we must do in advance is ensure that this is legally permitted.
Therefore, each encyclopedia article and each course should explicitly grant irrevocable permission for anyone to make verbatim copies available on mirror sites. This permission should be one of the basic stated principles of the free encyclopedia.
Some day there may be systematic efforts to ensure that each article and course is replicated in many copies—perhaps at least once on each of the six inhabited continents. This would be a natural extension of the mission of archiving that libraries undertake today. But it would be premature to make formal plans for this now. It is sufficient for now to resolve to make sure people have permission to do this mirroring when they get around to it. —Richard M. Stallman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_M._Stallman, The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resourcehttp://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/free-encyclopedia.html
2011/10/5 Jay Walsh jwalsh@wikimedia.org
Hi folks - apologies for starting a new thread on this topic...
We've just posted a short blog post on the topic of the unfolding issues around Italian Wikipedia
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/10/04/regarding-recent-events-on-italian-wiki...
We've had a few calls to WMF - not many, and we've responded with the basic messages in this post.
Thanks, jay
-- Jay Walsh Head of Communications WikimediaFoundation.org blog.wikimedia.org +1 (415) 839 6885 x 6609, @jansonw _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
<snip> Therefore, each encyclopedia article and each course should explicitly grant irrevocable permission for anyone to make verbatim copies available on mirror sites. This permission should be one of the basic stated principles of the free encyclopedia.
<snip>
That is already done with our free licensing...
Of course. I'm not speaking about the right to mirror, but the need of mirrors.
By the way, our free licenses also need to show the text authors. Thousand people re-use the contents and link to the Wikipedia page. As far as I know, no history is available now at Italian Wikipedia to look up. CC-BY-SA/GFDL violation?
2011/10/5 Huib Laurens sterkebak@gmail.com
<snip> Therefore, each encyclopedia article and each course should explicitly grant irrevocable permission for anyone to make verbatim copies available on mirror sites. This permission should be one of the basic stated principles of the free encyclopedia.
<snip>
That is already done with our free licensing... _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:48 AM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
Of course. I'm not speaking about the right to mirror, but the need of mirrors.
By the way, our free licenses also need to show the text authors. Thousand people re-use the contents and link to the Wikipedia page. As far as I know, no history is available now at Italian Wikipedia to look up. CC-BY-SA/GFDL violation?
There's no content either.
And, the e-mail Huib replied to appeared to focus on permission for mirrors. As he said, there are many and it is already permitted, although many do not properly comply with the license terms. Enforcing the content licenses (as distinct from trademarks or content copyrighted by the WMF) is not the remit of the WMF, nor is promoting mirrors.
Nathan
There is no content now, so there is no violation... You need to show the content before you can violate anything.
I was responding on your part about giving the right to mirror, there is no need for that cuz its already there. We even provide dumps for mirrors so they can easy import a wikipedia version.
Best,
Huib
When people reuse content in other websites/blogs/etc, they have to copy the article text and link to Italian Wikipedia where you can check the entire history and authors. That is how attribution is given. It is explained here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content
Now, most of all the attributions to Italian Wikipedia contents on the Internet are broken.
2011/10/5 Huib Laurens sterkebak@gmail.com
There is no content now, so there is no violation... You need to show the content before you can violate anything.
I was responding on your part about giving the right to mirror, there is no need for that cuz its already there. We even provide dumps for mirrors so they can easy import a wikipedia version.
Best,
Huib _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Le 5 octobre 2011 17:23, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com a écrit :
When people reuse content in other websites/blogs/etc, they have to copy the article text and link to Italian Wikipedia where you can check the entire history and authors. That is how attribution is given. It is explained here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content
Now, most of all the attributions to Italian Wikipedia contents on the Internet are broken.
This guideline is wrong. The 2009 licencing update http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update was wrong. And the "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution" byline on edit box is an infringement of author's moral right. Instead of the bad Creative Commons license, the good GFDL license should apply to Wikipedia and be stricltly enforced with its requirement to "Preserve the section Entitled "History" : http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
emijrp, 05/10/2011 17:23:
When people reuse content in other websites/blogs/etc, they have to copy the article text and link to Italian Wikipedia where you can check the entire history and authors. That is how attribution is given. It is explained here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content
Now, most of all the attributions to Italian Wikipedia contents on the Internet are broken.
Only reusers would be violating the license and I don't think that disattending a point of the license for 43 hours could be considered a serious violation. In any case, yes, reusers are taking their risks when they follow the easiest way for attribution.
Nemo
-----Original Message----- From: emijrp emijrp@gmail.com
By the way, our free licenses also need to show the text authors. Thousand people re-use the contents and link to the Wikipedia page. As far as I know, no history is available now at Italian Wikipedia to look up. CC-BY-SA/GFDL violation?
If that were really an issue, Articles would never be allowed to be deleted. An example: http://unicornbacon.com/blog/2007/05/06/weird-wiki-markovian-parallax-denigr... has content from Wikipedia, with a link to the article on EnWp: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markovian_parallax_denigrate The article has since been deleted via AfD - so all re-use of that article that existed prior to deletion now has broken attribution.
Of course, I'm not sure if WMF has really looked in-depth at this, from a legal angle.
-Brink
On 5 October 2011 16:07, onthebrinkandfalling@aol.com wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: emijrp emijrp@gmail.com
By the way, our free licenses also need to show the text authors. Thousand people re-use the contents and link to the Wikipedia page. As far as I
know,
no history is available now at Italian Wikipedia to look up. CC-BY-SA/GFDL violation?
If that were really an issue, Articles would never be allowed to be deleted. An example:
http://unicornbacon.com/blog/2007/05/06/weird-wiki-markovian-parallax-denigr... content from Wikipedia, with a link to the article on EnWp: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markovian_parallax_denigrate The article has since been deleted via AfD - so all re-use of that article that existed prior to deletion now has broken attribution.
Of course, I'm not sure if WMF has really looked in-depth at this, from a legal angle.
This actually came up recently on English Wikipedia relating to someone mirroring deleted articles. I think the conclusion was that they did need to list the contributors somehow to comply with the license.
Tom
Possibly relevant update:
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/it/news.php?newsid=157111 (might need translation)
Theo
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.comwrote:
On 5 October 2011 16:07, onthebrinkandfalling@aol.com wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: emijrp emijrp@gmail.com
By the way, our free licenses also need to show the text authors.
Thousand
people re-use the contents and link to the Wikipedia page. As far as I
know,
no history is available now at Italian Wikipedia to look up.
CC-BY-SA/GFDL
violation?
If that were really an issue, Articles would never be allowed to be deleted. An example:
http://unicornbacon.com/blog/2007/05/06/weird-wiki-markovian-parallax-denigr... from Wikipedia,
with a link to the article on EnWp: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markovian_parallax_denigrate The article has since been deleted via AfD - so all re-use of that article that
existed
prior to deletion now has broken attribution.
Of course, I'm not sure if WMF has really looked in-depth at this, from a legal angle.
This actually came up recently on English Wikipedia relating to someone mirroring deleted articles. I think the conclusion was that they did need to list the contributors somehow to comply with the license.
Tom _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Possibly relevant update:
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/it/news.php?newsid=157111 (might need translation)
Theo
The comma has been discussed into the "Comitato dei Nove", that is a simply discussion committee. They have proposed (it seems) to apply the law only to internet newspapers, magazines, etc., and not to blog and other amatorial sites (like wiki).
It's just a proposal, not so much. A little step that doesn't bind the parliament
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org