With all the commotion, with the departures over the sitenotice, with the infighting on various projects (and between various projects), with the bitter debates over image policy, I thought it may be a good idea to go back to the very root of all the Wikimedia projects. It is a simple statement, but what it says--and doesn't say--summarized the very essence of what we are doing.
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
Perhaps this should be the yardstick with which we make our decisions. It is inclusive ("every single human being") and devoted to free content ("can freely share"), and it defines the parameters of our content ("the sum of all human knowledge."). It recognizes that this project is still in the works: we have not finished what we set out to do ("Imagine a world ...")
That's our commitment.
As for what it doesn't say: It does not say, "Imagine an advertising-free world." It does not say "where every single person who speaks a English or a European language ..." It does not say "share freely unless the unfree content is better." It does not say "free knowledge and links to where to find out more/buy it." It does not say "That's what we did."
Let's try and refocus the discussions on what our goals are and how we can best achieve them. Let's use this as our yardstick.
Danny
Danny Delivers!
On 1/2/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
With all the commotion, with the departures over the sitenotice, with the infighting on various projects (and between various projects), with the bitter debates over image policy, I thought it may be a good idea to go back to the very root of all the Wikimedia projects. It is a simple statement, but what it says--and doesn't say--summarized the very essence of what we are doing.
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
Perhaps this should be the yardstick with which we make our decisions. It is inclusive ("every single human being") and devoted to free content ("can freely share"), and it defines the parameters of our content ("the sum of all human knowledge."). It recognizes that this project is still in the works: we have not finished what we set out to do ("Imagine a world ...")
That's our commitment.
As for what it doesn't say: It does not say, "Imagine an advertising-free world." It does not say "where every single person who speaks a English or a European language ..." It does not say "share freely unless the unfree content is better." It does not say "free knowledge and links to where to find out more/buy it." It does not say "That's what we did."
Let's try and refocus the discussions on what our goals are and how we can best achieve them. Let's use this as our yardstick.
Danny
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 02/01/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
That's our commitment. As for what it doesn't say: It does not say, "Imagine an advertising-free world." It does not say "where every single person who speaks a English or a European language ..." It does not say "share freely unless the unfree content is better." It does not say "free knowledge and links to where to find out more/buy it." It does not say "That's what we did."
I'm using this message and quoting "It does not say 'share freely unless the unfree content is better.'" when removing "fair use" pics we have a free replacement for ;-D
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
I'm using this message and quoting "It does not say 'share freely unless the unfree content is better.'" when removing "fair use" pics we have a free replacement for ;-D
I'd say it depends on just how good the replacement it is. Fair use is an integral portion of describing the "sum of human knowledge"---surely you wouldn't want to write an encyclopedia in which you could never include a single quote from any book ever published? We could in theory paraphrase them all to avoid relying on fair use, but that's often a pretty poor replacement. Fair-use for images is not fundamentally different, though the degree and judgment calls are often different.
-Mark
On 11/01/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
I'm using this message and quoting "It does not say 'share freely unless the unfree content is better.'" when removing "fair use" pics we have a free replacement for ;-D
I'd say it depends on just how good the replacement it is. Fair use is an integral portion of describing the "sum of human knowledge"---surely you wouldn't want to write an encyclopedia in which you could never include a single quote from any book ever published? We could in theory paraphrase them all to avoid relying on fair use, but that's often a pretty poor replacement. Fair-use for images is not fundamentally different, though the degree and judgment calls are often different.
I agree completely. But if you've never had an article someone removed a free image from because they thought a copyright violation looked better, then you've had a sheltered wiki life.
- d.
On 1/2/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
As for what it doesn't say: It does not say, "Imagine an advertising-free world."
However pretty much any given advertiser would have a problem with that objective if they really thought about it and you can't keep fooling them forever.
It does not say "where every single person who speaks a English or a European language ..."
Equally it does not say we should artificially support inefficiencies in communication
Let's try and refocus the discussions on what our goals are and how we can best achieve them. Let's use this as our yardstick.
With the various laws around trade secrets that may not be the greatest of ideas.
On 02/01/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
That's our commitment.
As for what it doesn't say: It does not say, "Imagine an advertising-free world."
Unlike the other four, this is not incompatible with our aim. Although we don't mention advertising in our statement, there's no reason why we can't aim one way or the other. For the sake of unbiased content, I believe the aim we should be aiming is quite clear.
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 02/01/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
That's our commitment.
As for what it doesn't say: It does not say, "Imagine an advertising-free world."
Unlike the other four, this is not incompatible with our aim. Although we don't mention advertising in our statement, there's no reason why we can't aim one way or the other. For the sake of unbiased content, I believe the aim we should be aiming is quite clear.
It *is* incompatible obtaining necessary funds, therefore it is incompatible with the primary mission. Missions aren't just about goals, they're about means, too.
