Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-11-06/In the media

Discuss this story

Hey, I finally (quasi) made it onto a Signpost! :) E_F_₅ 17:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5: - You sound like a wild and quasi guy. Please let us know which article you are referring to! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: The CBDTaF deletion discussion was initiated by me (albeit under a different username). It isn’t the prettiest of AfDs, but oh well. E_F_₅ 18:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5: - Ah, so you're responsible for that mess! If you're lucky, you might get the record for longest AFD. But I think it might be snow closed as no consensus. As I just looked at it, I was thinking I might !vote keep, because of all the reliable sources mentioned, but then I'd really have to read the article to make a final decision and figured "naw". They actually seem pretty well behaved for such a contentious AFD. Pleasure to make your acquaintance. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's most likely going to be closed as "no consensus", I'm just sad I didn't get that ~~million~~ billion dollars from Elon (kidding, of course). It's my pleasure as well. :) E_F_₅ 20:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For folks wondering about the outcome of the Portland mayoral election, the Oregonian called it (based on an incomplete vote tally and a new ranked voting system), for Keith Wilson 1st, Carmen Rubio 2nd, and Rene Gonzalez 3rd. Gonzalez early on had been the leading candidate. The likely cause for his loss was simply that he was too far to the right of Portland voters and that an organized "Don't rank Gonzalez" movement ran a tough campaign directly against him. Did the paid editing scandal have anything to do with his loss? Perhaps a bit, but he also had a couple other communication problems that together might have been more important (IMHO). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the Australian place name, I'm very confused about the PDF. Page 2 says the work is licensed under CC-BY 4.0 and CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0. So which one is it? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch - I can confirm that p.2 of the report lists the 2 different CC licenses. I'm looking into it further. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Dual-licence is a thing. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I've contacted the right people and am confident that the apparent contradiction will soon be corrected. Which license? I'm not sure yet. Jonatan Svensson Glad's comment is interesting though. It might not apply to CC licenses, but it might. In which case, it might seem that reusers would always pick the least restrictive CC-BY, but what if they chose CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0? It would seem to me that the next set of resusers would have to use CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0, if only because they didn't know that a CC-BY copy existed. The only thing I can see in the CC's explanation is that you can't impose additional restrictions, so it would matter which license applied first. In this case ... No, that's just too big a can of worms for me. I'll say that the least restrictive (CC-BY) must apply. Unless the author then released a copy CC-0, ... Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  As a Commons admin, I can sy it is not unusual. You may also license the same content different licenses on different sites - such as cc-by on Commons, but CC-BY-NC-ND on e.g. Flickr, but "All rights reserved" on their own website. There's nothing wrong with that. Ans as you say, he next set of resusers would have to use CC-BY-NC-ND unless they find the more free license option. Even on Commons some file may be licensed with both a "free" cc-by license, but also a nc-nd license as well (we even have some templates to support that). Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - @Josve05a: I've quickly looked around on Commons and couldn't find anything. Could you post a link here? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        To clarify with a simpler example, take a look at c:Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 on Commons, where reusers can choose any version of cc-by-sa they prefer. Similarly, File:US-power-strip-rotated.jpg is licensed under both cc-by-sa 3.0 and cc-by-nc-sa 2.0. Although we could remove the “non-free” license, due the share-alike requirement (-sa-) the secondary license (albeit more restrictive) makes it possible for reusers to work with the more restrictive license if they want to incorporate the media into a project that won’t be as freely licensed. It’s about flexibility for reusers while still respecting the licensing terms. However, the PDF above I believe might wither be a mistake or they meant to attribute the licenses to different part (such as the text being ccc-by, while the design or media might be -nc-nd or something. But since they have published this, their original intend do not matter as much...) Also, they are also using images from Adobestock, which are not freely licensed, so the licenses do not apply to those images making it even more complicated to determined what is freely licensed and what is not. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]