Mailing List Archive

Hoi,
Let us fist congratulate O'Reilley and John Broughton with their decision to
make their work available to us. This is in my opinion excellent news. The
question where this manual should be is not that straight forward. Wikipedia
NEEDS better help text and this truly puts all this information where it is
most needed; on the English language Wikipedia itself.

When you consider the usability of software, good documentation is definetly
part of it. This justified that this book is on en.wp itself. The least it
will do is spark attention on our documentation and how the book should be
integrated in our project documentation. I can imagine that the book itself
also gets its place on Wikibooks. The rationale behind that would be that it
survives as a book. This book will need maintenance as does the help text
but they are essentially two different things.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/1/28 Michael Peel <email@mikepeel.net>

> Hi all,
>
> The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has just
> uploaded the book to Wikipedia under the GFDL, see:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual
>
> My reaction when I spotted this was: great, but shouldn't this be on
> Wikibooks? Part of the author's response to this was that "the
> agreement between O'Reilly Media and the Wikimedia Foundation was
> that this would be at /Wikipedia/ ... [do] not remove it from this
> site without a /lot/ more discussion among a /lot/ of other people."
>
> Did the WMF really make an agreement saying that the content should
> be on Wikipedia, rather than a WMF project or simply under a free
> license?
>
> Does anyone want to weigh in with comments on this on the talk page?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike Peel
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

First, we think it's wonderful that O'Reilly has done this; TMM is a
fantastic book and a great introduction for newbies. (We have been
giving copies away as gifts for a while.) I believe Frank is planning
to blog about this in more detail soon. Please do show them some love
for doing this; it's obviously highly unusual and very nice. :-)

O'Reilly took the initiative to release the book under a free license,
and we've encouraged it - but we don't have any formal agreement with
them that it ought to be posted on Wikipedia. That's a community
decision, and neither we nor O'Reilly would want it to be any other
way. My personal take is that it should live where it's most likely to
be used and maintained, and regardless of its dead tree origins, the
help section of en.wp seems to be a pretty logical place. But that's
just my take - in future, we are also considering to set up a
dedicated portal with various learning resources for wiki newbies,
where static copies could live.

Erik


2009/1/28 Michael Peel <email@mikepeel.net>:
> Hi all,
>
> The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has just
> uploaded the book to Wikipedia under the GFDL, see:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual
>
> My reaction when I spotted this was: great, but shouldn't this be on
> Wikibooks? Part of the author's response to this was that "the
> agreement between O'Reilly Media and the Wikimedia Foundation was
> that this would be at /Wikipedia/ ... [do] not remove it from this
> site without a /lot/ more discussion among a /lot/ of other people."
>
> Did the WMF really make an agreement saying that the content should
> be on Wikipedia, rather than a WMF project or simply under a free
> license?
>
> Does anyone want to weigh in with comments on this on the talk page?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike Peel
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/28 Michael Peel <email@mikepeel.net>:
> Hi all,
>
> The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has just
> uploaded the book to Wikipedia under the GFDL, see:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual
>
> My reaction when I spotted this was: great, but shouldn't this be on
> Wikibooks? Part of the author's response to this was that "the
> agreement between O'Reilly Media and the Wikimedia Foundation was
> that this would be at /Wikipedia/ ... [do] not remove it from this
> site without a /lot/ more discussion among a /lot/ of other people."
>
> Did the WMF really make an agreement saying that the content should
> be on Wikipedia, rather than a WMF project or simply under a free
> license?
>
> Does anyone want to weigh in with comments on this on the talk page?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike Peel

Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we
switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:14 AM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we
> switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0.

Unless it was relicensed. And it would surprise me if they genuinely
objected to such relicensing...

