Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-07/News and notes
Discuss this story
Google Art Project edit
I'm surprised you didn't quote the WMF blog post on the NPG, Protecting the public domain and sharing our cultural heritage, which sets out WMF's stance on the matter:
- "The Wikimedia Foundation sympathizes with cultural institutions’ desire for revenue streams to help them maintain services for their audiences. And yet, if that revenue stream requires an institution to lock up and severely limit access to its educational materials, rather than allowing the materials to be freely available to everyone, that strikes us as counter to those institutions’ educational mission. It is hard to see a plausible argument that excluding public domain content from a free, non-profit encyclopedia serves any public interest whatsoever."
As well as Commons, it's been a matter of heated discussion on internal-l (which, despite the name, is mostly a chapters list these days, I should clarify).
I understand clarification is currently being sought from Google on whether they really meant to attempt to enclose public domain works with an EULA - David Gerard (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
And my apologies to Derrick for calling him "Derek"! - David Gerard (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
New General Counsel edit
According to his LinkedIn profile, he's quite an experienced litigator. It'd be interesting to know more about why he's taken the job with Wikimedia Foundation. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Seems there's little mystery as to why an accomplished and credentialed expert would want to work for one of the greatest projects in the history of the world in a position to take on all variety of cutting edge threats with a minimum of corporate or institutional bureaucracy among a community of passionate volunteers. Are you suggesting we have some hidden issue coming to trial? Ocaasi (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'm not suggesting anything about a "hidden issue coming to trial". Rather, being a lawyer for a nonprofit tends to be low-pay/high-aggravation, and the Wikimedia Foundation certainly fits that pattern. His career is as a prosecutor and business lawyer. Plus since he's quite experienced, he's not taking the job for experience-building reasons. Wikimedia is only cutting-edge in a narrow sector of law. Most of the job seems to be rather mundane legal housekeeping, and dealing with constant copyright and libel complaints. Thus, it'd be interesting to know why it appealed to him, what drew him to the position. -- Seth Finkelstein 17:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe he just got tired of the upper legal crust. I know I would. the WMF position is a stable, welcoming position with a strong following. ResMar 20:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, being WMF counsel is many things, but "stable" and "welcoming" are not words I'd use to describe it. The money is also pretty low, especially given it's a senior lawyer position. Now, it's certainly possible that he's made a pile from his time at eBay, and views this as a kind of public service. Again, I don't mean to imply any negative reason. But it would make a good question for an interview. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- We should definitely interview him, for a Signpost feature, and ask him that very question. But I still can't imagine the answer would be very surprising. Wikipedia is a phenomenal and unique global project and he gets to be the head honcho of the entire legal department. It's low on paperwork and high on interesting people. And it's for a good cause. After a career as decorated as his, it seems like a fitting continuation of his work, if not a compelling mix of geeky reward and public service. Ocaasi (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, being WMF counsel is many things, but "stable" and "welcoming" are not words I'd use to describe it. The money is also pretty low, especially given it's a senior lawyer position. Now, it's certainly possible that he's made a pile from his time at eBay, and views this as a kind of public service. Again, I don't mean to imply any negative reason. But it would make a good question for an interview. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Editor to article ratio edit
Declines in readers editing articles are not welcome but could, in part, be a function of bots dealing with obvious vandalism or similar factors. It would be interesting to see graphs of active-editors-to-total-article-number ratios, which may show more dramatic changes. Ben MacDui 20:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)