from_name: Brad

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
Scientific papers, newspaper archives, and image archives, and music.

The logic behind the first two is that I'd like to move the stuff we use as
references into the Wikimedia space.

The logic behind the second two is to extend Wikipedia etc. with material
that can't simply be re-expressed.

That is, I can "de-copyright" some written fact by rewriting the same
information. I can't "de-copyright" a photograph very easily.


list: commons-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: damodar vinayak bale

subject: [Commons-l] Language

body:
 ?  Can one refer to book "How Language Works" By:David Crystal,
    published by Penguin Books.
      Shyam.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061018/e56d8198/attachment.htm


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
On 10/18/06, Brad <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> The logic behind the second two is to extend Wikipedia etc. with material
> that can't simply be re-expressed.
>
> That is, I can "de-copyright" some written fact by rewriting the same
> information. I can't "de-copyright" a photograph very easily.

Although it's not always so simple...

As is text often needs to be rewritten to make it conform to the
purpose and style of Wikipedia... so you could argue that the impact
of copyright is actually minimal.

The same is often true for many illustrations.  Although there are
lots of 'found' photographs which can be made to work, they are often
far from ideal... portraying the subject in a manner which is
excessively artistic, or otherwise far from maximally informative.

Making a quality illustration (photographic) takes a lot of work... It
takes skills which much be practice, access, equipment...  But it does
not take more of these (well except perhaps equipment for the
photographic illustration case) than it takes to write a featured
article.

It's true that it's easier to collaborate on a article than an
illustration (although the difference is less so for synthetic
illustrations like SVGs), but if you look at the history of our
featured articles you often find cases where the heavy lifting is done
by a single contributor.

I honestly believe that the image situation isn't as hard as is often
believed... and that it can be addressed by getting more experienced
folks working on our projects.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

body:
Jimmy Collins wrote:

>If you agree to the GPL then please post the new language files on http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ .
>
>Cheers Jimmy
>
>
>
I will comply.  Cool looking bug on the site BTW.

Jus,

Jeff

>
>
>>-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
>>Von: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
>>Gesendet: 17.10.06 15:03:01
>>An: "Wikimedia developers" <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
>>Betreff: Re: [Wikitech-l] Cherokee Message Files Posted for mediawiki-1.8.2
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>>On 10/17/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Cherokee Messages Files have been posted for MediaWiki-1.8.2 and
>>>additions to Names.php for Cherokee Phonetics (non-Syllabary)
>>>as a new language code 'chrp'.  They are released under the GFDL and may
>>>be incorporated into future MediaWiki releases.
>>>
>>>
>>MediaWiki is GPL, not GFDL.  The messages have to be GPL or a
>>compatible license.
>>_______________________________________________
>>Wikitech-l mailing list
>>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>


list: wikien-l

from_name: Cheney Shill

subject: [WikiEN-l] PR & Fake News Update

body:
Because it's relevant at the moment, Ogrish and its holding
company Beyond Vision Media have never been mentioned by
PRwatch.org or sourcewatch.org.

On to who/what is being mentioned at the moment from the
October 18 "Weekly Spin":

1. PROFITING FROM A NONPROFIT STATUS, THANKS TO ABRAMOFF
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101200889.html
...
  The Senate report finds the groups probably violated
  their tax-exempt status, "by laundering payments and then
disbursing
  funds at Mr. Abramoff's direction; taking payments in
exchange for
  writing newspaper columns and press releases that put Mr.
Abramoff's
  clients in a favorable light; introducing Mr. Abramoff's
clients to
...
SOURCE: Washington Post, October 13, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/5303

4. FAKE NEWS LOBBY GROUP GEARS UP
http://www.prweek.com/us/news/article/598664/Broadcast-PR-companies-unite-amid-ongoing-scrutiny-VNRs/

  A group of producers of video news releases (VNRs) have
formed the
  National Association of Broadcast Communicators (NABC) to
campaign
  against the mandatory disclosure of fake news. NABC
Vice-President
  Mike Hill, who is is President of News Broadcast Network,
told PR
  Week that "disclosure is something that TV and radio
stations should
  do as they feel necessary from a news standpoint."
Mandatory
  disclosure, Hill claimed, "would be unworkable." The new
group is
  supported by the Public Relations Society of America. "We
all play
  an important role in the news gathering and dissemination
process,"
  said Michael Cherenson, the chair of PRSA's advocacy
practice.
SOURCE: PR Week (sub req'd), October 13, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/5301

~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)

--spam may follow--

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:

>On 18/10/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>
>>No.  Copyrights are only deductible to the extent of the basis in the
>>property (essentially how much you spent to obtain it).  For copyrights
>>purchased from someone else you might also be able to deduct any net income
>>which the charity makes off the copyright.  See the American Jobs Creation
>>Act of 2004.
>>
>>
>So *that's* what the "basis" is. I was finding that detail
>surprisingly hard to figure out!
>
>"If you donate a patent or other intellectual property ... your
>deduction is limited to the basis of the property or the fair market
>value of the property, whichever is less." - IRS Publication 526.
>
>So does this mean that it's considered valueless until someone has
>bought or sold it - it has no basis until then? I can sort of see how
>this might happen, but it seems conceptually odd on some level...
>
Cost and value are two different concepts.  The "basis" is essentially
what you paid for the property.  Property can be real, chattel or
intangible.  For this discussion the emphasis on "intellectual property"
is on "property" of which this is an intangible form.  The basis can be
adjusted for various events that occur while you hold the property.
These adjustments will depend on how the subject country's tax laws are
structured, and one should never assume that what works in one country
will work in another.  Among the most common activities that give cause
for such adjustments are depreciation, depletion or amortization.  Such
claims will lead to a reduction of the basis.

"Value", in the absence of an actual sale in a fair market, is often an
artificial amount.  The term "fair market value" represents what would
be the agreed price paid by a willing buyer to a willing seller in a
market where both parties have full knowledge of the market conditions.
This idealized figure is the subject of frequent tax litigation,
especially since the tax effects on the two parties will usually be in
conflict.

