They do make or break reputations

[Fred Bauder-2]

Speaking of the British tabloids, of course.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/world/europe/10britain.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=globasasa2

The lesson for us is to not take a leading position, be topical, but to
report events which have occurred and on which there is some sort of
considered opinion and a set of known facts, even if it takes a day or
two for them to develop. In the case of these tabloids its going to take
months.

The power of topical media is two-edged, seemingly exceedingly powerful,
king-makers, but, as anyone familiar with our limited resources knows,
quite weak if under serious attack, as is being shown in the case of the
principals involved in this crisis. The British government is sick of
kowtowing to them and seems to have just been waiting for an opportunity.

Fred


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Phil Nash-3]

If only I could be so sanguine; I cannot disagree with Fred's first
paragraph, but as regards his second I must take issue. For a start, current
events should be covered by Wikinews, and subsequent *encyclopedic"
treatment of those events be dealt with in analytic terms and in retrospect,
by Wikipedia. That is why we have two projects, and not one. As regards the
stance of the British government towards the media in this case, and in
previous cases, it's clear to me that there is a dislocation between the
two- and in my experience, the government has long since lost the support of
the media, except in most general terms, and that is why we have the term
"spin-doctor". It's a two-way process, and not a new one, and where I am, I
cannot see any way in which the division of reponsibility to the citizen is
to be resolved. TBH, the relationship between politicians and the media, and
both of them have their suspect agendas, is always going to be problematic,
and all we should do as documenters of what happens is to perhaps stand back
for a while, and when the dust has settled,

WRITE A FUCKING ENCYCLOPEDIA!

Why is that a problem?

Fred Bauder wrote:

> Speaking of the British tabloids, of course.
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/world/europe/10britain.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=globasasa2
>
> The lesson for us is to not take a leading position, be topical, but
> to report events which have occurred and on which there is some sort
> of considered opinion and a set of known facts, even if it takes a
> day or two for them to develop. In the case of these tabloids its
> going to take months.
>
> The power of topical media is two-edged, seemingly exceedingly
> powerful, king-makers, but, as anyone familiar with our limited
> resources knows, quite weak if under serious attack, as is being
> shown in the case of the principals involved in this crisis. The
> British government is sick of kowtowing to them and seems to have
> just been waiting for an opportunity.
>
> Fred
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l 

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Fred Bauder-2]

> If only I could be so sanguine; I cannot disagree with Fred's first
> paragraph, but as regards his second I must take issue. For a start,
> current
> events should be covered by Wikinews, and subsequent *encyclopedic"
> treatment of those events be dealt with in analytic terms and in
> retrospect,
> by Wikipedia. That is why we have two projects, and not one. As regards
> the
> stance of the British government towards the media in this case, and in
> previous cases, it's clear to me that there is a dislocation between the
> two- and in my experience, the government has long since lost the support
> of
> the media, except in most general terms, and that is why we have the term
> "spin-doctor". It's a two-way process, and not a new one, and where I am,
> I
> cannot see any way in which the division of reponsibility to the citizen
> is
> to be resolved. TBH, the relationship between politicians and the media,
> and
> both of them have their suspect agendas, is always going to be
> problematic,
> and all we should do as documenters of what happens is to perhaps stand
> back
> for a while, and when the dust has settled,
>
> WRITE A FUCKING ENCYCLOPEDIA!
>
> Why is that a problem?

Most of us have agendas, and this is the only major outlet most of us
have access to.

Fred

>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>> Speaking of the British tabloids, of course.
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/world/europe/10britain.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=globasasa2
>>
>> The lesson for us is to not take a leading position, be topical, but
>> to report events which have occurred and on which there is some sort
>> of considered opinion and a set of known facts, even if it takes a
>> day or two for them to develop. In the case of these tabloids its
>> going to take months.
>>
>> The power of topical media is two-edged, seemingly exceedingly
>> powerful, king-makers, but, as anyone familiar with our limited
>> resources knows, quite weak if under serious attack, as is being
>> shown in the case of the principals involved in this crisis. The
>> British government is sick of kowtowing to them and seems to have
>> just been waiting for an opportunity.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Phil Nash-3]

