[Wikipedia-l] Re: image copyright

[Anthere]

Yann Forget a écrit:
> Le Tuesday 17 February 2004 02:11, Anthere a écrit :
>>>You should look at the small argument I had with Rinaldum about this:
>>>http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia:Pages_soup%E7onn%E9es_de_copyrig
>>>ht
>>>
>>
>>:-) I had a lot of pleasure reading that :-)
>>
>>I somehow agree with both of you on some points.
> 
> 
> Good. If the issue comes up again, you can be a moderator.

well...I am not sure I am the best choice on image copyright matter 
conflict.
I mean, I have rather strong opinions on that
And after all, did not I just deleted rules on the matter :-))))))



> We really need to have a proper identification of images status, at least.
> 
> (...) [5 main contributors]
> 
> 
>>I guess I have the choice between admitting my work as a photographer
>>and as an editor was in reality entirely done by Maverick, Brion, André,
>>Brian and Anthony himself.
> 
> 
> I am curious how this result is calculated. Because for fr:, I am still in the 
> five most active contributors based on the number of editions. ;o) But I am 
> certainly not the one who put the most of the content into Wikipedia. And 
> what about the bots?
> This rule is really not good for Wikipedia.

It is (or was) counting edits whatever the type of pages.
Rambot is in the list, but was not counted by Anthony.
The latter only kept real names.
Whatever
This type of page (most active contributors) is more dangerous than 
beneficial. At best, it should be just entirely neglected.
You do not measure people by their number of save hit. You do not 
measure people that way. Some work more on the software, some on the 
articles, some doing promotion, some looking for vandals. And even on 
articles, there are so many types of different activities, providing 
content, organising information, fixing spelling, wikifying, checking 
facts...reverting vandalism, adding protection messages.
All these activities are good and necessary.
Not all this take the same amount of time,
and measuring people involvment by the number of hits is just plain xxx

And not only is it ridiculous, but dangerous as well
look, if that page did not exist, how would anyone believing Wikipedia 
is one entire document be able to "respect" the 5 main authors rule ?

>>Seriously, (do not hit me :-)), we should finally do this french
>>association asap, so we can at least try to protect the french wikipedia
>>before it is too late.
> 
> 
> When it suits you at least you become reasonable. ;o)

Oh ! You noticed ? :-)

> So please help to get the by-law written right and translated.

I already helped to do this with the english wikimedia one. And that 
plain irritated me. I do not wish to be irritated these days. I need 
peace for a number of reasons.

(good luck with Stuart ;-))

When I read the wikimedia bylaws, I concluded that what should link all 
the associations together was a common charter, to which all 
associations would agree.

Here is a sentence I would have loved to see at the last item of a 
global mission statement we would all have adopted together

We agree to

* respect the autonomy of member associations, but require of all 
adherence to WikiMedia mission, and commitment to quality, openness and 
respect of members

...or anything similar ...with above description of WikiMedia mission

I do not think there is much sense working on an association setting 
without discussing at the same time what unite us together. But when I 
suggested working on the charter, my... reactions were quite limited; 
So...I wait for better times :-)