Where the value exceeds the basis there will be either a profit or a
capital gain depending on why you had the property in the first place.
For a person that does not have the property as a part of a business it
will generally be a capital gain.  When such a property is gifted to a
charitable organization it triggers a capital gain.  It also triggers a
charitable donation deduction for the full value.  Under some tax laws
the net effect will be that you have a deduction for what it cost you to
buy the property.  One of the motivations behind this kind of legal
structure is to prevent donations in kind at artificially elevated
valuations.

Notwithstanding this elementary situation some countries will build in
more favorable incentives into their tax laws to encourage charitable
giving.  Because of the complexity of these rules one is well advised to
review the laws of his own country before making such a donation.  Gifts
to foreign organizations frequently do not receive the same benefits as
domestic gifts.

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
gwern branwen wrote:

>On 10/18/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 18/10/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>No. Copyrights are only deductible to the extent of the basis in the
>>>property (essentially how much you spent to obtain it). For copyrights
>>>purchased from someone else you might also be able to deduct any net income
>>>which the charity makes off the copyright. See the American Jobs Creation
>>>Act of 2004.
>>>
>>>
>>So *that's* what the "basis" is. I was finding that detail
>>surprisingly hard to figure out!
>>
>>"If you donate a patent or other intellectual property ... your
>>deduction is limited to the basis of the property or the fair market
>>value of the property, whichever is less." - IRS Publication 526.
>>
>>So does this mean that it's considered valueless until someone has
>>bought or sold it - it has no basis until then? I can sort of see how
>>this might happen, but it seems conceptually odd on some level...
>>
>>
>
>Well, I hear that's one definition of value economics uses - what
>someone is willing to pay for something.
>
>Although suppose I wrote an article and sold a guaranteed licensed
>free and vandalism free copy to some project like Citizendium or the
>Encyclopedia Project, and I donated the copyright to the Wikimedia
>Foundation: would that then be deductible?
>
Usually no.

Ec


from_name: gwern branwen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
On 10/18/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/10/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> > No. Copyrights are only deductible to the extent of the basis in the
> > property (essentially how much you spent to obtain it). For copyrights
> > purchased from someone else you might also be able to deduct any net income
> > which the charity makes off the copyright. See the American Jobs Creation
> > Act of 2004.
>
> So *that's* what the "basis" is. I was finding that detail
> surprisingly hard to figure out!
>
> Hmm.
>
> "If you donate a patent or other intellectual property ... your
> deduction is limited to the basis of the property or the fair market
> value of the property, whichever is less." - IRS Publication 526.
>
> So does this mean that it's considered valueless until someone has
> bought or sold it - it has no basis until then? I can sort of see how
> this might happen, but it seems conceptually odd on some level...
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray

Well, I hear that's one definition of value economics uses - what
someone is willing to pay for something.

Although suppose I wrote an article and sold a guaranteed licensed
free and vandalism free copy to some project like Citizendium or the
Encyclopedia Project, and I donated the copyright to the Wikimedia
Foundation: would that then be deductible?

--Gwern


from_name: Parker Peters

subject: [WikiEN-l] Episode summaries

body:
On 10/17/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> Earle Martin wrote:
> > On 17/10/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I'd fail you in any of my English classes for being a slave to
> >> authorial intent.
> >
> > It is a testament to my having given up English classes that I don't
> > even understand what that means... :)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent :)

Doesn't Amy Tan go around telling people they've got it wrong about her
books for the sheer pleasure of fucking around with the nitwits who are
slaves to authorial intent?

>> (Which is not to say "Hey, you know what we need, more OR" so much as
> >> "For the love of GOD will people stop assuming they instinctively
> >> know how/what to cite outside of their field?")
> >
> > Indeed.
>
> For stuff like this where one show is making a reference or homage to
> another, I'd say cite the thing it's making an homage to and count it as
> "original research" only if after watching the two side-by-side the
> reference isn't blatantly obvious. There will no doubt be borderline
> cases where debate can be had, but that's life on Wikipedia and
> shouldn't be feared.

Bingo!


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

body:
So would you say: hey, codes are fun, let's invent some new ones to give
some languages/dialect a space?

And then you would go to iso and say: hey guys - we have that neat code
... it is a bit messy, but you should adopt it since otherwise it is not
going to end up in software localisation etc?

Great point ... by not attributing a proper code you help those who are
against that regional language or dialect, because you prevent a code
from becoming official and you contribute to the fact that these poeple
will much a harder time to get software etc. in their language.

Sun is still at iso 639-2 and sooner or later will go to 639-3 and this
means for example that when it comes to languag code an "any code
language" will not be included. Software that works with such language
codes and locales will not be able to handle the fantasy code.

We are well aware of the fact that we require a lot - but please
understand also that by requiring certain things we make sure that these
languages really have a chance ... otherwise they would be confined into
wikipedia (that has some kind of relevance) and certain other less
relevant projects without even becoming the chance to reach an official
standing.

I'd say that by making such things sure for those small communities we
well do something for them: assure that their language has a real
chance. Well of course ... if the community then prefers not to have an
easy way to being reknown officially ...

Thanks, Sabine

Mark Williamson schrieb:
> The problem with your POV is that it isn't shared by the community.
> When you are a member of a subcommittee, you don't necessarily have to
> act in line with the will of the community, but the solutions you
> advocate should not be in total opposition to what the community
> believes to be reasonable.
>
> You would likely vote to prohibit the creation of Latgalian using the
> code "bat-ltg". The community disagrees with you, as you can tell from
> the messages already sent. There is precedent in existing Wikimedia
> projects to support the usage of such code. You will suggest code such
> as "lat-ltg",  which community and requester deemed unacceptable due
> to its political implications,  of which the current proposed code has
> none (while the status of Latgalian is controversial as a dialect or
> language, everybody agrees that it is Baltic, and thus the more
> inclusive code is best). If a subcommittee is to work properly, it
> needs to be formed of indivduals who are not only knowledgeable about
> the topics involved, but who can aslo be expected to act reasonably
> and (with a certain degree of latitude) in line with the will of the
> larger community which they serve.
>
> The current process for requesting new languages, chaotic and
> imperfect though it can be at times, is wonderful for sifting out
> minority views such as yours so that we are not forced to take a
> solution which is unsatisfactory to the community.
>
> Mark
>

Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Evan Prodromou

subject: [Wikitech-l] How to implement 'wikihow' web style??

body:
On Mon, 2006-16-10 at 20:22 +0800, ??? wrote:

> i think lots of people here had browsed this site www.wikihow.com. i have several technical question about the site,dos anybody can give
> me some trains of thought :)

I know that Travis Derouin, the tech lead on wikiHow, has made a lot of
customizations for the site. None of what you asked about is possible
with vanilla MediaWiki, as far as I know. Maybe you can ask Travis about
it?