Fred Bauder wrote:

>> If only I could be so sanguine; I cannot disagree with Fred's first
>> paragraph, but as regards his second I must take issue. For a start,
>> current
>> events should be covered by Wikinews, and subsequent *encyclopedic"
>> treatment of those events be dealt with in analytic terms and in
>> retrospect,
>> by Wikipedia. That is why we have two projects, and not one. As
>> regards the
>> stance of the British government towards the media in this case, and
>> in previous cases, it's clear to me that there is a dislocation
>> between the two- and in my experience, the government has long since
>> lost the support of
>> the media, except in most general terms, and that is why we have the
>> term "spin-doctor". It's a two-way process, and not a new one, and
>> where I am, I
>> cannot see any way in which the division of reponsibility to the
>> citizen is
>> to be resolved. TBH, the relationship between politicians and the
>> media, and
>> both of them have their suspect agendas, is always going to be
>> problematic,
>> and all we should do as documenters of what happens is to perhaps
>> stand back
>> for a while, and when the dust has settled,
>>
>> WRITE A FUCKING ENCYCLOPEDIA!
>>
>> Why is that a problem?
>
> Most of us have agendas, and this is the only major outlet most of us
> have access to.
>
> Fred

And in what way is that an excuse to ignore the rules, or if you don't like
them, seek to change them? Agenda-pushers will fall foul of OR, and other
policies; those of us who merely wish Wikipedia to reflect the balance of
current academic opinion, and are able to be objective about disputed points
of view, should be empowered (and that is perhaps correct), to reject fringe
theories, although it has to be said that such theories have traditionally
been rejected out of hand on Wikpedia.

I need sleep; if it matters, I'll come back. If it doesn't, I won't.

Chuh!


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Alec Conroy-2]

>> Most of us have agendas, and this is the only major outlet most of us
>> have access to.

As a sort of aside--  everyone comes with agendas, and sometimes
people act neutrally, sometimes people act like advocates for their
agenda.

I've always wondered if we couldn't "peel off' the people who advocate
by inviting them to participate in "Something Else"-- some designated
"advocate/argument/debate" project.   Something by advocates for
advocates of advocates.     Some people genuinely like to argue, and
unfortunately, one of the best venues for argument are WP article edit
summaries and talk pages.

Right now, we only have neutral-style projects... this gives
'advocates' no one specific place to advocate their agendas, and this
invites them to just 'advocate' in what should be neutral space.

If we had some roped off "Advocacy and Argument zone", that _might_
peel away the good faith people who want to make sure their point of
view is heard, but are willing to honestly label their point of view
as biased or non-neutral.

It won't stop edit wars, but it might reduce their frequency and intensity.
Alec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Fred Bauder-2]

>>> Most of us have agendas, and this is the only major outlet most of us
>>> have access to.
>
> As a sort of aside--  everyone comes with agendas, and sometimes
> people act neutrally, sometimes people act like advocates for their
> agenda.
>
> I've always wondered if we couldn't "peel off' the people who advocate
> by inviting them to participate in "Something Else"-- some designated
> "advocate/argument/debate" project.   Something by advocates for
> advocates of advocates.     Some people genuinely like to argue, and
> unfortunately, one of the best venues for argument are WP article edit
> summaries and talk pages.
>
> Right now, we only have neutral-style projects... this gives
> 'advocates' no one specific place to advocate their agendas, and this
> invites them to just 'advocate' in what should be neutral space.
>
> If we had some roped off "Advocacy and Argument zone", that _might_
> peel away the good faith people who want to make sure their point of
> view is heard, but are willing to honestly label their point of view
> as biased or non-neutral.
>
> It won't stop edit wars, but it might reduce their frequency and
> intensity.
> Alec

You can always make Wikinfo a sister project.

Fred



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Alec Conroy-2]

> You can always make Wikinfo a sister project.
>
> Fred

That would be a rather elegant solution, wouldn't it.
At a minimum, recognizing Wikinfo as "Part of the Wikimedia Movement"
and incorporating links to it into our controversial articles.    And
then a next nice step would be if Wikinfo could seamlesly use
WMF-hosted project's useraccounts, images, templates, and
interwikilinks.