--
Sam
PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
can relicense it to anything he likes.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/1/28 geni <geniice@gmail.com>

> 2009/1/28 Michael Peel <email@mikepeel.net>:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has just
> > uploaded the book to Wikipedia under the GFDL, see:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual
> >
> > My reaction when I spotted this was: great, but shouldn't this be on
> > Wikibooks? Part of the author's response to this was that "the
> > agreement between O'Reilly Media and the Wikimedia Foundation was
> > that this would be at /Wikipedia/ ... [do] not remove it from this
> > site without a /lot/ more discussion among a /lot/ of other people."
> >
> > Did the WMF really make an agreement saying that the content should
> > be on Wikipedia, rather than a WMF project or simply under a free
> > license?
> >
> > Does anyone want to weigh in with comments on this on the talk page?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike Peel
>
> Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we
> switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0.
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
can relicense it to anything he likes.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/1/28 geni <geniice@gmail.com>

> 2009/1/28 Michael Peel <email@mikepeel.net>:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has just
> > uploaded the book to Wikipedia under the GFDL, see:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual
> >
> > My reaction when I spotted this was: great, but shouldn't this be on
> > Wikibooks? Part of the author's response to this was that "the
> > agreement between O'Reilly Media and the Wikimedia Foundation was
> > that this would be at /Wikipedia/ ... [do] not remove it from this
> > site without a /lot/ more discussion among a /lot/ of other people."
> >
> > Did the WMF really make an agreement saying that the content should
> > be on Wikipedia, rather than a WMF project or simply under a free
> > license?
> >
> > Does anyone want to weigh in with comments on this on the talk page?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike Peel
>
> Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we
> switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0.
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/28 geni <geniice@gmail.com>:

> Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we
> switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0.

Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait,
sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to
license under GFDL 1.2 or later... oh, wait. How is this a special
case?

The CC switch, when and if it happens, will be complex enough without
inventing extra problems!

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/28 Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:
> First, we think it's wonderful that O'Reilly has done this; TMM is a
> fantastic book and a great introduction for newbies. (We have been
> giving copies away as gifts for a while.)

Also, as the O'Reilly press release notes, it's John who took the
initiative to make this happen. So big, big thanks to John. :-)

I've been meaning to write about this for a while, as a quick related
heads up: We're also contracting John to write a Wikipedia Educator's
Guide for us, which will hopefully help students and educators to get
a better understanding regarding Wikipedia use. It will also include
case studies about student assignments.

The guide won't be directly developed on a Wikimedia wiki to avoid an
icky paying-for-content situation, but once it's ready we'll publicize
it widely and hope it'll find a home on Wikibooks or elsewhere for
future development. For those who want to get a first glimpse behind
the scenes, John is working on at it at <howto.pediapress.com>. He is
happy to collaborate, but it's his baby and he'll build it however he
wishes.

--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/28 Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk>:
> 2009/1/28 geni <geniice@gmail.com>:
>
>> Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we
>> switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0.
>
> Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait,
> sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to
> license under GFDL 1.2 or later... oh, wait. How is this a special
> case?
>
> The CC switch, when and if it happens, will be complex enough without
> inventing extra problems!

It is imported GFDL material. Which is a problem. Normaly we have very
little imported stuff so not something I worry about overmuch but
someone might want to give a heads up to the publishing company and
author that we will be looking to switch it (and since it is imported
we can't do that automagicaly).

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Michael Peel <email@mikepeel.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has just
> uploaded the book to Wikipedia under the GFDL, see:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual
>
> My reaction when I spotted this was: great, but shouldn't this be on
> Wikibooks? Part of the author's response to this was that "the
> agreement between O'Reilly Media and the Wikimedia Foundation was
> that this would be at /Wikipedia/ ... [do] not remove it from this
> site without a /lot/ more discussion among a /lot/ of other people."
>
> Did the WMF really make an agreement saying that the content should
> be on Wikipedia, rather than a WMF project or simply under a free
> license?
>
> Does anyone want to weigh in with comments on this on the talk page?

I'm obviously in favor of having more books at Wikibooks, but then
again it does make some sense to keep the documentation close to the
website it documents. If the book is GFDL, couldn't we just copy/fork
it to Wikibooks too?

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com>wrote:

> I'm obviously in favor of having more books at Wikibooks, but then
> again it does make some sense to keep the documentation close to the
> website it documents. If the book is GFDL, couldn't we just copy/fork
> it to Wikibooks too?


Agreed - the Wikipedia version will likely have to be significantly
adapted/integrated so it makes sense to keep a reasonably verbatim version
at Wikibooks. That is to say that I wouldn't promote the idea of posting a
book, intact, to Wikipedia (even as an exception), but anything which
improves the help material is worth encouraging.

