It is indeed a bit late for having results, I just hope it doesn't depend from
the fact they are recounting the votes in Florida...
:-D
Ferdinando Scala
----- Messaggio originale -----
Da: "foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org"
<foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
A: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Inviato: Ven 17 giugno 2011, 14:00:05
Oggetto: foundation-l Digest, Vol 87, Issue 48
Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: IRC office hours to discuss article feedback tool
(Steven Walling)
2. content ownership in different projects (Amir E. Aharoni)
3. Re: content ownership in different projects (Strainu)
4. Re: content ownership in different projects (Amir E. Aharoni)
5. Re: content ownership in different projects (Strainu)
6. Re: content ownership in different projects (Strainu)
7. Re: content ownership in different projects (Lodewijk)
8. Election results? (Austin Hair)
9. Re: content ownership in different projects (David Gerard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:05:45 -0700
From: Steven Walling <swalling(a)wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] IRC office hours to discuss article
feedback tool
To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID: <BANLkTinkUymcGGDUNrCO-_a9ROsR_NLQBQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Steven Walling <swalling(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:
Hi all,
I just wanted to announce that this Thursday the 16th at 18:00 UTC, there
will be an IRC office hours concerning the article feedback tool which is
currently in experimental partial deployment on English Wikipedia.[1]
I'll be moderating mainly for Erik M?ller, but hopefully we'll be joined by
most of the Foundation staff who've contributed to this feature.
Just to clarify, we want to stick to two general topics:
1. The strategic goals the feature aims to address. In other words, its
purpose.
2. Plans for developing and deploying it further.
If you have bugs to report or specific design feedback, as always Bugzilla
and
MediaWiki.org are respectively the best places to discuss those two
things. For the office hours we'd like to stick to a broader explanation of
the feature and its future.
As always documentation for IRC office hours is on Meta.[3]
Thanks,
--
Steven Walling
Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation
wikimediafoundation.org
1. Feature documentation:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback<http://www.mediaiwiki.org…
2.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
Just a reminder that this is happening in about an hour.
--
Steven Walling
Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation
wikimediafoundation.org
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:50:38 +0300
From: "Amir E. Aharoni" <amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il>
Subject: [Foundation-l] content ownership in different projects
To: foundation-l <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikCC1k1QWE9rmPAq58Qnoxq74A5NQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
The problem of content ownership hits any wiki at some point.
In the English Wikipedia it is governed by a policy called "WP:OWN"
[1]. There's a similar policy in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Is this policy
any different in other projects?
I am asking, because i agree with the English Wikipedia's policy in
principle, but the reality is that sometimes instead of helping people
write together, this policy drives people away from the project -
people who could be very positive contributors, but who don't like
their contributions edited by others without being asked. So i am
wondering: maybe en.wp and he.wp can learn something from other
languages here?
Thank you,
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni ? ?????? ????????? ??????????
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
"We're living in pieces,
?I want to live in peace." - T. Moore
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:08:41 +0300
From: Strainu <strainu10(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] content ownership in different projects
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=PQDF_tpQo+r-aJ+46ah-o=QDWQQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I think that such a policy could not be fundamentally different in
other languages, since they all have the same license. However, the
wording could be improved, for instance by explaining WHY one cannot
consider himself as the owner of an article: by accepting the CC-BY-SA
license, one gives up a significant amount of the rights and control
offered by copyright laws. And this is not only from a legal POV, this
is also true from a common sense perspective: more people approaching
a problem often lead to better result than a single individual trying
to solve that problem.
From what I see, presenting the rule, but not the
reasons behind it,
is the main problem of the English version of WP:OWN.
Strainu
2011/6/17 Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il>il>:
The problem of content ownership hits any wiki at some
point.
In the English Wikipedia it is governed by a policy called "WP:OWN"
[1]. There's a similar policy in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Is this policy
any different in other projects?
I am asking, because i agree with the English Wikipedia's policy in
principle, but the reality is that sometimes instead of helping people
write together, this policy drives people away from the project -
people who could be very positive contributors, but who don't like
their contributions edited by others without being asked. So i am
wondering: maybe en.wp and he.wp can learn something from other
languages here?
Thank you,
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni ? ?????? ????????? ??????????
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
"We're living in pieces,
?I want to live in peace." - T. Moore
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:29:22 +0300
From: "Amir E. Aharoni" <amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] content ownership in different projects
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimVSRp21yK7mGeJAgN5aEk3RKpb9Q(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
2011/6/17 Strainu <strainu10(a)gmail.com>om>:
I think that such a policy could not be fundamentally
different in
other languages, since they all have the same license. However, the
wording could be improved, for instance by explaining WHY one cannot
consider himself as the owner of an article: by accepting the CC-BY-SA
license, one gives up a significant amount of the rights and control
offered by copyright laws.
It's not so much about CC-BY-SA as it is about the fact that it's a
wiki, where content is constantly changed by different people. This
breaks the usual idea of authorship and makes quite a lot of people
terribly uncomfortable and sometimes even violent. It's unpleasant,
but i understand how their feel and i want to find a way to work with
them.
