[Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 29, Issue 54

[Hamish McConnochie]

Next Wikimania;
How about Wellington, New Zealand? The most wired city in the worlds
most wired country (NZ has the highest captia of internet users in the
world).

User:Hamedog

On 17/08/06, foundation-l-request at wikimedia.org
<foundation-l-request at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
>        foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        foundation-l-request at wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        foundation-l-owner at 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: Wikimania 2007 - get ready for the third edition. (Anthere)
>   2. Re: Foundation's position on non-free images (Anthere)
>   3. Re: Foundation's position on non-free images (Erik Moeller)
>   4. Re: Foundation's position on non-free images (geni)
>   5. Re: Wikimania 2007 - get ready for the third edition.
>      (Alphax (Wikipedia email))
>   6. Re: bylaws (second call) (Anthere)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:44:17 +0200
> From: Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2007 - get ready for the third
>        edition.
> To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <ec03gl$3rf$1 at sea.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Damian Finol wrote:
> > Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >
> >>Kelly Martin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On 8/16/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Wikimania 2006 just closed its doors a week or so ago, and it is
> >>>>already time to think about the next edition.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Actually, it was time to do that about six months ago.  We really need
> >>>to be planning these things more aggressively.  In my opinion, we
> >>>should know where the next year's Wikimania is going to be before we
> >>>start the planning for the current year.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Good Point,
> >>
> >>Greg mentioned this this morning as well this was a hot topic of
> >>discussion that needed addressing.
> >>
> >>A few suggestions I'll put on the main site:
> >>
> >>Polynesian Language Institute, Hawaii
> >>Sidney, Australia. (great place but very expensive for a lot of folks)
> >>Vancouver, BC (vansterdam)
> >>Salt Lake City, Utah (UofU)
> >>Mexico City
> >>Cayman Islands
> >>Dussledorf, FRG
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>foundation-l mailing list
> >>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> >>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I love those cities a couple of comments though:
> >
> > USA: Doing it in the USA is great, however there is a VISA issue when it
> > comes to people not from the WAIVER Program (Mostly non-europeans). This
> > year Berkman and Harvard where really good and provided an invitation
> > letter that helped many people get their Visa (Although in most of Latin
> > America appointments for Visa interviews are given within 5-6 month of
> > calling)
> >
> > The one I like the most of all those cities, Is Mexico City, although I
> > think some place like Cancun would be better (Mexico City is a great
> > city and all but it's really, really overcrowded and maybe a bit
> > unsafe). Cancun has a lot of hotels and there are a lot of Flights
> > coming and going, plus it's in a central location for people in the
> > Americas and Europe (Most people from Europe will connect in Miami or
> > DFW). Not to mention, Cancun is Mexico's tourist city so many hotels and
> > locals can speak English.
> >
> > I would love to say Rio De Janeiro In Brasil, but Americans will need a
> > visa to enter Brasil.
> >
> > Either way, I think just like the World Cup and the Olympics, Wikimania
> > should jump continents, Last year it was Europe, this year was North
> > America, next year should be either Asia or Latin America.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
>
> Good point. Kelly is right as well that we should be planning ahead.
>
> Ultimately, choices will depend a lot on the quality of the bid.
> It will also help that the organisers of the first two wikimania are
> involved in the choice of next city, as they are primary sources of
> information to identify what was best in both locations.
>
> Just after Wikimania, a discussion took place to identify the good sides
> and the bad sides of Wikimania 2006. Obvious important points to
> consider for the future are the visa issue, the cost of travel for most
> participants, the easiness to reach the city (international airport) etc...
> More specifically, whilst Boston was identified as a very pretty place
> where it was real cool to hang out, it appears that the participants had
> less opportunities (or did not identified these opportunities) to hang
> out together than in Frankfurt. Amongst reasons, the fact the conference
> took place in two different buildings, the dorms were in yet another
> place, the "village pump" was not clearly labelled as such etc...
> Good points were the common breakfast/lunch area, in that big room where
> people could chat.
