[Foundation-l] Fw: Re: [Commons-l] PD-art and official "position of the WMF"

[Birgitte SB]

--- On Mon, 8/25/08, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] PD-art and official "position of the WMF"
> To: birgitte_sb at yahoo.com
> Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 10:14 PM
> --- On Mon, 8/25/08, Birgitte SB
> <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] PD-art and
> official "position of the WMF"
> > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 9:52 PM
> > --- On Mon, 8/25/08, Cary Bass
> <cary at wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Cary Bass <cary at wikimedia.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] PD-art
> and
> > official "position of the WMF"
> > > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> > <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 5:13 PM
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > > 
> > > Birgitte SB wrote:
> > > 
> > > > However if both sides of the debate were not
> > > compatible with WMF's values and licensing
> > policies, I
> > > am sure the board would be vocal in pointing out
> the
> > > problem.  They spoke up loudly enough when it.WP
> was
> > using
> > > "with permission" images.  So I would
> > interpret
> > > Domas saying "I'd really like to trust
> the
> > > community [with preserving WMF values]" (as
> well
> > as
> > > silence from the rest of board) to mean
> "both
> > sides of
> > > the debate seem to be inbounds of WMF policy and
> > values
> > > right now".  it.WP certainly wasn't told
> that
> > their
> > > community was trusted to do as they saw fit to
> > preserve WMF
> > > values.  They were pretty much told to change
> their
> > policy.
> > > > 
> > > > Birgitte SB
> > > 
> > > I've noticed that Italian Wikipedia contains
> a
> > rather
> > > large number of
> > > cc-by-nd, cc-by-nc and various different
> combinations
> > > thereof images
> > > like that[1].  I was not aware of any moment when
> the
> > > Foundation told
> > > it.wp it wasn't trusted to preserve WMF
> values,
> > and
> > > feel secure that if
> > > this took place after the EDP policy went into
> effect
> > then
> > > I would have
> > > heard something about it...can you source that?
> > > - --
> > > Cary Bass
> > > Volunteer Coordinator
> > > 
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Immagini_creative_commons
> > 
> > I never said it.WP was told it wasn't trusted to
> > preserve WMF values. (a negative statement)
> > 
> > Rather when the issue was brought up here (just like
> the
> > PD-Art issue) they were NOT told what Commons has been
> told
> > regarding being trusted to decide the issue
> internally.  (a
> > positive statement)
> > 
> > It.WP was told to change it's policy (a positive
> > statement)
> > 
> > 
> > Just wanted to clear that up even though I don't
> have
> > time to dig through the archives. Don't know if
> that
> > actually clarifies.  But not being told what Commons
> has
> > been told != Being told the negative of what Commons
> has
> > been told.
> > 
> > Birgitte SB
> > 
> > 
> > BTW this did not happen after EDP
> > 
> > 
> 
> I took the time after all. This of course does not support
> what you mistakenly believed I had claimed, but rather
> supports my actual claim that it.WP was told to change their
> policy.
> 
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026841.html
> 
> Birgitte SB