On 02/01/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
It *is* incompatible obtaining necessary funds, therefore it is incompatible with the primary mission. Missions aren't just about goals, they're about means, too.
I have heard say that remaining advert-free will make hard work for us, but I have never heard that we won't be able to survive without advertising. After all, we have become a top 10 website on the back of donations alone. In light of this, I think remaining advert-free is entirely compatible with our primary mission.
If we want it, we just need to commit to it. It would be a difficult path to take and we may reach a crisis (at which point we would have to accept advertising), but if our fundraisers are innovative and well planned, we could continue to survive on donations.
On 1/2/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 02/01/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
That's our commitment.
As for what it doesn't say: It does not say, "Imagine an advertising-free world."
Unlike the other four, this is not incompatible with our aim. Although we don't mention advertising in our statement, there's no reason why we can't aim one way or the other. For the sake of unbiased content, I believe the aim we should be aiming is quite clear.
It *is* incompatible obtaining necessary funds, therefore it is incompatible with the primary mission. Missions aren't just about goals, they're about means, too.
That's hardly a valid statement.
It doesnt say "let's thank our sponsers with more ads" either
On 1/2/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
With all the commotion, with the departures over the sitenotice, with the infighting on various projects (and between various projects), with the bitter debates over image policy, I thought it may be a good idea to go back to the very root of all the Wikimedia projects. It is a simple statement, but what it says--and doesn't say--summarized the very essence of what we are doing.
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
Perhaps this should be the yardstick with which we make our decisions. It is inclusive ("every single human being") and devoted to free content ("can freely share"), and it defines the parameters of our content ("the sum of all human knowledge."). It recognizes that this project is still in the works: we have not finished what we set out to do ("Imagine a world ...")
That's our commitment.
As for what it doesn't say: It does not say, "Imagine an advertising-free world." It does not say "where every single person who speaks a English or a European language ..." It does not say "share freely unless the unfree content is better." It does not say "free knowledge and links to where to find out more/buy it." It does not say "That's what we did."
Let's try and refocus the discussions on what our goals are and how we can best achieve them. Let's use this as our yardstick.
Danny
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/2/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
With all the commotion, with the departures over the sitenotice, with the infighting on various projects (and between various projects), with the bitter debates over image policy, I thought it may be a good idea to go back to the very root of all the Wikimedia projects. It is a simple statement, but what it says--and doesn't say--summarized the very essence of what we are doing.
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
That statement is "the very root of all the Wikimedia projects"? When was that decided?
Anthony
Indeed this is the old dream: all knowledge in all languages.
On 1/2/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 1/2/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
With all the commotion, with the departures over the sitenotice, with the infighting on various projects (and between various projects), with the bitter debates over image policy, I thought it may be a good idea to go back to the very root of all the Wikimedia projects. It is a simple statement, but what it says--and doesn't say--summarized the very essence of what we are doing.
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
That statement is "the very root of all the Wikimedia projects"? When was that decided?
Anthony _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, If these are the basics, we have to make it work. When we have money we can pay translators to translate into languages where we do not have content yet. The notion that we only need the money to have our current operational needs serviced does therefore not suffice. If anything, if the dream is to have all knowledge in all languages, we need much more money. Thanks, GerardM
Teun Spaans schreef:
Indeed this is the old dream: all knowledge in all languages.
On 1/2/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 1/2/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
With all the commotion, with the departures over the sitenotice, with the infighting on various projects (and between various projects), with the bitter debates over image policy, I thought it may be a good idea to go back to the very root of all the Wikimedia projects. It is a simple statement, but what it says--and doesn't say--summarized the very essence of what we are doing.
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
That statement is "the very root of all the Wikimedia projects"? When was that decided?
Anthony
All contributions have always been by volunteers.
There has been some discussion about hiring paid contributors, at least I have seen a questionaire on it somewhere.
I wouldnt support paid translators, the success of volunteer work encourages us to go on along this path.
teun
On 1/2/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, If these are the basics, we have to make it work. When we have money we can pay translators to translate into languages where we do not have content yet. The notion that we only need the money to have our current operational needs serviced does therefore not suffice. If anything, if the dream is to have all knowledge in all languages, we need much more money. Thanks, GerardM
Teun Spaans schreef:
Indeed this is the old dream: all knowledge in all languages.
On 1/2/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 1/2/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
With all the commotion, with the departures over the sitenotice, with the infighting on various projects (and between various projects), with the bitter debates over image policy, I thought it may be a good idea to go back to the very root of all the Wikimedia projects. It is a simple statement, but what it says--and doesn't say--summarized the very essence of what we are doing.
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
That statement is "the very root of all the Wikimedia projects"? When was that decided?
Anthony
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, There have been paid contributions, contributions nothing to do with whatever questionnaire. The notion that all contributions were done by volunteers is incorrect. I would even say that both the quality and the quantity of the content can be improved by having professionals contribute to our content.