~Evan


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 17/10/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Although gmaxwell will eat me, yes. GFDL is _viral_ too. The bigger trick
>> of GFDL and which may make some parties to still pay for it is that you need
>> to include a copy of the GFDL (several pages). If it hasn't other license,
>> they
>> must contact you (and get an agreement) to use it without such terms.
>
>
> Yes. For using images in print, the GFDL is pretty much a pretend free
> content license, as the terms are ridiculously onerous in practice.
>

Insert my favourite cartoon here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:BD-propagande_colour_en.jpg

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20061018/7778f337/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikipedia-l] kid safe

body:
David Goodman wrote:
> There are differences, some of them relevant.
> AU didn't include the pictures, neither the general or the specialized.
> AU didn't include the references or the outside sites.
> AU didn't include much about the religious attitudes, especially the
> Islamic. .

I think you meant "kids.net.au", not my country as a whole...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20061018/1d2b9404/attachment.pgp


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

body:
Hoi,
You are utterly barking up the wrong tree. Complying with standards does
not mean that you cannot have things outside of the standards. It means
that you comply with the standards as far as they go. There is no reason
at all not to have new projects when these projects comply with what the
Wikimedia Foundation accepts as it's policy for that type of project.

Your assumptions are blinding you. It is also rich that you use "the
community" as an argument. This same community has asked for the closure
of wikipedias that you fought tooth and nail to preserve. In a previous
post you were talking about political reasons to do certain things.
Political arguments are the ultimate POINT OF VIEW. When we are to come
to a reasonable policy for new projects, flash crowds and political
arguments will have to be considered of little importance because they
either deny or ask for things that have little linguistic merit.
Remember, what we aim to achieve; bringing knowledge to all people in
their own language.

To repeat and conclude; compliance with standards does not prevent the
creation of new version of WMF projects.

Thanks,
    GerardM

Mark Williamson wrote:
> Again, this seems like a view not shared by the community. If we have
> a subcommittee full of people who have no wiggle room when it comes to
> codes, it won't be very good for us in the long term.
>
> Wikimedia language codes are not permanent! This needs to be
> emphasised. If a new code is accepted in the future, we can adopt it
> (as we hopefully will with BAT-SMG -> ZOG).
>
> In the mean time, though, it is awfully mean of us (or rather, of
> you), to restrict Wikipedias to those varieties viewed by SIL as
> languages.
>
> So in the mean time, thanks to you guys, we can have a yib.wp in a
> language that is universally agreed to not be a language, while we
> must have a single yuf.wp against the wishes of the speakers of those
> 3 languages, who request and require separate literatures? That makes
> no sense.
>
> Compliance with standards is good, but if it prevents the creation of
> a Wiki, we should ignore it.
>
> You and Gerard award ISO 639 too much importance.
>
> Mark
>
> On 18/10/06, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
>
>> So would you say: hey, codes are fun, let's invent some new ones to give
>> some languages/dialect a space?
>>
>> And then you would go to iso and say: hey guys - we have that neat code
>> ... it is a bit messy, but you should adopt it since otherwise it is not
>> going to end up in software localisation etc?
>>
>> Great point ... by not attributing a proper code you help those who are
>> against that regional language or dialect, because you prevent a code
>> from becoming official and you contribute to the fact that these poeple
>> will much a harder time to get software etc. in their language.
>>
>> Sun is still at iso 639-2 and sooner or later will go to 639-3 and this
>> means for example that when it comes to languag code an "any code
>> language" will not be included. Software that works with such language
>> codes and locales will not be able to handle the fantasy code.
>>
>> We are well aware of the fact that we require a lot - but please
>> understand also that by requiring certain things we make sure that these
>> languages really have a chance ... otherwise they would be confined into
>> wikipedia (that has some kind of relevance) and certain other less
>> relevant projects without even becoming the chance to reach an official
>> standing.
>>
>> I'd say that by making such things sure for those small communities we
>> well do something for them: assure that their language has a real
>> chance. Well of course ... if the community then prefers not to have an
>> easy way to being reknown officially ...
>>
>> Thanks, Sabine
>>
>>
>> Mark Williamson schrieb:
>>
>>> The problem with your POV is that it isn't shared by the community.
>>> When you are a member of a subcommittee, you don't necessarily have to
>>> act in line with the will of the community, but the solutions you
>>> advocate should not be in total opposition to what the community
>>> believes to be reasonable.
>>>
>>> You would likely vote to prohibit the creation of Latgalian using the
>>> code "bat-ltg". The community disagrees with you, as you can tell from
>>> the messages already sent. There is precedent in existing Wikimedia
>>> projects to support the usage of such code. You will suggest code such
>>> as "lat-ltg",  which community and requester deemed unacceptable due
>>> to its political implications,  of which the current proposed code has
>>> none (while the status of Latgalian is controversial as a dialect or
>>> language, everybody agrees that it is Baltic, and thus the more
>>> inclusive code is best). If a subcommittee is to work properly, it
>>> needs to be formed of indivduals who are not only knowledgeable about
>>> the topics involved, but who can aslo be expected to act reasonably
>>> and (with a certain degree of latitude) in line with the will of the
>>> larger community which they serve.
>>>
>>> The current process for requesting new languages, chaotic and
>>> imperfect though it can be at times, is wonderful for sifting out
>>> minority views such as yours so that we are not forced to take a
>>> solution which is unsatisfactory to the community.
>>>
>>> Mark


subject: [Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

body:
Mark, are you able to read English? Where did I or Gerard write that we
restrict languages to ISO 639-3 codes? If any we talk about ISO 639-3
and to add specifiers to it to get a proper code for officially not
existing languages.

I think you are again reading only half of what is written there and
live in your own nice clouds up there in the sky ...

