On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: Late? When were these custom pages put together--this deletion discussion was way back in August. Trusting Wikipedia/Commons to do vetting and editing on something this potentially "big" is just sloppy. Grammatical errors, typos--stuff like that always slips through, even in major encylopedias, novels, what have you. But flagrant copyright violation images that are actually carrying a big bold "This image is up for deletion because of a possible copyright violation" notice?? - Joe

2008/10/24 David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com>om>: The WMF doesn't own the content, so what the WMF does and doesn't approve of doesn't really matter legally.

To clarify: the 2008/9 Wikipedia Selection for Schools, including schools-wikipedia.org, is a project of SOS Children UK. We've given them trademark permission to use the Wikipedia name and logo on relatively short notice as it would have been difficult for them to change the branding of the project shortly before its release, and they had a prior agreement from which they made the good faith assumption that we would extend it. But, in general, we're tightening licensing rules on the trademark and the puzzle globe, and we've already made clear that the strong Wikipedia branding right now (including the schools-wikipedia.org domain name) is uncomfortably potentially confusing. It's an interesting tension in the free culture movement between giving content away & controlling the use of name & identity - cf. Mozilla's conflict with the Debian project about the Firefox trademark. We're developing a secondary mark that will be more easily usable. It's not been developed with WMF staff resources, but some Wikipedia volunteers have helped along the way. Andrew Cates, who coordinated the project, commented on the Wikimedia blog regarding the licensing/attribution issue: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/10/22/sos-childrens-villages-presents-wikipe… Currently articles on the website say: "This Wikipedia DVD Selection is sponsored by SOS Children , and consists of a hand selection from the English Wikipedia articles with only minor deletions (see www.wikipedia.org for details of authors and sources)." I think a direct link to the relevant history on each article page would be preferable, but this to me is also an example of why we need clear, simple & easy to follow attribution systems. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

2008/10/24 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>: My view is that a practice as described by Gregory here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GFDL_suggestions#Proposed_attribution_text makes sense. IMO there are two different needs here: * History for the purposes of tracking down who wrote what when. This is the purpose of the GFDL "History" section, as far as I can see. A full history (not just including names but dates etc.) can be a huge document, and a URL seems to be an appropriate way to provide this information. A copy alongside the other files in an electronic medium would be doable, but I don't think this should be a legal requirement. * Attribution for moral reasons. I think we should work towards a situation where, if there are 1-10 clear principal authors, and we can easily name them, we will do so. Re-users shouldn't have to worry about this -- they would just find those names listed at the bottom. And, if there are more, i.e. history pages with thousands of names, I think it should be sufficient, in any medium, to credit it as "Multiple authors, see [URL] for a full list and change history." But that's just my take -- I don't think there's a clearly codified "organizational position" on this issue yet, and of course then there's the letter of the GFDL which can be interpreted to impose fairly heavy requirements on re-users. Historically, WMF has advised re-users online to link to the history, and re-users in print to provide author lists, though this is an interesting middle ground case (offline but electronic medium). Does anyone know how it was done in the German Wikipedia DVD? Erik -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

2008/10/24 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>: And I don't work for the Foundation. - d.

2008/10/24 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>: Er, I'm a named volunteer press contact therefore the Foundation is responsible for GFDL violations? That theory's on crack. - d.

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Joe Szilagyi <szilagyi(a)gmail.com> wrote: The deletion discussion was started in August, but was only closed last week. This reflects the general slowness of deletion requests on Commons where many requests linger for months. But you are right that the big red box is fairly noticable if anyone had checked things manually, which they probably didn't. -Robert Rohde