I know of several specialists are working on their topic because they HATE to see the nonsense that existed on the topic that they know best. So if anything I respectfully disagree with your notions.
Thanks, GerardM
On 1/2/07, Teun Spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
All contributions have always been by volunteers.
There has been some discussion about hiring paid contributors, at least I have seen a questionaire on it somewhere.
I wouldnt support paid translators, the success of volunteer work encourages us to go on along this path.
teun
On 1/2/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, If these are the basics, we have to make it work. When we have money we can pay translators to translate into languages where we do not have content yet. The notion that we only need the money to have our current operational needs serviced does therefore not suffice. If anything, if the dream is to have all knowledge in all languages, we need much more money. Thanks, GerardM
Teun Spaans schreef:
Indeed this is the old dream: all knowledge in all languages.
On 1/2/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 1/2/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
With all the commotion, with the departures over the sitenotice,
with the
infighting on various projects (and between various projects), with
the bitter
debates over image policy, I thought it may be a good idea to go
back to the
very root of all the Wikimedia projects. It is a simple statement,
but what
it says--and doesn't say--summarized the very essence of what we
are doing.
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
That statement is "the very root of all the Wikimedia
projects"? When
was that decided?
Anthony
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Danny do I have your permission to repost this mail in the Dutch villagepump?
Waerth
With all the commotion, with the departures over the sitenotice, with the infighting on various projects (and between various projects), with the bitter debates over image policy, I thought it may be a good idea to go back to the very root of all the Wikimedia projects. It is a simple statement, but what it says--and doesn't say--summarized the very essence of what we are doing.
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
Perhaps this should be the yardstick with which we make our decisions. It is inclusive ("every single human being") and devoted to free content ("can freely share"), and it defines the parameters of our content ("the sum of all human knowledge."). It recognizes that this project is still in the works: we have not finished what we set out to do ("Imagine a world ...")
That's our commitment.
As for what it doesn't say: It does not say, "Imagine an advertising-free world." It does not say "where every single person who speaks a English or a European language ..." It does not say "share freely unless the unfree content is better." It does not say "free knowledge and links to where to find out more/buy it." It does not say "That's what we did."
Let's try and refocus the discussions on what our goals are and how we can best achieve them. Let's use this as our yardstick.
Danny
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Walter,
I am not Danny, but since mailing list posts are public record anyway, go ahead.
On 1/2/07, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net wrote:
Danny do I have your permission to repost this mail in the Dutch villagepump?
Waerth
With all the commotion, with the departures over the sitenotice, with the infighting on various projects (and between various projects), with the
bitter
debates over image policy, I thought it may be a good idea to go back to
the
very root of all the Wikimedia projects. It is a simple statement, but
what
it says--and doesn't say--summarized the very essence of what we
are doing.
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
Perhaps this should be the yardstick with which we make our
decisions. It is
inclusive ("every single human being") and devoted to free content ("can freely share"), and it defines the parameters of our content ("the sum of
all
human knowledge."). It recognizes that this project is still in the
works: we
have not finished what we set out to do ("Imagine a world ...")
That's our commitment.
As for what it doesn't say: It does not say, "Imagine an advertising-free world." It does not say "where every single person who speaks a English or a European language ..." It does not say "share freely unless the unfree content is better." It does not say "free knowledge and links to where to find out more/buy
it."
It does not say "That's what we did."
Let's try and refocus the discussions on what our goals are and how we
can
best achieve them. Let's use this as our yardstick.
Danny
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It's far better to post links. Less chances for someone to accidently pull things far out of context. The list archives are available to the public via the web.
With this post it request people not repost my messages. Please use the archives.
On 1/2/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Walter,
I am not Danny, but since mailing list posts are public record anyway, go ahead.
On 1/2/07, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net wrote:
Danny do I have your permission to repost this mail in the Dutch villagepump?
Waerth
With all the commotion, with the departures over the sitenotice, with the infighting on various projects (and between various projects), with the
bitter
debates over image policy, I thought it may be a good idea to go back to
the
very root of all the Wikimedia projects. It is a simple statement, but
what
it says--and doesn't say--summarized the very essence of what we
are doing.
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
Perhaps this should be the yardstick with which we make our
decisions. It is
inclusive ("every single human being") and devoted to free content ("can freely share"), and it defines the parameters of our content ("the sum of
all
human knowledge."). It recognizes that this project is still in the
works: we
have not finished what we set out to do ("Imagine a world ...")
That's our commitment.
As for what it doesn't say: It does not say, "Imagine an advertising-free world." It does not say "where every single person who speaks a English or a European language ..." It does not say "share freely unless the unfree content is better." It does not say "free knowledge and links to where to find out more/buy
it."
It does not say "That's what we did."
Let's try and refocus the discussions on what our goals are and how we
can
best achieve them. Let's use this as our yardstick.
Danny
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org