We have to deal with reality - and reality is such that

1) if something is a language and is part of another language code this
language officially does not exist.
2) by making it the language code it is attributed to + a specifier you
give it a distinction from that code and it starts to exist at least
separately (and that is one step ahead)
3) by having a distinction you can start to work on the differences
4) when you have finally enough material and the basics for the request
of an own code: you can request it - otherwise: go ahead working on it
until you reach that point

I don't know what is against the community there - people can get their
projects - no doubt - of course: nothing falls from heaven ... they will
have to work and make sure their project and with that their language is
able to survive.

You should know very well what it means when you need to proof that a
language exists ... or am I wrong and everything in the last year was
always all to obvious and went smoothly?

You should not doubt about someon trying to be objective. Objectivity
can be preserved only by facts on the ground - not by: I am favourable
or against because I think this or that ...

People say: well, we are from there, we know which language we speak ...
well, I believe that ... but: there is a funny thing we have in
Wikipedia: no original research ... uhm ... funny right? So now we
create a language that has not been there up to now with an own neat
code and say "this is this and that language" without it being official
... who are we to do such an original research? You can give these
people only what is fact and help them to get their facts together.

People wanting their language reknown have a right to have it distinct
in the right way - that can be done only by complying to standards,
otherwise you will get simply a mess and will not be able to really go
ahead.

Multilingual mediawiki is not all too far away ... and it can, if we
work out a good strategy, be the solution for many language problems.
Why? Well, imagine that there is that macro language or that language
that has other languages included, but that up to now don't have an own
code .... well: they can co-operate on one wiki - we are about
languages, right? so why would we try to separate the macro language to
many small wikipedias? Does it make sense? From a time and
administration point of view there is little sense in doubling the
efforts ... Imagine to have one admin per locale that belongs to the
macro language .... that would mean the clean up work with vandals would
not depend on one person only. Certain kinds of contents could be
created contemporarily for all of the languages/dialects .... it would
shift all of them to another level.

Wikipedia is about community, about co-operation and not about
separation (or do I get somthing wrong?). Imagine if you have to go to 5
different wikis to do certain maintenance stuff ... how long does this
take? And how long would this take if you do it on one wiki only?
Remember: not all of us have the whole day to spend on the projects ...
give small languages a chance by co-operating, by not separating, but
helping each other to do things.

And now please come back on earth among living beings ... and consider
this with a logical mindset and not only "they are this or that ...." we
are not this or that, we have our experiences and these are at disposal
of all by trying to make the creation of new wikipedias as npov as possible.

Just saw your latest mail: there were no requirements and restrictions
published by us up to now ... well, I'd know that really ... clouds?

Thank you!

Sabine

P.S.: Sorry I will not go ahead discussing ... have to care about a
dictionary for kids - and that really needs work - I am definitely
taking too much time for discussions lately.

*****
Sabine Cretella
skype: sabinecretella
Help with the OLPC children's dictionary:
http://wiktionaryz.org/OLPC

Mark Williamson schrieb:
> Again, this seems like a view not shared by the community. If we have
> a subcommittee full of people who have no wiggle room when it comes to
> codes, it won't be very good for us in the long term.
>
> Wikimedia language codes are not permanent! This needs to be
> emphasised. If a new code is accepted in the future, we can adopt it
> (as we hopefully will with BAT-SMG -> ZOG).
>
> In the mean time, though, it is awfully mean of us (or rather, of
> you), to restrict Wikipedias to those varieties viewed by SIL as
> languages.
>
> So in the mean time, thanks to you guys, we can have a yib.wp in a
> language that is universally agreed to not be a language, while we
> must have a single yuf.wp against the wishes of the speakers of those
> 3 languages, who request and require separate literatures? That makes
> no sense.
>
> Compliance with standards is good, but if it prevents the creation of
> a Wiki, we should ignore it.
>
> You and Gerard award ISO 639 too much importance.
>
> Mark
>

Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com


list: foundation-l

from_name: P. Birken

subject: [Foundation-l] Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

body:
2006/10/18, meta.sj at gmail.com <meta.sj at gmail.com>:

> Hear, hear!  Halvor, I like this train of thought.   ---SJ

Really? I consider the theory that people who write I FUCKED YOUR
MAMA! into articles might turn into brilliant contributors one day,
because we let them do it to be not so well thought out.

Cheers,

Philipp


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Krishna Pagadala

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Redirects back to wiktionary/wikibooks and not local
	site

body:
Hi All,

Thanks to the feedback from this mailing list, I have been able to successfully build a enwiki mirror. I have been trying to expand my efforts to build enwiktionary, etc.

http://freeknowledge.dyndns.org/enwiktionary/

However, after I populate the enwiktionary database, attempts to access it cause it to redirect me to the main enwiktionary website and not my local host. Any idea on why this might be happening.

I have similar problems with wikibooks also. Th links point back to en.wikibooks
http://freeknowledge.dyndns.org/enwikibooks/

Thanks
Krishna

=====================================
Misinterpreting Copyright by Richard Stallman
"Die Gedanken Sind Frei": Free Software and the Struggle for Free Thought by Eben Moglen mp3 ogg
Free Knowledge blog

.

---------------------------------
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com.  Check it out.


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
On 18/10/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:

> No.  Copyrights are only deductible to the extent of the basis in the
> property (essentially how much you spent to obtain it).  For copyrights
> purchased from someone else you might also be able to deduct any net income
> which the charity makes off the copyright.  See the American Jobs Creation
> Act of 2004.

So *that's* what the "basis" is. I was finding that detail
surprisingly hard to figure out!

Hmm.

"If you donate a patent or other intellectual property ... your
deduction is limited to the basis of the property or the fair market
value of the property, whichever is less." - IRS Publication 526.

So does this mean that it's considered valueless until someone has
bought or sold it - it has no basis until then? I can sort of see how
this might happen, but it seems conceptually odd on some level...

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


from_name: Tim Starling

subject:
[Foundation-l] Business Week: Alexa numbers are rubbish,
 and the others are worse

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_43/b4006095.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily

It's probably no big surprise for those who are aware of Alexa's data
collection method. Just be glad we only use these statistics for curiosity
and bragging. For web companies who need to convince investors or
advertisers of their value, I can easily imagine the situation becoming
hellish.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: The Uninvited Co., Inc

subject: [WikiEN-l] Before reverting blanking, please read the text

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judy_Genshaft&diff=82245476&oldid=82239003

Yes, the University already saw it, and no, they're not happy.