Or perhaps it would just make more sense technologically to just host
it with WMF, with the understanding that WMF doesn't "endorse" Wikinfo
in the same way that it might kinda 'endorse' Wikipedia but recognizes
it for what it is-- yet another useful way for people to
collaboratively produce educational content.
--
I have actually been independently trying to think of other wikis that
should be "sister projects".   Some are really obvious and
non-controversial--  SNPedia, for example, an encyclopedia of single
nucleotide polymorphisms and related studies--  'should' be a
WMF-related project, unless either party doesn't want such an
association for reasons I can't fathom.

We're at the point where the lack of diversity of our English language
project 'styles' may be a major factor dissuading new users from
participation.   It may be time to begin exploring new content types,
new policy sets, new cultures, and new tech.
--
I would _love_ to see Wikinfo get closer ties to WMF, including direct
hosting if all groups like it.   Back when we could only afford to
have one project, I understand why Wikipedia was that project.   Times
have changed, and the more ways we let people edit, the more people
will feel comfortable editing.

Alec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Samuel Klein-4]

I would love to see the new project process on Meta come back online.
(much of this email is posted to [[m:talk:new project proposals]])

I could use some help in making this happen - we need to start an
incubator process for ideas with support, and a separate process for
proposing existing projects that have been incubated elsewhere for
support or hosting.   The meta page for each proposed project should
track its progress, whether offsite or on the incubator...  a project
infobox should be designed... an interested group (if less formal than
langcom) should go through and review the backlog of proposals and
suggest the necessary next step for each.


On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Alec Conroy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> You can always make Wikinfo a sister project.

A space to hold POV debates would be an interesting intermediate
ground between no-restraint edit wars and topic bans, for those in
heated argument.  Is Wikinfo designed for this?  I was thinking of
something more like 'Wikireason'.  There have been various proposals
for an 'argument wiki' over the years, but I've never seen a working
implementation.

> I have actually been independently trying to think of other wikis that
> should be "sister projects".   Some are really obvious and
> non-controversial--

> SNPedia, for example, an encyclopedia of single nucleotide polymorphisms and related studies
Yes.  Link:  http://www.snpedia.com/index.php/SNPedia

Genealogy:  WeRelate and Rodovid.  Both remarkable and lovely
projects.  Combinable, if all parties could be brought together.
Both could use support; I've touched on the possibility of becoming
WMF projects with each, and they are willing to discuss it.  The
result would be by far the largest free collection of genealogy
information, with support from one of the major libraries studyig and
archiving related data in the US

Children's encyclopedia: WikiKids, Vikidia, Grundschulwiki, Wikimini.
These projects could be coordinated better to share ideas and lessons,
and could use more visibility.  Some people active in these projects
are already Wikimedians.

Dictionaries: OmegaWiki.  This multilingual dictionary could help
revamp our toolchain for Wiktionary, which remains a bit broken.

Interface translation: TranslateWiki.  iirc it does not want to be a
WMF project per se, but could use more explicit support than we have
given so far.

Citations and bibliography: AcaWiki (and the budding WikiScholar).

Wikified maps: Wikimapia. currently profitable and popular; probably
fine on their own.  However they use a non-free map stack and use an
NC license; finding a way to help that project migrate to a free stack
and license  [now that there is a free orthorectified aerial map
available http://blog.stevecoast.com/im-working-at-microsoft-and-were-donating-ima]
would be of benefit to the whole world.


Other projects for which there is a supply of raw materials available
from content donors (which we cannot currently accept):
* Annotated source materials and their translations:  Part of Wikisource++ ?
* Translation memory:  Part of Translatewiki++ ?
* Public datasets: Wikidata
* Music scores: Wikimusic


> We're at the point where the lack of diversity of our English language
> project 'styles' may be a major factor dissuading new users from
> participation.

It is certainly one of the factors.


