"F= ill the world with children who care and things start looking up."

Windows Live Messenger makes it easier to stay in touch - = learn= how! = --_dd2ba3ad-5ad9-46e9-9360-088619874e0c_-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Mon Jan 19 21:31:31 2009 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:31:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: 193 WMF projects were represented by at least 1 ballot. 16785 (96.1%) were cast from 102 Wikipedias 397 (2.3%) were cast from 8 "special" projects (includes Commons, Meta, Wikispecies, etc.) 78 (0.4%) were cast from 22 Wiktionaries 72 (0.4%) were cast from 18 Wikibooks projects 60 (0.3%) were cast from 17 Wikisource projects 30 (0.2%) were cast from 11 Wikinews projects 24 (0.1%) were cast from 7 Wikiversity projects 15 (0.1%) were cast from 8 Wikiquote projects The top 20 individual projects were: 7528 (43.1%) from English Wikipedia 3104 (17.8%) from German Wikipedia 955 (5.5%) from French Wikipedia 778 (4.5%) from Russian Wikipedia 738 (4.2%) from Spanish Wikipedia 507 (2.9%) from Polish Wikipedia 454 (2.6%) from Italian Wikipedia 315 (1.8%) from Chinese Wikipedia 274 (1.6%) from Commons 274 (1.6%) from Japanese Wikipedia 235 (1.3%) from Dutch Wikipedia 210 (1.2%) from Portuguese Wikipedia 158 (0.9%) from Swedish Wikipedia 125 (0.7%) from Hebrew Wikipedia 125 (0.7%) from Hungarian Wikipedia 117 (0.7%) from Finnish Wikipedia 111 (0.6%) from Czech Wikipedia 105 (0.6%) from Turkish Wikipedia 98 (0.6%) from Meta 78 (0.6%) from Danish Wikipedia -Robert Rohde PS. Andrew previously stated the total number of ballots cast as 18707. This included 16 ballots used for software testing which are not including in the total of 18691 given above. From bogus@does.not.exist.com Mon Jan 19 21:31:31 2009 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:31:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: licensing ... for as long as possible for each article". That clarifies that we believe this is a per-article license and impact, and will help reusers find [the latest] GFDL revision[s]of an article. 2. "to require continued dual-licensing of new community edits in this manner, but allow CC-BY-SA-only content from third parties (However, GFDL-only content from third parties is no longer allowed)" Drop the "However," from the parenthetical. 3. "to inform re-users that content which includes imported CC-BY-SA-only information cannot be used under the GFDL." This is irresponsible if it does not provide a way for editors to note that they are importing CC-BY-SA information. I would /like/ this to say "to inform re-users when content includes imported CC-BY-SA-only information, that it cannot be used under the GFDL". I think that Wikipedia as a site and tool for collaboration should take more responsibility for identifying when this has taken place -- just as we currently take responsibility for helping uploaders avoid violating copyright through laziness by asking detailed questions on commons and by highlighting on every page that they are certifying by editing that their contributions are available under a certain license (and that they had the right to so license them). And some from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and= _Answers#Dual_licensing 4. "This page is released under CC-BY-SA. Depending on its editing history, it MAY also be available under the GFDL; see [link] for how to determine that." Change this to "under the GFDL or other licenses" and link to a page explaining how multiple licensing works, how the default license for new edits works (the edit itself is available under both by-sa and the gfdl; the resulting article is available under by-sa and any other license compatible with the licensing of each non-minor edit in its history), and where many editors note the other licenses under which they provide their edits (PD, &c) Is there a proposed target page for that link? Will it be on meta? 5. "It will be the obligation of re-users to validate whether an article includes CC-BY-SA-only changes =96 dual licensing should not be a burden on editors." This certainly should be a burden on editors insofar as one should expressly indicate when material is being imported from a CC-BY-SA source. This comment requires much more than a statement. If there is no simple way for one to do this, it should be touted less boldly. If there is a simple way, we should define it -- it seems to me this will require some work and programming over time. 6. "What about merging in GFDL-only content? While merging GFDL-only text into WikiMedia projects will ultimately no longer be possible, we propose to continue..." We need not dodge the question; be proud of the answer. "GFDL-only content can no longer be merged into Wikimedia projects. We plan to move to CC-BY-SA as the primary license for text. We propose to continue..." 7. "How will re-users determine whether or not an article is available under GFDL?" Update the answer to reflect a more specific solution to the above. "Look at every edit summary that may include a hyperlink or implied hyperlink, and follow every reference or footnote link to see whether the source is a site licensed under cc-sa; if it is, come back and check the diff to see whether this is a referential cite for verification of the data stated, or a source site, whose material has been included substantially intact, carrying with it implied derivation." is not an ideal answer... SJ * I seem to think that the latest-revision of articles will become CC-SA-only more quickly than most do - 2 years max before that includes most common articles. I think it will happen via bot-enabled content additions drawing from an aggregate database of materials which have themselves included CC-SA works in the mix. That sort of automated update can touch a large fraction of all articles, and they happen with some regularity. But whether or not this is the case, I think we could make a reasonable guess as to what the latest GFDL revision of each article is; whereas your average reuser could not.