This is not an isolated incident and I'm not trying to pick on the admin
who did it.  It reflects poorly on all of us that we have a culture that
puts twitch-game vandalism reversion on a lofty pedestal to the point
where people don't read the edits they're reinstating.

Bots are doing this too.  I've contacted the bot writers and asked them
to help prevent it but nothing gets done.

Yours in frustration,

The Uninvited Co., Inc.
(a Delaware corporation)


from_name: effe iets anders

subject: [Foundation-l] FoundationWiki accounts

body:
Hi Kizu,

Do you mean technically use it or more as in policy? Technically it is
quite easy, you go to the wiki where you want to import, go to the
page Special:Import, and you do some selections and click on import.
Maybe you have to use Special:ExpandTemplates to bring over the
templates looking all right.

On policy: there has been a good discussion on this very list some
time ago about the use of the foundationwiki. There were also
mentionings of moving away pages that are not totally necessarily,
such as outdated non-finished reports, failed projects. I think we
should focus on clear definitions of what shoudl stay. I think at
least should stay:

*Resolutions
*Bylaws and other formal documents of the WMF
*Static information pages (who's who in the board and on employees)
*Fundraising pages
*Official press releases
*List of all acknowledged wiki's, chapters etc.
*Benefactors / Sponsors

and possibly translations of these

So these should be moved to meta at least:

*News as in non-official press releases
*Usertalkpages
*Possibly userpages
*Quarto
*Pages like [[It is forbidden to take pictures !/Ru]]

and a lot of other pages like that.

I hope my cents will help.
Greetings, Lodewijk

2006/10/18, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com>:
> On 10/18/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > Aphaia (Kizu Naoko) now has permission to create FoundationWiki
> > accounts, together with Michael Snow.
>
> Thank you for granting this new right, also for all supports and trust
> all you involved people. I hope to utilize it thoughtfully for benefit
> for the Foundation and Project.
>
> Another right on that wiki may be hopefully not off topic: import
> right. It is now enabled both on meta and foundation wiki. So ... how
> can we use it actually?
>
> --
> Kizu Naoko
>   Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
>   * Nessuna poesia prima di noi *
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] FoundationWiki accounts


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [Wikipedia-l] kid safe

body:
On 18/10/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> On 10/17/06, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Now, review and compare
> >
> > http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/ma/Masturbation
> >
> > and
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation
>
> Having shorter, instructional texts about sexual behavior that are
> written specifically for adolescents would actually be a good thing.
> But that is perhaps something for Wikibooks/Wikijunior to work on. Sex
> ed is not something we should stay away from because it could ruffle
> some feathers. It is in fact (referring to broader sexual practices)
> critically important in areas where AIDS is widespread and sexual
> activity among teens is common. Well-illustrated free content safe sex
> guides in all languages could make a real difference.

This is a *fantastic* idea, something I'd really be interested in
participating in. Surely such a guide would be aimed at pre-adolescents
(10ish)?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Jimmy Collins

body:
If you agree to the GPL then please post the new language files on http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ .

Cheers Jimmy

> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Gesendet: 17.10.06 15:03:01
> An: "Wikimedia developers" <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Betreff: Re: [Wikitech-l] Cherokee Message Files Posted for mediawiki-1.8.2

> On 10/17/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> >
> > Cherokee Messages Files have been posted for MediaWiki-1.8.2 and
> > additions to Names.php for Cherokee Phonetics (non-Syllabary)
> > as a new language code 'chrp'.  They are released under the GFDL and may
> > be incorporated into future MediaWiki releases.
>
> MediaWiki is GPL, not GFDL.  The messages have to be GPL or a
> compatible license.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Pattern copyvios involving comic book characters

body:
No idea how we're going to unravel this one.

We have received, over a period of months, numerous reports to OTRS
regarding copyvios from the www.marvunapp.com web site.  That site
publishes character summaries for scores of comic book characters
ranging from the well-known to those obscure figures that make only
cameo appearances.  The summaries are written by a fairly small number
of contributors to the the site and are generally not edited once they
are posted.

Their site content is making its way to Wikipedia.  There are three
problems:
a) Cut and paste copying of text
b) Paraphrasing of text
c) Unattributed copying of images the site has scanned from comic books

(a) and (b) are copyright violations.  The problem goes back at least
six months and is ongoing.

(c) while not strictly speaking a copyvio since marvunapp.com is merely
making scans of flat art, is upsetting the site operators due to the
volume of material involved and the lack of attribution.  If left
unaddressed (c) is likely to make them more pedantic about their rights
regarding (a) and (b).  So far they've been pretty understanding and
supportive, considering.

Right now we don't know the extent of the problem because we've only
investigated cases that the marvunapp.com people have reported, which
cover perhaps a couple dozen pages all together.  I've investigated a
couple myself and it is very time consuming since often there is just a
paragraph or two in the middle of a longer Wikipedia article that's a
copyvio and the use of paraphrasing makes automated tools unhelpful.
Addressing these in a meaningful way is difficult because ongoing edits
after the copyvio leads to a badly polluted page history that no one
wants to delete, and I've ended up having my removals reverted over the
course of time by people who show up two weeks later and don't realize
when and why the text was removed, so they re-add it from the history.

The copyvios have been added by more than one user, probably because
unrelated people trying to expand our comic coverage have found
marvunapp.com so helpful.

I've asked for some help on WP:AN/I and so far no real takers although
there at least has been support for my block of one of the perps.

Here's what I think needs to be done:

* The pages marvunapp.com has reported to us need to be reviewed by
experienced editors and any copyvios found and dealt with at least in
the current version of the page.
* Ideally, the history should be purged.  In cases where this isn't
practical, notes should be left on the talk page so that people don't
erroneously assume they can re-integrate content from the history.
* The perpetrators should be re-educated about how big of a deal this is
and how much work it is to clean up.
* Pages where marvunapp.com was used as a reference should include
marvunapp.com in the list of references.
* Images taken from the marvunapp.com should be properly attributed even
if copyright doesn't apply.
* If we ever get everything else done, we would want to try to be a
little more vigilant in going through the comic articles ourselves
rather than waiting for the marvunapp.com people to report them.