Sam.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Peter Coombe]

On 11 July 2011 04:26, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>>> Most of us have agendas, and this is the only major outlet most of us
>>>> have access to.
>>
>> As a sort of aside--  everyone comes with agendas, and sometimes
>> people act neutrally, sometimes people act like advocates for their
>> agenda.
>>
>> I've always wondered if we couldn't "peel off' the people who advocate
>> by inviting them to participate in "Something Else"-- some designated
>> "advocate/argument/debate" project.   Something by advocates for
>> advocates of advocates.     Some people genuinely like to argue, and
>> unfortunately, one of the best venues for argument are WP article edit
>> summaries and talk pages.
>>
>> Right now, we only have neutral-style projects... this gives
>> 'advocates' no one specific place to advocate their agendas, and this
>> invites them to just 'advocate' in what should be neutral space.
>>
>> If we had some roped off "Advocacy and Argument zone", that _might_
>> peel away the good faith people who want to make sure their point of
>> view is heard, but are willing to honestly label their point of view
>> as biased or non-neutral.
>>
>> It won't stop edit wars, but it might reduce their frequency and
>> intensity.
>> Alec
>
> You can always make Wikinfo a sister project.
>
> Fred
>
>

See also http://opinion.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page. Not sure if there
are other projects in a similar vein.

Pete / the wub

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Alec Conroy-2]

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

Amazing list of potential allies, partners and new projects.   You
guys all seem very on top of things, all in the mentioned list looked
great and sounded like exciting good fits for us-- from a Wikimedian
perspective at least.

> There have been various proposals for an 'argument wiki' over
> the years,  but I've never seen a working implementation.

See, that's the thing about new projects.   Right now, we treat them
like a shuttle launch-- everything has to be absolutely perfect for us
to grant launch clearance.  This, of course, was how we had to do
things in the old days, when wikis were expensive and we were poor.

But now, I feel like we may be able to move back into an era of rapid
experimentation, where new projects are more like unmanned 1940s test
rockets-- they should be blowing up left and right, as we try to learn
from the failed attempts.

I'll go further-- provided we can do so cheaply, I want new projects
that are like the ridiculous early failures of flight.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7OJvv4LG9M].  I want to hear about a
new WMF project and it's policy, think "That's crazy-- that's never
gonna get off the ground", and indeed, learn something from whether it
crashes or whether it actually takes off.

Having an "early flight era" attitude is how we can find something
even better than Wikipedia.   I agree a lot of ideas are unlikely to
work-- but provided the resource usage is sufficiently negligible, let
people start making insane flying machine projects, and eventually the
wright brothers will show up.

Success is not the only reason to start a project.  Constructive
failure is a valid goal too.

Alec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Robin McCain-2]

Why can't we setup a meta server sandbox that allows these experimental
things to be rapidly activated in the sense of giving each a virtual
server slice. That way there is room to play and if something takes off
it can then be allocated some serious resources. The ones that die on
the vine won't be tying up much of any time or resources since they are
virtual anyway.

On 7/12/2011 11:16 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> But now, I feel like we may be able to move back into an era of rapid
> experimentation, where new projects are more like unmanned 1940s test
> rockets-- they should be blowing up left and right, as we try to learn
> from the failed attempts.
>
> I'll go further-- provided we can do so cheaply, I want new projects
> that are like the ridiculous early failures of flight.
> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7OJvv4LG9M].  I want to hear about a
> new WMF project and it's policy, think "That's crazy-- that's never
> gonna get off the ground", and indeed, learn something from whether it
> crashes or whether it actually takes off.
>
> Having an "early flight era" attitude is how we can find something
> even better than Wikipedia.   I agree a lot of ideas are unlikely to
> work-- but provided the resource usage is sufficiently negligible, let
> people start making insane flying machine projects, and eventually the
> wright brothers will show up.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[WJhonson]

Something better than Wikipedia ?
I can think of something right off the bat.

Kill the copyright police who do nothing useful and harm the project immensely.

Go back to the more transparent rationale that copyright infringement rests solely upon the person who uploaded the copyrighted item, not on people who merely link to it.  That would allow us to link to YouTube videos for example (not host them, just link to them).

Why read an article on Wikipedia about say.... Shirley Temple, if someone else has an identical article AND video streaming as well so you can watch one of her movie or a newsreel interview.

