the Wikipedia Help Project | (Rated A-class, Top-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Archives |
---|
Archive 2 (Mar 2006 - Jan 2008) Archive 3 (Feb 2008 - 2010) Archive 4 (Feb 2010 - Feb 2014) Archive 5 (Feb 2014 - present) |
Threads older than 20 days may be archived by MiszaBot II. |
See list of subpages of "Wikipedia:Contact us".
run-on sentence
Comma needed as shown here:
Edits are not the responsibility of the Wikimedia Foundation (the organisation that hosts the site) nor of its staff, and edits will not usually be made in response to an email request. --Espoo (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comma needed after "staff": ...nor of its staff and edits... --Espoo (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Updating to CC-BY-SA 4.0?
Could we get this page updated so that it recommends that editors upload under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license instead of the now-outdated 3.0 version? That would be great! Also, I wonder if the page might be rephrased to be 1.) more encouraging for people to use Commons rather than suggesting that they might just as well upload to Wikipedia directly (when this is inefficient and usually not necessary), and 2.) to be less encouraging that people come up with some kind of declaration of consent on their own, "or use ours", when the fact is that unless they use ours, their statement will be rejected by OTRS, which is only a waste of time. Thoughts? Thank you! KDS4444 (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- @KDS4444: You don't say which page, but presumably you mean Wikipedia:Contact us - Licensing. But has your proposal been approved by the Foundation's legal department? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- You know, it has not. Let me contact them and see what they say. Thanks for pointing this out to me. KDS4444 (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've now heard back from Legal. As their disclaimer specifically states that the recipient must not copy or disclose the contents of their messages, I will summarize what I was told by "Jacob": he offered strong encouragement that volunteers begin transitioning to the 4.0 licenses where possible, as he considered 4.0 to be better written and more flexible than 3.0. Apparently they (Legal) are planning on having a community-wide discussion on the topic of wholesale migration to 4.0 "at some point later this year" (whoops, I copied that), but are holding off until Creative Commons finishes translating their latest license into all of their intended languages. The legal team is also not entirely confident about the use of the 4.0 license for article content that was originally created in 3.0, but expressed only encouragement for the increased use of the 4.0 license with regard to images. Inasmuch as what we are talking about here is the uploading of images, I am taking this as a green light from them to update the recommended license from 3.0 to 4.0. How does that sound? KDS4444 (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- OK, so the next step is to get the upload forms amended so that they offer the 4.0 licenses (we already have the two necessary templates,
{{cc-by-4.0}}
and{{cc-by-sa-4.0}}
). We should not recommend the use of a license that isn't available when uploading, it only causes confusion. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- OK, so the next step is to get the upload forms amended so that they offer the 4.0 licenses (we already have the two necessary templates,
- I've now heard back from Legal. As their disclaimer specifically states that the recipient must not copy or disclose the contents of their messages, I will summarize what I was told by "Jacob": he offered strong encouragement that volunteers begin transitioning to the 4.0 licenses where possible, as he considered 4.0 to be better written and more flexible than 3.0. Apparently they (Legal) are planning on having a community-wide discussion on the topic of wholesale migration to 4.0 "at some point later this year" (whoops, I copied that), but are holding off until Creative Commons finishes translating their latest license into all of their intended languages. The legal team is also not entirely confident about the use of the 4.0 license for article content that was originally created in 3.0, but expressed only encouragement for the increased use of the 4.0 license with regard to images. Inasmuch as what we are talking about here is the uploading of images, I am taking this as a green light from them to update the recommended license from 3.0 to 4.0. How does that sound? KDS4444 (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- You know, it has not. Let me contact them and see what they say. Thanks for pointing this out to me. KDS4444 (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)