Some of Serbian institutions, like the Government, have multilingual
and well frequent news services. According to our copyright law "work
of a government institution is not an author work (i.e. is not
copyrighted)". It is funny to see copyright notice at the bottom of
the page because it means that it is really free :) Without such
notice we wouldn't be sure that materials are belong to some
government institution :) However, I'll contact them to be sure about
that (I am sure that they are willing to give their news to us, even
they don't know *their* copyright law well).
The point is that there are news in English [1] and Italian [2]. Both
of them are frequent enough (more frequent in English) that I am
skeptical about adding them directly to the main page because it would
cause some days that Italian Wikinews have 2/3 news about Serbian
government. As far as I could see, news are written in neutral
journalist manner and they are completely valid for any news agency.
So, my suggestions for the steps are:
- People from it.wn and en.wn should say explicitly that they want
news. Also, some Wikinewsians from both projects should take
monitoring of those news. (It is more important for it.wn because I
don't know Italian.)
- I should talk with government (or at least with some lawyer well
introduced in copyright law; we have some of them) and be sure that
their news are free.
- If everything is good enough:
-- I'll make a bot for adding news (for example, it will check for new
news once per hour).
-- Start with it.
[1] - http://www.srbija.sr.gov.yu/?change_lang=en
[2] - http://www.srbija.sr.gov.yu/?change_lang=it
I believe that we need to make the Wikinews-hotline
archives private, and only available for list members,
since technically the incoming voicemails are multi-licensed
as CC-BY and Public Domain (voicemail says CC-BY), but nowhere
on list archives does it say CC-BY. This would prevent CNN from
coming on, seeing an interesting story, and taking it.
--
Thunderhead
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:Thunderheadhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thunderhead
_______________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: I hold no official position in the Wikimedia
Foundation. This message expresses the views of a single
Wikimedia user and not necessarily the community at large.
Hi, I just want to say that sr.wikinews is finally fully functional :)
OK, a number of other things should be fixed (for example, featured news
is form September 30th), but since November 7th there are daily news
from Serbia.
I hope that we'll get some new Wikinewsians in the near future.
I wouldn't go into the public yet because there are a lot of things to
be fixed, but I hope that it would be possible during December.
BTW, is there any Wikinewsian near Serbia (or at least in Europe)? (OK,
I know that there are some Wikinewsian from Europe :) ) It would be good
to make Wikinews promotion in Serbia between January and March with
foreign guests.
It should be mentioned that we have a deal with news agency Beta [1] for
reemitting their short news. Explicitly, we have a deal for their news
in Serbian. However, it is possible to make a deal for English,
Albanian, Romani and Hungarian. (However, I see that there is only
Wikinews in English.)
[1] - http://www.beta.co.yu/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guillaume Paumier" <guillom.pom(a)gmail.com>
To: "Wikinews mailing list" <wikinews-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 19:40:31 +0100
ReplyTo: wikinews-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] FW: [Foundation-l] [Announcement] French lawsuitagainst WMF won incourt
Hello,
On 11/2/07, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil(a)wikinewsie.org> wrote:
Anyone from fr.wikinews subscribed?
I'm subscribed but not really active on wikinews :)
Sorry for those who initially saw this on foundation-l, but I believe that
at the very least fr.wikinews.org should cover this.
I've echoed your call on the local village pump :
http://fr.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Salle_caf%C3%A9#Wikimedia_Foundation_g…
OTOH, I'm not totally convinced that Wikinews could, as Florence suggests,
work with a BLP policy as strict as that on Wikipedia.
I don't think Wikinews really needs this. This message is probably more aimed at Wikipedia projects.
--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
"Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined." Henry David Thoreau
Anyone from fr.wikinews subscribed?
Sorry for those who initially saw this on foundation-l, but I believe that
at the very least fr.wikinews.org should cover this. A key goal in doing so
is to make the point that the law affords WMF the same legal protections as
an ISP.
I don't really know anything about French law, if this sets a precedent that
will be referred to, or if the case can be held up in future in any way to
show the Foundation has the common carrier immunity.
OTOH, I'm not totally convinced that Wikinews could, as Florence suggests,
work with a BLP policy as strict as that on Wikipedia.
Brian.
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Florence
Devouard
Sent: 02 November 2007 19:11
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Cc: wikifr-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org; wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Foundation-l] [Announcement] French lawsuit against WMF won
incourt
An injunction was sought against WMF to force it to remove content from
the french wikipedia, that the plaintiffs deemed defamatory and
infringing on their privacy. The plaintiffs also sought 63,000 Euros in
damages, and requested from the WMF to provide contact information of
the anonymous editor responsible for the edit.
The court stated that the Foundation is a hosting provider in the sense
of article 6 of the LCEN ("Loi pour la confiance dans l'économie
numérique") and as such has no obligation to keep watch on the content
that it hosts and can not be held accountable for the content added by
contributors to the encyclopedia.
The same law states that hosting providers must remove illegal content
when notified it exists. In this case, the dispute centred largely
around when the Foundation was notified. The plaintiffs believed they
had notified the Foundation via e-mail, although the Foundation has no
record of the e-mails having been received. The court did not consider
e-mails sufficient notification.