But since you mention licensing, one possible solution to this problem
that i though of is to suggest such people write their content on some
other website where others can't change their text, but to release it
as CC-BY-SA, so Wikipedia would be able to use. That could be a good
use case for a project like Knol, which was advertised as "Wikipedia
killer" once, but didn't grow much. Used wisely, these Wikipedia and
Knol could actually help each other grow. This would cause forking, of
course, but forking isn't really bad - a forked freely-licensed
article is better than no freely-licensed article.
This solution is far from perfect, of course, because many people want
Their articles on The Wikipedia, not on some other non-notable
website...
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:41:29 +0300
From: Strainu <strainu10(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] content ownership in different projects
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinU7jGzefd_jsoik2PzPnp7Q68kmw(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
2011/6/17 Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il>il>:
2011/6/17 Strainu <strainu10(a)gmail.com>om>:
I think that such a policy could not be
fundamentally different in
other languages, since they all have the same license. However, the
wording could be improved, for instance by explaining WHY one cannot
consider himself as the owner of an article: by accepting the CC-BY-SA
license, one gives up a significant amount of the rights and control
offered by copyright laws.
It's not so much about CC-BY-SA as it is about the fact that it's a
wiki, where content is constantly changed by different people. This
breaks the usual idea of authorship and makes quite a lot of people
terribly uncomfortable and sometimes even violent. It's unpleasant,
but i understand how their feel and i want to find a way to work with
them.
Well, a wiki promotes a certain way of collaborating, but that is not
always sufficient. Think about a CC-BY-NC-ND wiki. Theoretically, one
could only add content to that wiki, not edit what has already been
written. Also, there are many ? wikis, used only as CMSs, not to
collaborate. That's why I believe that WP:OWN would be much harder to
justify if we wouldn't be using CC-BY-SA.
Anyhow, my previous email presents a problem seen in many policies on
multiple languages. Experienced wikimedians refer to policies with
ease, by using shortcuts and assuming that the discussion partner
knows what the policy is about. More often than not, this is not the
case. This problem has been raised many times before and will probably
be raised again in the future. It is in no way specific to WP:OWN.
Strainu
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:44:13 +0300
From: Strainu <strainu10(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] content ownership in different projects
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimaKSK8XX=UzqaSJRBmFAqBsT+L+w(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
2011/6/17 Strainu <strainu10(a)gmail.com>om>:
Think about a CC-BY-NC-ND wiki. Theoretically, one
could only add content to that wiki, not edit what has already been
written.
Actually, I'm not even sure you could add content to articles on a
CC-BY-NC-ND wiki. Would have to check with a lawyer...
Strainu
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:50:03 +0200
From: Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] content ownership in different projects
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikoGT-ww+cmeFNKoqdL27f82_ZR7w(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I guess that Amir was rather referring to the cultural aspect than the legal
aspect. Even if you are legally allowed to change something, that doesnt
mean the original author likes it. I assume that all Wiki projects have this
culture in them, that nobody "owns" an article - this doesn't mean however
that there are no exceptions (people who think they are exceptions or
policies allowing temporary exceptions to be able to make a nice draft - for
example in ones own usernamespace).
Amir, is there a specific background that you are thinking of which is why
you are asking this? Maybe that helps people answering your question.
Best,
Lodewijk
2011/6/17 Strainu <strainu10(a)gmail.com>
2011/6/17 Strainu <strainu10(a)gmail.com>om>:
Think about a CC-BY-NC-ND wiki. Theoretically,
one
could only add content to that wiki, not edit what has already been
written.
Actually, I'm not even sure you could add content to articles on a
CC-BY-NC-ND wiki. Would have to check with a lawyer...
Strainu
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:53:34 +0200
From: Austin Hair <adhair(a)gmail.com>
Subject: [Foundation-l] Election results?
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikkUaEqwnqF-T_=AwNGm9WPDO+kmQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
It's now the afternoon of the 17th (UTC), and this list?of which I
have the dubious distinction of being custodian?hasn't seen a single
thread about the WMF board election results.
I'm honestly not sure if I should be proud of or disappointed with you
guys. In any case, I beg your forgiveness when I myself ask:
What are the results, and why haven't they been released yet?
Austin
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:56:44 +0100
From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] content ownership in different projects
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=ZNc+mU57ZwPjbCjZYxzSJyVXtrg(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 17 June 2011 12:29, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
That could be a good
use case for a project like Knol, which was advertised as "Wikipedia
killer" once, but didn't grow much.
Minor note: as far as I know, *no-one* from Knol/Google ever claimed
it had anything to do with WIkipedia. The entire notion appeared to me
to have arisen in the technical press in the week after Knol's
announcement, apparently on the basis that both were written by
unfiltered contributors, which was still a radical notion to the press
at the time. The comparison stuck, but I know of no evidence that that
was the intention.
- d.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 87, Issue 48
********************************************