Sam
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

The resulting work will be welcome at Wikibooks. But I'm unclear
why you can't have someone getting paid to write content on a
Wikimedia wiki? One of our bureaucrats Whiteknight is currently
doing this as part of his employment for the Perl Foundation:
http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Reading_room/
General&oldid=1390269#Editing_Grant
While there could conceivably be problems in doing so, we
couldn't find any in this case. I'd be interested whether that
would also be true of having John write about using Wikipedia in
an educational context. I suppose if the WMF is paying him then
they could be considered a publisher instead of a service
provider, however I would think that can be easily taken care of
in the contract, no?
-Mike
----Erik Möller wronte:----
The guide won't be directly developed on a Wikimedia wiki to
avoid an
icky paying-for-content situation, but once it's ready we'll
publicize
it widely and hope it'll find a home on Wikibooks or elsewhere
for
future development. For those who want to get a first glimpse
behind
the scenes, John is working on at it at <howto.pediapress.com>.
He is
happy to collaborate, but it's his baby and he'll build it
however he
wishes.
----
Mike.lifeguard
mikelifeguard@fastmail.fm

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hi Gerard,

pls remain polite and dont call names.

teun

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Hoi,
> You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
> can relicense it to anything he likes.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> 2009/1/28 geni <geniice@gmail.com>
>
> > 2009/1/28 Michael Peel <email@mikepeel.net>:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has just
> > > uploaded the book to Wikipedia under the GFDL, see:
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual
> > >
> > > My reaction when I spotted this was: great, but shouldn't this be on
> > > Wikibooks? Part of the author's response to this was that "the
> > > agreement between O'Reilly Media and the Wikimedia Foundation was
> > > that this would be at /Wikipedia/ ... [do] not remove it from this
> > > site without a /lot/ more discussion among a /lot/ of other people."
> > >
> > > Did the WMF really make an agreement saying that the content should
> > > be on Wikipedia, rather than a WMF project or simply under a free
> > > license?
> > >
> > > Does anyone want to weigh in with comments on this on the talk page?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mike Peel
> >
> > Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we
> > switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0.
> >
> >
> > --
> > geni
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/28 geni <geniice@gmail.com>:

>> Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait,
>> sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to
>> license under GFDL 1.2 or later... oh, wait. How is this a special
>> case?
>>
>> The CC switch, when and if it happens, will be complex enough without
>> inventing extra problems!
>
> It is imported GFDL material. Which is a problem. Normaly we have very
> little imported stuff so not something I worry about overmuch but
> someone might want to give a heads up to the publishing company and
> author that we will be looking to switch it (and since it is imported
> we can't do that automagicaly).

This is pretty silly.

The author is... an active Wikipedia user, and has been for three and
a half years. All his GDFL contributions made to Wikipedia can be
relicensed without any fuss, but his writing first published elsewhere
under *exactly the same license* and then re-uploaded, by himself,
licensing his own intellectual property and ticking all the implicit
boxes in exactly the same way as if he had first written it here,
can't be?

But even if it weren't, I'm stull confused over how we have the right
to use one set of GFDL v.1.2 or later contributions, and not the
other. It is, after all, *exactly the same license*...

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/28 Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk>:
> 2009/1/28 geni <geniice@gmail.com>:
>
>>> Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait,
>>> sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to
>>> license under GFDL 1.2 or later... oh, wait. How is this a special
>>> case?
>>>
>>> The CC switch, when and if it happens, will be complex enough without
>>> inventing extra problems!
>>
>> It is imported GFDL material. Which is a problem. Normaly we have very
>> little imported stuff so not something I worry about overmuch but
>> someone might want to give a heads up to the publishing company and
>> author that we will be looking to switch it (and since it is imported
>> we can't do that automagicaly).
>
> This is pretty silly.
>
> The author is... an active Wikipedia user, and has been for three and
> a half years. All his GDFL contributions made to Wikipedia can be
> relicensed without any fuss, but his writing first published elsewhere
> under *exactly the same license* and then re-uploaded, by himself,
> licensing his own intellectual property and ticking all the implicit
> boxes in exactly the same way as if he had first written it here,
> can't be?
>
> But even if it weren't, I'm stull confused over how we have the right
> to use one set of GFDL v.1.2 or later contributions, and not the
> other. It is, after all, *exactly the same license*...