Also, the court stated that when a hosting provider is notified about
libelous content, it only has to remove content that is obviously libelous.
In this case, the lawsuit was filed before the Foundation was officially
alerted. As soon as the Foundation received official notification, it
immediately removed the content in question.
The court also stated that once the Foundation was notified of the
problem, it acted swiftly and removed the content. As a result, WMF won
the lawsuit and will not have to pay for any damages. The request to
provide the contact information of the editor responsible for the edit
was also dismissed.
--------
This is very good news for the Foundation. We maintain that WMF is not
the publisher, owner or monitor on any of the Wikipedia projects (and
obviously not the WP FR). We are pleased to have our position upheld and
supported in a court of law.
In general, it is extremely important that we get used to quickly remove
any defamatory content, or privacy-invasive content, as soon as it is
brought to our attention. "We", in this case, mean "all of us". Editors
of Wikipedia, volunteers on OTRS, staff members. The more we care about
people requests of this type, the more we will be recognized as a
community caring about the truth and caring about the individual. Whilst
we must not fall into easy censorship and let ourselves be pressured to
remove information which should be available to humanship just because
it does not please a couple of people, it is also important to remember
that we are a top 10 website, widely read everywhere and that any
erroneous information on people may have huge consequences in their
private and professional lives.
Being available to answer readers concerns *is* important. There is no
gain for anyone to get in a court to solve such issues (except for
lawyers in fact). Most conflicts of that sort could be solved through
communication.
Whilst the current case was not strictly speaking a biography page, it
involved living people. So, my email is also a reminder that policies
such as the "biographies of living people" in the english wikipedia are
very helpful to both protect our projects and help making sure our
content is as reliable as possible.
Let us seek to avoid violence when violence can be avoided :-)
I suggest that every project get a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
And consider building such policies in the near future.
A few links for more information
*
http://wikimedia.fr/index.php/Communiqués_de_presse/La_Wikimedia_Foundation_
reconnue_comme_hébergeur_de_Wikipédia
(in french)
*
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro/2_novembre_2007#Proc.C3.A8s
_gagn.C3.A9_par_Wikimedia
(in french)
* http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy (in english)
Florence Devouard
The following firm represented the Foundation in this lawsuit:
HUGOT AVOCATS
www.hugot.fr
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Speaking of collaboration I was looking to get an interview with Nicholas
Negroponte about OLPC, there have been quite a few negative reports about
the XO costing nearer $200 than $100. I'd like to offer an opportunity to
say why it ended up costing more and cover the reports that have had links
posted here.
SJ has kindly offered to try and grab some of Nicholas' time and get him
answering questions, failing that other project insiders will cover them.
I've started a list on my wiki.laptop.org user page,
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User_talk:Brianmc#Nicholas_Negroponte_-_Questions_
about_OLPC
I'm posting this to foundation-l as well as Wikinews as I'd like input from
list readers from other projects. Do Wikipedians have any details they'd
like added to the WP article that we can dig up? Do those who've mentioned
upload of media to Commons want to ask about making that easier? Engage the
grey cells, figure out what you'd like to know about the project, and what
might make for interesting reading for the general public.
All constructive input much appreciated.
Brian.
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of GerardM
Sent: 02 November 2007 11:57
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] OLPC Khairat Chronicle
Hoi,
I totally agree. What I wonder is what the reasons are why people find it
problematic to collaborate as it is. There are so many projects,
organisations and it is sad to notice how little collaboration actually
exists.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 11/2/07, Samuel Klein <sj(a)laptop.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Brianna Laugher wrote:
>
> > Wow, reading those stories is really incredible! Great reports with
> > heaps of photos too.
> >
> > Out of interest Inkscape recently added/will soon add a "publish to
> > Open Clipart" function right in the software.
>
> Very neat. Where was this discussed? I wonder how OC is going to deal
> with the new flux of less-filtered input.
>
>
> > As for Commons, I think there is a big gap in many ways... but it
> > could be madly cool to see the photos and videos and music potentially
> > published somewhere. An OLPC server?
>
> The easiest thing to do is probably post to a separate [OLPC] server,
> which can itself have a variety of "publish to [other repository]" links
> from every media page... the people visiting that server to filter
> incoming media would be quite different from the communities of teachers
> and children producing the original works, would be sympathetic to the
> source communities and know the curation policies for potential target
> sites, &c.
>
> Thinking about this, I wonder what other pools of contributors of free
> content are currently being shut out from our favorite sites when really
> we would all be happier with a decent holding area while their input gets
> sorted. As the world transitions from having little free content of any
> sort to having to decide "where should this piece of free content go?",
> the value of intermediary services, and of tools that let you create once
> and publish {everywhere appropriate}, will grow.
>
> SJ
> --
> sj(a)laptop.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I've got feedback in wiki.laptop.org about getting some questions put
forward, but due to folks on the OLPC project being very busy this month
it's not sure we'll get answers from Negroponte himself.
I have an account on the wiki at
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User_talk:Brianmc, we can start questions there as
suggested or do on Wikinews and I'll port over.
Brian.