Volunteers for all this drudgery should be IMO selected from a pool of
people who still believe that the main deciding factor in
inclusion/deletion debates should be the cost of hard disk space.

The Uninvited Co., Inc.
(a Delaware corporation)


from_name: Christopher Larberg

body:
On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 19:33 -0700, The Uninvited Co., Inc wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judy_Genshaft&diff=82245476&oldid=82239003
>
> Yes, the University already saw it, and no, they're not happy.
>
> This is not an isolated incident and I'm not trying to pick on the admin
> who did it.  It reflects poorly on all of us that we have a culture that
> puts twitch-game vandalism reversion on a lofty pedestal to the point
> where people don't read the edits they're reinstating.
>
> Bots are doing this too.  I've contacted the bot writers and asked them
> to help prevent it but nothing gets done.
>
> Yours in frustration,
>
> The Uninvited Co., Inc.
> (a Delaware corporation)

Pages should not be blanked, as [[WP:BLANK]] states. If someone has a
problem with an article's contents, we have numerous ways to deal with
that, including Office actions if the content is libelous or otherwise
legally problematic.

Blanking a page does no good anyway, since all the previous revisions
are in the history. And anyway, I'd be willing to bet that upwards of
90% of all page blankings are genuine, bad-faith vandalism, so you can't
really blame editors for occasionally making bad reverts.
--
Christopher Larberg <christopherlarberg at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061018/4e1552c4/attachment.pgp


from_name: Sean Whitton

body:
I would agree with switching the boxes - we need to assume good faith
with blocks, not the opposite. However, I agree that a lot of blocks
would need the box ticking - it would make sysops without scripts
think about it before hitting the button.

Just my thoughts.

S

On 18/10/06, P. Birken <pbirken at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2006/10/18, meta.sj at gmail.com <meta.sj at gmail.com>:
>
> > Hear, hear!  Halvor, I like this train of thought.   ---SJ
>
> Really? I consider the theory that people who write I FUCKED YOUR
> MAMA! into articles might turn into brilliant contributors one day,
> because we let them do it to be not so well thought out.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Philipp
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
	?Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty
		sean at silentflame.com | xyrael.net


from_name: ScottL

subject: [Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> ScottL wrote:
>
>>   Are you advocating dis-including a language because it does not have
>> an acceptable abbreviation?  Or are you maintaining that it is not
>> actually a language?
>>
>>   If the first, then I suspect that is not a good reason to disallow a
>> new wikipedia to be formed.
>>
> The practical approach is still to presume that the existence of an
> official ISO 639 is strong evidence for allowing a Wikipedia in that
> language, and that the absence carries a presumption that we should
> not.  Nevertheless, any presumption is rebuttable.  Several constructed
> languages have a code, but the barriers for having Wikipedias in those
> should be higher.  For languages without a code there is still a large
> swath of q-codes available for user definition if a language meets our
> other criteria.
>
> Ec

   From a practical approach you have a point but I hesitate to adopt
the POV of an external organization even a standards body unless the POV
is can be reasonably supported.  Which means it should still be a case
by case thing.

SKL


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
Platonides wrote:
> "gwern branwen":
>> *Can* we sue? My understanding was that if they sold us copies and
>> then tried to restrict redistribution of those PD works (and no EULA
>> or contract was signed) simply through copyright mechanisms, then we'd
>> have some sort of legal recourse, but that we can't demand that they
>> make the works physically available simply because they happen to be
>> PD if they decline to have us as customers.
>>
>> --Gwern
>
> IANAL so don't trust me, but i don't think someone could force me to pay
> for a PD material. However they would probably ask you a fee for sending
> you it or having saved it for X years :-(
> Lawyers should be consulted.

   But you cannot force them to give it to you either.  They if they own
a copy, can offer to sell it to you.  A real property transaction.  You
can decline to pay and they can decline to give you a copy.

SKL


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Indie gives WP The Big Question (Mark?)

body:
Today's Independent:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article1886601.ece

is one of a daily series of full page 'analyses' of burning questions, such as 'do we need a better online encyclopedia than ...' (the greasy kid's stuff). Also in today's Indie an article on Citizendium, which quite likely provoked all this.

Interesting to count the inaccuracies: my favourite is that Jimbo introduced 3RR post-Siegenthaler, to make us more accurate.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: Puzzlet Chung

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Korean news portal links to Wikipedia articles

body:
Somebody found that Naver News, the biggest news portal in Korea,
provides news articles with a link to the related article on Korean
Wikipedia:

http://news.naver.com/news/read.php?mode=LSD&office_id=052&article_id=0000131189

(Scroll down - it's about on the two third of the page. The news is
about the North Koreans celebrating 80th anniversary of the
establishment of [[Down-With-Imperialism Union]].)


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
"gwern branwen":
> *Can* we sue? My understanding was that if they sold us copies and
> then tried to restrict redistribution of those PD works (and no EULA
> or contract was signed) simply through copyright mechanisms, then we'd
> have some sort of legal recourse, but that we can't demand that they
> make the works physically available simply because they happen to be
> PD if they decline to have us as customers.
>
> --Gwern

IANAL so don't trust me, but i don't think someone could force me to pay
for a PD material. However they would probably ask you a fee for sending
you it or having saved it for X years :-(
Lawyers should be consulted.


from_name: Walter Vermeir

body:
Sean Whitton schreef:
> I would agree with switching the boxes - we need to assume good faith
> with blocks, not the opposite. However, I agree that a lot of blocks
> would need the box ticking - it would make sysops without scripts
> think about it before hitting the button.
>
> Just my thoughts.
>
> S

When the new blocking options where created user w:en:user:Lupin posted
some javascript to change the default blocking options. I suppose that
will still work when the default options are changed.

So users or wikis can override the default options if the wish to do so.

See;
http://en.wikizine.org/2006/07/wikizine-number-34_17.html

--
Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
The Uninvited Co., Inc wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judy_Genshaft&diff=82245476&oldid=82239003
>
> Yes, the University already saw it, and no, they're not happy.

In all fairness, the user that blanked it twice gave no edit summary
whatsoever and those two blankings were the only edits that user has
ever done on Wikipedia. The objectionable part of the article is only
obvious if you read all the way through the text, whereas the signs
suggesting that the blanking is vandalism are plainly obvious.