The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things
either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki
before the new license was announced. Since this was published in a
book first and added to Wikipedia since the new license was announced,
it isn't eligible (without explicit permission from the copyright
owner - which shouldn't be difficult to get).

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> Hoi,
> You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
> can relicense it to anything he likes.

Of course he can, but unless he relicenses it under CC-BY-SA (which I
can't imagine him not doing, but still), it will need to be deleted.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> > Hoi,
> > You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
> > can relicense it to anything he likes.
>
> Of course he can, but unless he relicenses it under CC-BY-SA (which I
> can't imagine him not doing, but still), it will need to be deleted.
>

Did you consider asking him?

-Chad
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/28 Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
>> > Hoi,
>> > You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
>> > can relicense it to anything he likes.
>>
>> Of course he can, but unless he relicenses it under CC-BY-SA (which I
>> can't imagine him not doing, but still), it will need to be deleted.
>>
>
> Did you consider asking him?

No, we haven't even decided if we are going to switch yet.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Maybe a silly question, but nobody is stopping anyone to copy it to
Wikibooks. The question is mainly, should it be deleted from Wikipedia. I
agree there with Erik, that this is clearly a community decision.

Why not just copy it and see where it flourishes best?

Best regards,

Lodewijk

2009/1/28 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>

> 2009/1/28 Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com>:
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> 2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> >> > Hoi,
> >> > You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected
> Wikipedian,
> >> > can relicense it to anything he likes.
> >>
> >> Of course he can, but unless he relicenses it under CC-BY-SA (which I
> >> can't imagine him not doing, but still), it will need to be deleted.
> >>
> >
> > Did you consider asking him?
>
> No, we haven't even decided if we are going to switch yet.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/28 effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com>:
> Maybe a silly question, but nobody is stopping anyone to copy it to
> Wikibooks. The question is mainly, should it be deleted from Wikipedia. I
> agree there with Erik, that this is clearly a community decision.
>
> Why not just copy it and see where it flourishes best?

While it could be copied, I'm not sure there is much point having it
duplicated - it just means any improvements need to be made twice. It
could be moved to Wikibooks and then Wikipedia could link/redirect to
it, that might make the most sense.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I hate to say it, but it would probably flourish best on Wikipedia,
since there are more knowledgable wikipedians on that site with a
vested interest to make the book better. The question is more one of
appropriateness, does Wikipedia want to host books, even books about
Wikipedia? Wikibooks has policies and structures in place already to
manage books like this, Wikipedia would have to write some kind of
special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there.

Of course, we have to ask what the authors want too, even if we "can"
move the book to Wikibooks under the GFDL, I don't want to do that if
the authors or copyright owners are unhappy with it.

--Andrew Whitworth

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:57 AM, effe iets anders
<effeietsanders@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe a silly question, but nobody is stopping anyone to copy it to
> Wikibooks. The question is mainly, should it be deleted from Wikipedia. I
> agree there with Erik, that this is clearly a community decision.
>
> Why not just copy it and see where it flourishes best?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2009/1/28 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>
>
>> 2009/1/28 Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com>:
>> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> 2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
>> >> > Hoi,
>> >> > You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected
>> Wikipedian,
>> >> > can relicense it to anything he likes.
>> >>
>> >> Of course he can, but unless he relicenses it under CC-BY-SA (which I
>> >> can't imagine him not doing, but still), it will need to be deleted.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Did you consider asking him?
>>
>> No, we haven't even decided if we are going to switch yet.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com>:
> Wikipedia would have to write some kind of
> special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there.

We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means
Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

As a note, the images are watermarked, and I have notified the user. IUP
states that this should not occur.

- Chris

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com>:
> > Wikipedia would have to write some kind of
> > special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there.
>
> We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means
> Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
As far as I know, Commons has no such thing on watermarking. As always, come
up with better illustrations and you can replace them. This is an
extraordinary situation anyway... Wikipedia has also this other "rule;
Ignore all rules.. A good one to apply for now.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/1/29 Chris Down <neuro.wikipedia@googlemail.com>

> As a note, the images are watermarked, and I have notified the user. IUP
> states that this should not occur.
>
> - Chris
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > 2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com>:
> > > Wikipedia would have to write some kind of
> > > special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there.
> >
> > We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means
> > Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l