Re-hosters will eventually figure this out,  grab all of our content and improve upon it.  We should get there before they do.

Will

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Thomas Morton]

>
> Go back to the more transparent rationale that copyright infringement rests
> solely upon the person who uploaded the copyrighted item, not on people who
> merely link to it.  That would allow us to link to YouTube videos for
> example (not host them, just link to them).


> Why read an article on Wikipedia about say.... Shirley Temple, if someone
> else has an identical article AND video streaming as well so you can watch
> one of her movie or a newsreel interview.
>
> Re-hosters will eventually figure this out,  grab all of our content and
> improve upon it.  We should get there before they do.
>
>
Strongly disagree. Wikipedia is built on the principle that freely licensed
content rocks and is the future. Making use of non-freely licensed content
makes that goal hypocritical and awkward.

(by the way; there is not necessairily an issue with linking to Youtube
content - if it is correctly licensed, then it is fine)

Besides; no one has managed to make use of Wikipedia content and build on it
in a way that you suggest - if it were so clear an advantage I am sure
someone would have done it by now!

Wikipedia but with extra non-free images and videos is not a Wikipedia with
significant extra value. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but we
have millions :)

Tom
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[WJhonson]

Again you are referring to the hosting or presentation of non-free content and I am not.
I am not referring to the DISPLAY of videos within Wikipedia.
Only the LINKING of videos from Wikipedia.

99.9999% of Youtube videos have no licensing information at all so there is no way to tell if they are being uploaded by the copyright holder.
The Wikipedian copyright police take a worst-case position and disallow all such linking.

I am suggesting that linking itself should be a moot issue.
By the way Thomas this thread is for suggesting ways to move forward.










-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Morton <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tue, Jul 12, 2011 12:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations


>
 Go back to the more transparent rationale that copyright infringement rests
 solely upon the person who uploaded the copyrighted item, not on people who
 merely link to it.  That would allow us to link to YouTube videos for
 example (not host them, just link to them).

 Why read an article on Wikipedia about say.... Shirley Temple, if someone
 else has an identical article AND video streaming as well so you can watch
 one of her movie or a newsreel interview.

 Re-hosters will eventually figure this out,  grab all of our content and
 improve upon it.  We should get there before they do.


trongly disagree. Wikipedia is built on the principle that freely licensed
ontent rocks and is the future. Making use of non-freely licensed content
akes that goal hypocritical and awkward.
(by the way; there is not necessairily an issue with linking to Youtube
ontent - if it is correctly licensed, then it is fine)
Besides; no one has managed to make use of Wikipedia content and build on it
n a way that you suggest - if it were so clear an advantage I am sure
omeone would have done it by now!
Wikipedia but with extra non-free images and videos is not a Wikipedia with
ignificant extra value. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but we
ave millions :)
Tom
______________________________________________
oundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Thomas Morton]

>
> Again you are referring to the hosting or presentation of non-free content
> and I am not.
> I am not referring to the DISPLAY of videos within Wikipedia.
> Only the LINKING of videos from Wikipedia.
>

No, I realise that is what you are referring to - and I don't honestly see
any huge value to linking to such material. For example; in the case of a
music single article, if the user was looking for a video of the content
they would have gone to Youtube, that is the recognised place to go. If they
were looking for background info they come to Wikipedia.

I see the minor value of linking out to Youtube to enhance reader experience
in a small way; but balanced against our view of free content I feel that
value is cancelled out.


> 99.9999% of Youtube videos have no licensing information at all so there is
> no way to tell if they are being uploaded by the copyright holder.
> The Wikipedian copyright police take a worst-case position and disallow all
> such linking.
>
> Not at all; in many cases it is obvious (or taken on good faith). In other
cases Youtube is set up in such a way as to identify official accounts.

Often it is 100% clear the content is not free or used properly.

The critical issue is value; if non-free content adds substantial value then
I 100% support the idea of linking or displaying it. This is the core of the
current en.wiki non-free content policy.

But in many cases that value is "meh" and encouraging such linking is a
significant step backwards.