>
> Next Wikimania should be particularly careful to choose locations where
> people can stay together and have full opportunities to "bump" in other
> editors every minute. By the way, we suggested a wall where pictures of
> participants could be pasted as the conference proceeds (to facilitate
> recognition between participants).
>
> A big point in any cases will be to identify the "size" of the audience.
> One does not have the same requirements and the same timeline for a
> conference of 400 people or 1000 people, or even more. We will need to
> see how we want that to evolve.
>
> Last, as for the past two years, an important point in selecting the
> city was to check whether there was a local team of very motivated
> wikipedians on the spot, to help organising. It is not so obvious now
> that this should be amongst a primary motive to select a city. It may be
> that we choose to outsource more of the organisation (as opposed to
> heavily rely on volunteers).
>
> In any cases, the organisation is not an easy task, kudos to those who
> did the job this year. But it all begins with bids :-)
>
> ant
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:57:12 +0200
> From: Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation's position on non-free images
> To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <ec048s$60j$1 at sea.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Good question.
>
> Two resolutions were proposed on this matter by some contributors.
>
> Let me copy them below, as well as the outcome.
>
> -----------
> Resolution:NDNC
> Proposed by : contributor, copied by Anthere
>
> Motion to vote: Angela 05:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
> Motion Seconded: Anthere
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation aims to promote free and collaborative content
> Non-commercial and non-derivative licenses are not compatible with the
> notion of free content supported by the Wikimedia Foundation and the
> Free Software Foundation, as defined at freecontentdefinition.org
>
> In order to clarify this situation, the Board resolves that:
> Content under "non-derivative" or "non-commercial" licenses is not
> sufficiently free to allow use on Wikimedia projects. Content dual
> licensed under one of these with a free license continues to be acceptable.
>
> Outcome: The resolution dropped was dropped at a meeting 5 aug 2006. The
> conclusion was essentially that the board should not get involved in
> that (not a policy) but that recommandations would be suitable. It was
> concluded that Jimbo would blog about it.
>
> ----------
>
> Resolution:Fair Use
> Proposed by : an editor, copied by Anthere
>
>
> Given that fair-use content has been widely tolerated for historical
> reasons on the Wikimedia Foundation's projects
> Given that fair-use content is, by essence, non-free
> Given that the Wikimedia Foundation objectives are to promote free
> material in the whole world, not only in the United States of America
> where the fair-use can apply
> Outcome of the resolution: Given that free content is now widely
> available for all the Wikimedia's Foundation projects through Wikimedia
> Commons
> The board resolves :
>        ?       That starting from today (insert date), no fair use content shall be
> added to the Wikimedia Foundation's projects
>        ?       and that the existing fair-use content shall not be deleted until
> replaced by free content
>
> Outcome: the resolution was inactive for two months with no motion to
> vote. It was consequently dropped.
>
>
> --------------
>
> I think this resumes pretty well the position of the Foundation on the
> issue :-)
>
> I will actually say it more plainly.
> I think the projects are not (should not be) managed by the Foundation.
> The Foundation supports the projects, which is very different. Jimbo or
> others may provide some guidance, but it is not the role of the
> Foundation to say "fair use is allowed" or "fair use is not allowed".
>
> Ant
>
>
> ----------Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz wrote:
> > Tisza Gergo wrote:
> >
> >>There is an ongoing debate in the Hungarian Wikipedia community about
> >>image license policies. I didn't find anything about the Foundation's
> >>position on the issue (except for the rather vague [[m:Foundation
> >>issues]]), so I'll try to ask here:
> >
> >
> > The same is on Polish :-) I think there should be an official Foundation
> > policy about it. When we were asking people from Foundation around 1
> > year ago, the answers where different from one person to another, and
> > then two groups of users (pro fair-use and anti fair-use) were using
> > these diffrent answers as a key argument. Finally, someone asked simple
> >   question: do we really want to make Polish Wikipedia to constantly
> > break Polish Law?
