Gerard, I think you mean "There are organisations that want to share CC-0 information with us under a CC-0 license and there are those who want to share CC-0 information under a CC-by license." We are fine with organizations sharing CC-by information under a CC-by license, no?
O and I agree completely on the Wikidata thing.
Jane PS: I also agree that the person who said these words is, in fact a member of the community like the rest of us and therefore has every right to use those words in a meeting during which community issues are being discussed. I have heard worse in discussions by members of one part of the community (Commons people) talking about other members of the community (Dutch Wikipedians) and the other way around. Maybe it's a cultural thing and we swear a lot in our internal meetups in the Netherlands, dunno about that, but I never felt offended when I heard these statements and in context have agreed with both parties.
2014-04-08 8:22 GMT+02:00, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Take one step back. What our aim is, is to share in the sum of all knowledge. Arguably, this is the main and overriding objective of what we do. There are many strategies to get to the point where we share information. From where I stand, with Wikidata we have the opportunity to do better than with an only Wikipedia strategy: with Wikipedia we share the sum of knowledge that is available in one Wikipedia and with Wikidata we share in the sum of all the knowledge that is available to us.
Wikidata provides access to more information than any Wikipedia by a large margin.
There are those in our communities who aim to restrict the practices that realise Wikidata as the resource of information that is available to us. To say it in a political correct way, they can be and should be ignored. There are organisations that want to share information with us under a CC-0 license and there are those who want to share information under a CC-by license. The later can and should be ignored as well.
However, when I am to argue these points in a private setting, I will say that they can screw themselves. It is to make the point forcefully, it is to hammer on the fact that our objective is not the community but the sharing of knowledge. Yes, the community is important but that is the extend of it. When we can gain authoritative information provided by a GLAM, we should not consider the fact that we can enter all that information by hand. Those who want to add statements by hand can do so but they should not force their behaviour and attitudes on others. Thanks, GerardM
On 8 April 2014 00:45, Hubert Laska hubert.laska@gmx.at wrote:
With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas, is the problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make decisions with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but then assume one for me unacceptable position against that group whose services are the basis for their own position.
Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse for me is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get by edits and edits.
Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking photos, one after another and upload them?
I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell apart explanations which happens within an special group dynamic process. If this has occured, he would not have written this in his blog.
h Am 07.04.2014 12:52, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
Hoi,
What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high??
You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ...
What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will that be in everyone's benefit?? Thanks, Gerard
On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tomasz@twkozlowski.net wrote:
Ziko van Dijk wrote
I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian", said in
public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate criticism...
Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during
a public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes on Meta).
That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person is.
I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a comment could have been made during a public workshop "in passing"; however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some chapters and their respective communities.
Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not sure.
Tomasz
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe