Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(anthony @ Tue 19th October 2010, 7:03pm)
In any case, I think Erik would be far too happy to finally "vote Jimmy off the island" to call him one of "Jimmy's people".
Oh, I don't think of Erik as one of "Jimmy's People", but I bet Sue does. Sue is building an empire, and one of the rules of building a empire is that you purge everyone who isn't One Of Your People. It's possible that Erik has brownnosed Sue enough for Sue to think of him as one of her people, but I kinda doubt it.
This isn't about Jimmy vs. Sue, it's about Sue vs. Everyone Else. To her, Erik is nothing more than a tool, to be used as long as he remains useful, certainly, but he will be discarded the moment she has no further use for him. Or even as soon as some old crony of hers shows up wanting Erik's job.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 20th October 2010, 8:30am)
QUOTE(Emperor @ Wed 20th October 2010, 9:00am)
If nothing else, Mr. Godwin will be remembered as the genius who somehow finagled the switch from GFDL to CC-by-SA.
I don't consider him the agent of change on that item. I believe Moeller was the perpetrator of that sham.
Fundamentally that was driven by Larry Lessig, who is far more charismatic than either Eben Moglen or Richard Stallman. Both Erik and Jimmy pushed that to please their Very Bestest Friend, Larry. Besides, Eben and Richard mostly hang out with boring, smelly hacker types; the people Larry hangs with are far more interesting, or at least famous.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 19th October 2010, 6:35pm)
My hope is that this is a move away from FreeKulture. Not only will this open up the possibility of acting in a more responsible manner but strained relations might make FK and the tech press less likely to circle the wagons the next time WP steps in something nasty. Yep, could be Erik next.
That could happen, but there's no reason to believe it will. Sue's only interest in governing Wikimedia as her personal fiefdom is going to be in maintaining revenue. While I don't believe she has any real commitment to FreeKulture the way Moeller does, at the same time she probably believes that many of her donors do, and so she will not actively encourage any change on this front. Absent Moeller's influence, I suspect Wikimedia would move away from its current positions on such matters only in a piecemeal fashion, as specific incidents lead to ad hoc edicts necessary to keep specific donors happy.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 20th October 2010, 7:30am)
QUOTE(Emperor @ Wed 20th October 2010, 9:00am)
If nothing else, Mr. Godwin will be remembered as the genius who somehow finagled the switch from GFDL to CC-by-SA.
I don't consider him the agent of change on that item. I believe Moeller was the perpetrator of that sham.
Well whoever it was established once and for all the free licenses are a farce and once you release material on them anyone can do anything they want and the grantor of the license is powerless to do anything about it. The only thing accomplished was to genuflect to Stallman sufficiently to stop him from running his mouth against the change.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,833
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 20th October 2010, 11:36am)
Well whoever it was established once and for all the free licenses are a farce and once you release material on them anyone can do anything they want and the grantor of the license is powerless to do anything about it.
In my opinion, this is one of the most significant moments in Wikipedia's history. I'd be interested to hear what Mr. Godwin has to say about it once some time has passed.
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 20th October 2010, 12:54am)
QUOTE
Why is Mike leaving the Wikimedia Foundation?
Mike leaving the Wikimedia Foundation is a confidential issue, and the Wikimedia Foundation doesn’t talk about confidential personnel issues with anyone except the people directly involved. We want to handle this kind of thing with respect for people’s privacy and dignity, and we are hopeful we can do that in this instance. That means, we’re not going to answer this question, and we hope you will understand why.
That says to me "fired, but we gave him a settlement in return for his silence".
The usual mantra is "mutual agreement" or "personal reasons" but this says "personnel", which looks to me like "fired for cause".
Or it could be they meant 'personal issues' but messed up the spelling, which is always possible in Wikipedian matters.
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 20th October 2010, 10:54am)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 19th October 2010, 6:35pm)
My hope is that this is a move away from FreeKulture. Not only will this open up the possibility of acting in a more responsible manner but strained relations might make FK and the tech press less likely to circle the wagons the next time WP steps in something nasty. Yep, could be Erik next.
That could happen, but there's no reason to believe it will. Sue's only interest in governing Wikimedia as her personal fiefdom is going to be in maintaining revenue. While I don't believe she has any real commitment to FreeKulture the way Moeller does, at the same time she probably believes that many of her donors do, and so she will not actively encourage any change on this front. Absent Moeller's influence, I suspect Wikimedia would move away from its current positions on such matters only in a piecemeal fashion, as specific incidents lead to ad hoc edicts necessary to keep specific donors happy.
Meow! Pfft! Pffffft!
When does Sue have to go through re-election/re-rubberstamping?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 20th October 2010, 6:42pm)
When does Sue have to go through re-election/re-rubberstamping?
As far as I know she serves at the pleasure of the Board and has no specific review or reappointment process. I've also heard rumors that she has a golden parachute clause in her contract that would make it quite expensive to fire her other than for cause.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri 26th May 2006, 12:21pm
Member No.: 214
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 20th October 2010, 3:36pm)
Well whoever it was established once and for all the free licenses are a farce and once you release material on them anyone can do anything they want and the grantor of the license is powerless to do anything about it. The only thing accomplished was to genuflect to Stallman sufficiently to stop him from running his mouth against the change.
Well, I wouldn't go that far: the grantors are powerless not because of the license terms, but because they lack access to the necessary legal resources.
Wikimedia could use some of its N million dollars to protect it's volunteers efforts -- especially in egregious cases involving particularly high value contributions. Just a few cases to set an example would be sufficient. But as far as anyone has been able to determine (cf. almost any action, or inaction, they take), the WMF doesn't give a shit about editors, beyond what they can contribute.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Wed 20th October 2010, 9:55pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 20th October 2010, 3:36pm)
Well whoever it was established once and for all the free licenses are a farce and once you release material on them anyone can do anything they want and the grantor of the license is powerless to do anything about it. The only thing accomplished was to genuflect to Stallman sufficiently to stop him from running his mouth against the change.
Well, I wouldn't go that far: the grantors are powerless not because of the license terms, but because they lack access to the necessary legal resources.
Wikimedia could use some of its N million dollars to protect it's volunteers efforts -- especially in egregious cases involving particularly high value contributions. Just a few cases to set an example would be sufficient. But as far as anyone has been able to determine (cf. almost any action, or inaction, they take), the WMF doesn't give a shit about editors, beyond what they can contribute.
Dude, the guy who wrote the license (Stallman) traded off their (supposed) rights like he was party himself.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri 26th May 2006, 12:21pm
Member No.: 214
QUOTE(Emperor @ Wed 20th October 2010, 6:56pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 20th October 2010, 11:36am)
Well whoever it was established once and for all the free licenses are a farce and once you release material on them anyone can do anything they want and the grantor of the license is powerless to do anything about it.
In my opinion, this is one of the most significant moments in Wikipedia's history. I'd be interested to hear what Mr. Godwin has to say about it once some time has passed.
If Steve Ballmer can be egged because, as I understand it, Microsoft charges students for software in Hungary:
wherever and whenever they show their miserable faces in public. For the remainder of their lives, long they may be.
What they did was absolutely reprehensible, beyond the pale. It showed the true colors of these so-called leaders of Free Culture, demonstrated with total clarity their fundamental lack of respect for the content creators.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun 1st Nov 2009, 3:08pm
Member No.: 15,107
QUOTE
If nothing else, Mr. Godwin will be remembered as the genius who somehow finagled the switch from GFDL to CC-by-SA.
Fair Use kills any kind of free license. If i am in USA, i can take just about anything and pretend to use it under the concept of Fair Use and Fair Dealing, why bother with licenses? Almost no one would abide by them and in any case it's all reduced to a person name, if not a website name ("this photo comes from site X" and that's about it for license compliance), thanks to the latest CC versions.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,833
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042
QUOTE(Text @ Thu 21st October 2010, 7:35pm)
QUOTE
If nothing else, Mr. Godwin will be remembered as the genius who somehow finagled the switch from GFDL to CC-by-SA.
Fair Use kills any kind of free license. If i am in USA, i can take just about anything and pretend to use it under the concept of Fair Use and Fair Dealing, why bother with licenses? Almost no one would abide by them and in any case it's all reduced to a person name, if not a website name ("this photo comes from site X" and that's about it for license compliance), thanks to the latest CC versions.
What are you saying? That the vast majority of Wikipedians do not understand the legal conditions in which they contribute content?
If nothing else, Mr. Godwin will be remembered as the genius who somehow finagled the switch from GFDL to CC-by-SA.
Fair Use kills any kind of free license. If i am in USA, i can take just about anything and pretend to use it under the concept of Fair Use and Fair Dealing, why bother with licenses? Almost no one would abide by them and in any case it's all reduced to a person name, if not a website name ("this photo comes from site X" and that's about it for license compliance), thanks to the latest CC versions.
What are you saying? That the vast majority of Wikipedians do not understand the legal conditions in which they contribute content?
Probably very little of the articles are copyrightable on wikipedia. If it is plain facts they can't be copyrighted anyway. Most of the prose is plagiarized from elsewhere so they won't get copyright on that, then it gets micro tweaked with numerous de minimus word changes, sentence reorganisations, and punctuation changes, and you rarely get to claim copyright on a spelling fix, or comma insertion.
The copyrightable stuff on wikipedia mainly exists in the talk pages, the trolls, and the vandalisms.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
What, no photos of the office despedida festivities?
Out with Godwin, In with the new sycophant
Wed 20th October 2010, 2:41pm