> >
> >
> >>1) Which copyright law should be followed? The Hungarian law, the law of
> >>the United States or both? (And what about France and the Netherlands,
> >>where IIRC some of the Wikimedia servers are hosted?) This is an
> >>important question, as Hungarian copyright law is a lot more restrictive
> >>(there is no fair use, and works made by the government remain
> >>copyyrighted).
> >
> >
> > On Polish Wikipedia it was decided that due to:
> > a) vast majority of contributors live in Poland
> > b) we don't want to give an impression that Polish Wikipedia ignores
> > Polish law
> >
> > we have to strictly follow Polish law.
> >
> > In fact, no matter where the servers are placed, when you contribute to
> > any webpage from Polish territory, you have to follow Polish law. You
> > are making copyright violation by sending from Polish territory pictures
> > or text - no matter where is it going to be published. So, the question
> > is where you are - not where is the server.
> >
> > In Poland something similar to fair use is allowed, but using it in any
> > encyclopedia requires:
> > a) only educational purposes (Wikipedia can be used for non-educational,
> > even strictly commercial purposes)
> > b) documented attempt to obtain the copyright's owner permission
> >
> > Therefore, technically, fair use in Wikipedia circumstances is rather
> > useless if you want to follow Polish law, and therefore we have decided
> > not to allow any fair use materials.
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 00:21:39 +0200
> From: "Erik Moeller" <eloquence at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation's position on non-free images
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <b80736c80608161521q750d94eaye8f997df3d128c61 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 8/16/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I think the projects are not (should not be) managed by the Foundation.
> > The Foundation supports the projects, which is very different. Jimbo or
> > others may provide some guidance, but it is not the role of the
> > Foundation to say "fair use is allowed" or "fair use is not allowed".
>
> I'll state for the record my disagreement with that. I think copyright
> policy should be made on the Foundation level in cooperation with the
> projects. The current situation is an unsustainable mess.
>
> Erik
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:35:48 +0100
> From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation's position on non-free images
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <f80608430608161535j68490dc8o6031cca5a48a676b at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed
>
> On 8/16/06, Tisza Gerg? <tgergo at inf.elte.hu> wrote:
> I cannot speak for the foundation but I deal with copyright stuff
> rather a lot on en and from time to time other wikis
>
> > 1) Which copyright law should be followed? The Hungarian law, the law of
> > the United States or both? (And what about France and the Netherlands,
> > where IIRC some of the Wikimedia servers are hosted?) This is an
> > important question, as Hungarian copyright law is a lot more restrictive
> > (there is no fair use, and works made by the government remain
> > copyyrighted).
> >
> United States law must be followed. Following other more restrictive
> laws appears to be the choice of individual project (the works made by
> the goverment thing is a red herring works made by the US goverement
> are still PD and works made by almost any other goverment are not).
>
>
>
>
> > 2) What are the rules, if any, for non-free images? Should we follow
> > [[Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy]], or is every community free to create its
> > own policies about non-copyleft media content?
> >
>
> As long as the policy stays within US law it appears communities are
> free to do what they like. That said the foundation retains the right
> to remove any image at any time.
>
> > 3) Is it acceptable to use, in a way similar to fair use, images which
> > are illegal in the strict sense, but safe to use?
>
> As far as US law goes no. Outside that I think the choice reverts to
> the indivdual project
>
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:06:49 +0930
> From: "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2007 - get ready for the third
>        edition.
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <44E3BA21.1060901 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > Kelly Martin wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/16/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Wikimania 2006 just closed its doors a week or so ago, and it is
> >>> already time to think about the next edition.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Actually, it was time to do that about six months ago.  We really need
> >> to be planning these things more aggressively.  In my opinion, we
> >> should know where the next year's Wikimania is going to be before we
> >> start the planning for the current year.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Good Point,
> >
> > Greg mentioned this this morning as well this was a hot topic of
> > discussion that needed addressing.