So the other take-home message is that when blanking an article you
should give some indication of _why_ you're blanking it. Saves trouble
all around.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061018/e8e70daa/attachment.pgp


subject: [Commons-l] Language

body:
On 18 Oct 2006 12:33:18 -0000, damodar vinayak bale <dvbale at rediffmail.com>
wrote:
>
>     Can one refer to book "How Language Works" By:David Crystal,
>     published by Penguin Books.
>       Shyam.
>

Refer to it for what reason?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061018/81086b26/attachment.htm


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-10-19

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

Running test TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Template with thumb image (with link in description)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML Hex character encoding.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!

Passed 421 of 437 tests (96.34%) FAILED!


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Roger Luethi wrote:
>
>
>>That comparison is misleading. The real comparison is with the money "our"
>>side is spending now. The battle over software patents in Europe showed
>>that the better arguments have a fair chance of winning against monied
>>interests if you can get your arguments heard. And there's no shortage of
>>good arguments in this case.
>>
>>
>Right.  So one of the things I am hearing loud and clear is that our
>community would generally like to see more money spent on lobbying
>efforts for copyright reform.  That is a point very well taken.
>
>However, our task at the moment is not to dream about _that_ per se, but
>rather to dream about what kinds of work under existing copyright, we
>would like to see made free.  There have been many good suggestions, and
>I welcome more.
>
Some consideration to copyright reform would clearly be worthwhile.  The
emphasis here should be on the doable, or on those laws that are filled
with ambiguities.  Urging governments to get on to the task of freeing
orphan works would be a great help with no significant damage to the
unknown owners.  Getting more governments to put their own material in
the public domain, particularly their laws would be very helpful.  It
seems to me that copyright claims by some governments seem to be
motivated by some kind of desire to protect accuracy, or to restrict the
publication of some material; financial gain is often a more limited
motivation.  Accurate texts are both in our and their interests.
Governments also need to be made aware that having US material in the
public domain while theirs isn't will make the US point of view more
predominant than it would be otherwise.  The other important campaign
would be to oppose the expansion of database protection laws that
already exist in the EU and apply even if the contents of the database
are already in the public domain.  I can forsee Google eventually
claiming this kind of protection for its public domain material.

One area of copyright material where we could provide great service is
with journals.  Peter Suber and The Open Access movement is already
working at freeing the more recent issues of journals, and receiving
co-operation from publishers.  Publishers who are amenable to the open
access idea may be unwilling to make the effort to digitize back issues
that may go back many decades.  These publishers, who often operate on a
shoestring, could be open to a mutually beneficial arrangement for
keeping their old material alive.  Without access to a major university
library some of this material can be very difficult to find.

Ec


body:
Justin Cormack wrote:
>> c) Unattributed copying of images the site has scanned from comic books
>>
>> (c) while not strictly speaking a copyvio since marvunapp.com is merely
>> making scans of flat art, is upsetting the site operators due to the
>> volume of material involved and the lack of attribution.  If left
>> unaddressed (c) is likely to make them more pedantic about their rights
>> regarding (a) and (b).  So far they've been pretty understanding and
>> supportive, considering.
>>
>>
> Just for clarification:
> (c) is a copyvio too. "flat art" is under copyright too. Their site
> presumably has no permission to host these pictures either though?
> Unless they are claiming fair use?

If it's being used in a valid fair use manner then it's not a copyvio,
for them or for us. But even if it is a copyvio it's not marvunapp.com's
copyright that's being violated. Simply scanning an image doesn't appear
to qualify as creating a derivative work under the description at
[[derivative work]], so they hold no copyright over the scans and only
the original comics' copyright applies. As far as I can see they've got
no basis for complaint about (c), since we're doing basically the same
thing any situation where we're not using an image "fairly" is probably
one where they're just as much in violation.

All that being said, the sources for scans like these really should be
clearly attributed on image pages in accordance with our own policies.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061019/58b7b9cb/attachment.pgp


body:
Paraphrased can still be a copyvio in most jurisdictions, including the
U.S., when the overall sentence and paragraph structure remains the
same.  It starts looking like a derived work when the ideas are
organized and presented the same way even though the word choices are
different.


from_name: James Hare

subject:
[Foundation-l] Good example;
	The works of Charles Darwin freed :)

body:
How can he hold the copyright to a work that's over a century old? This
isn't right. He doesn't deserve it. Anyone who takes works and decides to
sell it as a MASS PRODUCED PRODUCT doesn't deserve financial security.

On 10/19/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/19/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6064364.stm
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
>
> No it isn't:
>
> The materials provided on this website may be freely cited, downloaded
> and printed for private study or distribution to students but
> reposting on other websites, publishing, or other reproductions are
> subject to written permission. Contact: Dr John van Wyhe. See Terms of
> Use and Copyright declaration.
>
>
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
He's doing the next worst thing: taking a public domain revolutionary
publication and owning it. It's not even his.

On 10/19/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/19/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > How can he hold the copyright to a work that's over a century old?
>
> I belive the president under english and welsh law is the Graves case.
> The royal society is doing something simular with their scans of old
> documents. Would you like me to send you a copy of the three pages of
> conditions that the imperial war museam put on the use of copies of
> their PD material?
>
>
> >This
> > isn't right. He doesn't deserve it. Anyone who takes works and decides
> to
> > sell it as a MASS PRODUCED PRODUCT doesn't deserve financial security.
>
> No evidence that anyone is selling it.
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Sydney aka FloNight

body:
---- Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

=============
--- "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:

> And the other /other/ take-home message is that if you're going to
> revert someone, and they revert back, discuss it with them! I'm sick and
> tired of finding user accounts with many many contributions which were
> all reverted as "vandalism", and yet there is nothing on their talk page.

Discussing is good practice in most situations, but I think in this type of
instance the onus is on the blanker to provide some reason. If a new user
blanks an article without explanation, the odds are overwhelming that it's
vandalism (or a test, or whatever). Just revert; it's simply not worth the time
to drop a note with such odds. Moreover, it's very likely is that someone with
a genuine reason to blank the article will communicate his reason very shortly
thereafter (did that happen in this case?)

-- Matt
=====================================================
As WP:BLP points out, blanking content is often the first method that the subject of an article  will use to fix an inaccurate entry. This is really an newbie issue as much as anything else. It is perfectly reasonable for them to remove information that they know to be false.