I've also been quite happy taking the long view. In the ideal world we could
place the music video directly in the relevant article - as it is copyright
prohibits that. In not all that many years (although after we are gone,
certainly) the video can be placed in the article.

So I see no issue :) right now you can see it on Youtube, with dubious
licensing. The next few generations will be able to see what their
grandparents were watching/listening to on Wikipedia.  :)

By the way Thomas this thread is for suggesting ways to move forward.
>
>
I'm not sure what you mean there exactly... that my view is the current
standard and therefore irrelevant to moving forward?

Pfft. :)

Tom
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[WJhonson]

If you don't see the significant value in including video content, then I would suggest that you don't see the significant value in including photographic content either.  I would suggest that's an outdated value system.

A picture is worth a thousand words, an audio is worth ten thousand, a video is worth a million.

Will Johnson
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Thomas Morton]

>
> I'll go further-- provided we can do so cheaply, I want new projects
> that are like the ridiculous early failures of flight.
> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7OJvv4LG9M].  I want to hear about a
> new WMF project and it's policy, think "That's crazy-- that's never
> gonna get off the ground", and indeed, learn something from whether it
> crashes or whether it actually takes off.
>
>
The thing is (and I am somewhat of an enthusiast on the early attempts at
flight :) so you picked a good metaphor) that tose early attempts were
dangerous, mostly impractical and basically barking up the wrong trees.

What did it take ot make successful flight?

It took a couple of quiet brothers who realised that mad and dedicated
vision had to be metered with scientific observation, personal sacrifice and
critical thinking to succeed.

So, yeh, I agree largely with your theory of "lets throw resources at all
those mad but clever people out there". But I think we need to learn the
lesson of Chanute [1] and keep a careful watch for the many hacks,
egotistical and mad individuals that such an enterprise would encourage.

(of course, another school of thought might suggest we need to encourage all
the mad schemes, and let someone smart and clever take the failures and turn
them into reality).

Tom
*1. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octave_Chanute
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Thomas Morton]

>
> If you don't see the significant value in including video content, then I
> would suggest that you don't see the significant value in including
> photographic content either.  I would suggest that's an outdated value
> system.
>
>
You're simply extending my argument too far there, which is just bad
rhetoric. Images and video can have significant value. If we wait a
reasonable time (250 years?) these problems will naturally be solved, and
our archiving systems today are so good I am unconcerned at having to wait
that long.

But the minimal advantages of linking to copyrighted videos on Youtube right
here and now is, I feel, well outweight by the far more important values of
free and properly licensed content.

Of course; if you are able to provide some specific counter examples (this
is fairly off-topic, so perhaps a new thread?) I'm happy to reconsider my
own view!

Tom
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[WJhonson]

Links by themselves are not copyrightable, and are not unfree.
So your argument, which you keep repeating is not germane to this point.
The point is, the copyright police have taken a fear (of something which has never occurred in actual law), and made it a point of battle.

We are arbiters of information content, should not be acting as the police and judge over what is on YouTube.
We cannot know is something loaded is under copyright or not and should not be attempting to know.
It's none of our business.
Our business should be merely to decide what is useful for our project.

The links themselves, I repeat, are free.  The point of contention is whether a link by itself IS a copyright violation.
And on the presumption that it MIGHT be (which is itself ridiculous) our project suffers immense harm by a handful of ummmm persons.

All that is beside the point, my point, which is that a link cannot be a copyright violation, and cannot be licensed.



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Thomas Morton]

>
> The point is, the copyright police have taken a fear (of something which
> has never occurred in actual law), and made it a point of battle.
>

This is, I think, the wrong forum for our disagreement. I mostly rose to
your nasty casting of "copyright police", which was a mistake. Sorry to
everyone else :)

But my final comment is thus; you have misconstrued, I think, the point of
the argument against such links. In fact; pretty much all cases I have ever
seen have been unambiguous in one way or another. So while I would entertain
the notion that such a policy is limiting our ability to link to
legitimately licensed/hosted content I suggest you kinda need to demonstrate
that with specifics.

Perhaps an on-wiki discussion is the way to progress this.

Tom
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l