> >
> > A few suggestions I'll put on the main site:
> >
> > Polynesian Language Institute, Hawaii
> > Sidney, Australia. (great place but very expensive for a lot of folks)
>
> It's spelt "Sydney", and there's already a lot of discussion at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimania_2007/Australia and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AWNB#Wikimania wrt. this.
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 569 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> Url : http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060817/58b55413/attachment-0001.bin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 03:10:16 +0200
> From: Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] bylaws (second call)
> To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <ec0fit$273$1 at sea.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Lars Aronsson wrote:
> > Brad Patrick wrote:
> >
> >
> >>- With such a diluted definition of 'member' what is the real
> >>  point of being a 'member'?
> >
> >
> > There was a decision point back in 2002 or so, where Wikipedia was
> > still more or less Jimbo's private property, and the question was
> > where to put it.  Many Germans and other Europeans wanted a
> > membership association, but Jimbo went for a foundation.  Later
> > (in 2004) the German national chapter was structured exactly like
> > the membership association (Verein) that they had wanted also for
> > the international body.  There is a fundamental difference between
> > the two kinds of organization, but I think this was more clear to
> > the Germans than it was to Jimbo or most Americans.
> >
> > (This seems to be a European/American cultural divide.  When I
> > look at an article such as the [[New England Anime Society]] the
> > *first* question I ask is *how many members* do they have?  And
> > this is not answered.  This is like not knowing the annual
> > turnover for a business or the population of a city.  Is it
> > thousands or millions?)
> >
> > However, one fundamental requirement for a membership association
> > was also missing.  The word "Verein" means union, a get-together
> > of equals.  The corresponding verb "sich vereinen" means "to
> > unite", to team up.  And there simply was nobody who equalled
> > Jimbo.  The German Wikipedians could get together as equals to
> > form their national chapter.  Their elected board was only
> > slightly more into Wikipedia than the rest.  There was nobody
> > there with the God-like status of Jimbo.
> >
> > I think the only way Wikipedia could have been turned into a real
> > membership association is if a global "chapter" of wikipedians had
> > been formed in 2002, without Jimbo, and then started to negotiate
> > with Jimbo about the future rights to domain names and servers.
> > As we all know, this didn't happen.
> >
> > This leaves Jimbo with the decision, and it is a fact that his
> > position is more like that of Bill Gates, Andrew Carnegie, or
> > Alfred Nobel.  One day he finds himself in possession of something
> > that should live on after him, and there really is little point in
> > his family to inherit it.  What do you do in such a situation?
> > You start a foundation.  Its bylaws is your last will. If a board
> > member needs to leave, the rest of the board must find a new board
> > member.  Many newspapers are owned by foundations, so it makes
> > sense for a web media venture as well.
> >
> > The fact that two out of five board members should be elected by
> > the community is merely a curious detail of the Wikimedia
> > Foundation.  This is not expected from a foundation.  Foundations
> > are used for purposes where democracy is not an issue. And in fact
> > the Wikimedia Foundation works perfectly alright without
> > democracy, as does the Nobel Foundation.  The former only needs to
> > keep the servers running.  The latter only needs to find the best
> > scientists.  Both tasks can be accomplished with a handful of
> > administrators and a network of experts.  These small tasks are
> > independent of the whole body of article-editing or science that
> > they serve.
> >
> >
> >>Is it political so members have control of the organization in
> >>some way? Philosophical, in that we have 'card carrying' members
> >>to prove allegiance to something?
> >
> >
> > The German chapter fills both roles, as far as I can see.
>
> I thought your summary of the past very accurate and clear.
>
> Just a couple of comments regarding your last big paragraph.
> Your premise that the two members be elected from the community is a
> curious detail, because WMF is a Foundation and elected members are not
> expected in a Foundation, is incorrect.
>
> The WMF is not really a Foundation, but by name. It is in reality nearer
> to be an association.
>
> The second point is that the goal of the WMF support goes far beyond
> from merely keeping the servers running.
>
> ant
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 29, Issue 54
> ********************************************
>