[Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 87, Issue 48
Ferdinando Scala
nandoscala at yahoo.it
Fri Jun 17 12:10:56 UTC 2011
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 at lists.wikimedia.org"
<foundation-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org>
A: foundation-l at 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 at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
foundation-l-owner at 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 at wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] IRC office hours to discuss article
feedback tool
To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org, foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID: <BANLkTinkUymcGGDUNrCO-_a9ROsR_NLQBQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Steven Walling <swalling at wikimedia.org>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/wiki/Article_feedback>
>
> 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 at mail.huji.ac.il>
Subject: [Foundation-l] content ownership in different projects
To: foundation-l <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikCC1k1QWE9rmPAq58Qnoxq74A5NQ at 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 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] content ownership in different projects
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=PQDF_tpQo+r-aJ+46ah-o=QDWQQ at 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 at mail.huji.ac.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 at 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 at mail.huji.ac.il>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] content ownership in different projects
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimVSRp21yK7mGeJAgN5aEk3RKpb9Q at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
2011/6/17 Strainu <strainu10 at gmail.com>:
> 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 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] content ownership in different projects
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinU7jGzefd_jsoik2PzPnp7Q68kmw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
2011/6/17 Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni at mail.huji.ac.il>:
> 2011/6/17 Strainu <strainu10 at gmail.com>:
>> 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 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] content ownership in different projects
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimaKSK8XX=UzqaSJRBmFAqBsT+L+w at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
2011/6/17 Strainu <strainu10 at gmail.com>:
> 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 at effeietsanders.org>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] content ownership in different projects
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikoGT-ww+cmeFNKoqdL27f82_ZR7w at 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 at gmail.com>
> 2011/6/17 Strainu <strainu10 at gmail.com>:
> > 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 at 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 at gmail.com>
Subject: [Foundation-l] Election results?
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikkUaEqwnqF-T_=AwNGm9WPDO+kmQ at 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 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] content ownership in different projects
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=ZNc+mU57ZwPjbCjZYxzSJyVXtrg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 17 June 2011 12:29, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 87, Issue 48
********************************************
More information about the foundation-l
mailing list