For an experienced user to simply revert the blanking without any attempt to communicate with the user is more problematic to my mind than the blanking.

We need to determine if it is vandalism or an attempt to correct incorrect information and act accordingly.

Take care,
Sydney aka FloNight aka Poore5


from_name: Birgitte SB

body:
The article does mention other language editons
(Danish, Russian).  So I just want to point out that
he very well may own the copyright on the
translations.  Most all websites do a poor job of
distingiushing the different copyrights of the variety
of material they host.  It is quite common for people
simply write the terms of use to cover the most
restrictive copyright material on the site.  I have
only seen *one* website that mentions the issue of
underlying PD material on their Terms of Use, despite
the fact that many websites contain these kinds of
material.  He may well think it is quite obvious that
anyone can take the PD material and do as they like.
On the other hand he may not.  But lets not jump to
conclusions here.

Birgitte SB

--- geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/19/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > He's doing the next worst thing: taking a public
> domain revolutionary
> > publication and owning it. It's not even his.
>
> Under current english and welsh case law (which as
> far as I know
> hasn't inbvolved an actual case in over 100 years)
> the copy is his. If
> you can get hold of the originals you would under
> english and welsh
> law be free to do what you like with them. However
> this is a copy and
> he owns the copy (I'll probably contact him in a few
> days to find out
> what his reasoning is but I will assume he is a bit
> busy right now).
>
> Incerdental current US case law has come to the
> oposite conclusion.
>
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Parker Peters

body:
>
>
> And the other /other/ take-home message is that if you're going to
> revert someone, and they revert back, discuss it with them! I'm sick and
> tired of finding user accounts with many many contributions which were
> all reverted as "vandalism", and yet there is nothing on their talk page.

That's one of the reasons I gave up on editing Wikipedia and am slowly not
bothering even to check my email on here: accounts blocked for "vandalism"
or other reasons with no talkpage, new accounts with no welcome message, and
general evidence of admins being shitty to them and getting away with it.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:29:45 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm"
<macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

>I couldn't agree more. I can't just assume a blanking is valid if the person
>doing it provides no reason whatsoever.

Not least because the verifiable instances of blanking by newly
registered accounts for good reasons are, to date, precisely one,
whereas the documented instances of it being vandalism are too
numerous to count.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
On 10/19/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> --- "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Matt R wrote:
> > > --- "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> And the other /other/ take-home message is that if you're going to
> > >> revert someone, and they revert back, discuss it with them! I'm sick
> and
> > >> tired of finding user accounts with many many contributions which
> were
> > >> all reverted as "vandalism", and yet there is nothing on their talk
> page.
> > >
> > > Discussing is good practice in most situations, but I think in this
> type of
> > > instance the onus is on the blanker to provide some reason. If a new
> user
> > > blanks an article without explanation, the odds are overwhelming that
> it's
> > > vandalism (or a test, or whatever). Just revert; it's simply not worth
> the
> > time
> > > to drop a note with such odds. Moreover, it's very likely is that
> someone
> > with
> > > a genuine reason to blank the article will communicate his reason very
> > shortly
> > > thereafter (did that happen in this case?)
>
> >
> >
> > If by "send a private email to the contact address of last resort" you
> > mean "communicate their reason", well, yeah. Not the most effective
> > method, though; it would have been far better if the person who reverted
> > had left a simple {{blanking}} on their talk page:
>
> Even better, of course, would have been for the person to have used (say)
> the
> edit summary box to give some indication of why they were blanking an
> encyclopedia article. I really do feel that the onus is on them to give
> some
> reason for their drastic action, which is otherwise indistinguishable from
> hundreds of similar acts of vandalism a day.
>

Yes, because every new user can instantly find without any trouble at all
every one of our miscellaneous and contradictory policies, procedures, and
history on every bit of trivial drama that's ever occurred on Wikipedia, and
know exactly what they should be doing and how to go about doing it.

You do realize how completely stupid you sound, right?

This is a textbook example of watching wikipedians ignore AGF and not bother
to communicate with someone. I suggested all new accounts should receive the
welcome message planted on the new username's talk page, rather than waiting
for another editor to do it and I mean it.

For chrissakes, people, we need to give new editors the tools and
information and make it EASIER for them to join in. Instead, what do we do?
We have a bunch of semi-secret policies and procedures hiding everywhere, we
speak in code, half the supposed "policies" are just something some boob
with no life came up with in order to justify his powers anyways, our
dispute resolution system is a joke, and AGF has been thrown down the
shitter in favor of Admins Rule All.


from_name: Rich Holton

body:
Matt R wrote:
>> You do realize how completely stupid you sound, right?
>>
>
> And I hope you realise that I have not read your email because this line caught
> my eye. If you want to have a discussion about something, avoid abuse.
>
> -- Matt
>
> Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
> Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
>
>
If you manage to get through the ranting, Mr. Parker makes one
suggestion that probably deserves some consideration. I know it's been
suggested before, but is it time for us to somehow automate the process
of planting a welcome message on new users' talk page?

-Rich Holton


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
On 10/19/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> So the other take-home message is that when blanking an article you
> should give some indication of _why_ you're blanking it. Saves trouble
> all around.

I couldn't agree more. I can't just assume a blanking is valid if the person
doing it provides no reason whatsoever.

Mgm


body:
On 10/19/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 7:27:58 -0400, Sydney aka FloNight
> <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >For an experienced user to simply revert the blanking without any
> >attempt to communicate with the user is more problematic to my mind
> >than the blanking.
>
> Not really.  Page blanking is counted as simple vandalism, suitable
> for use of rollback.  We really mustn't lose sight of the fact that
> this is the only instance thus far presented where page blanking
> without summaries by a new account with no other edits was anything
> other than vandalism.  Is it really so hard for a new user to find out
> how to correct a problem, contact the office, attract attention or in
> some other way fix the issue?  It may be that it is.
>
> Guy (JzG)

It is. Nobody bothered sending a welcome message, or any other form of
talkpage message, to the user. Nothing was generated automatically to help
them become an effective editor or help them learn now to work within the
system.

And it's poor attitudes like yours that I've been seeing for the past few
months that make our problems worse. Instead of taking two minutes to look
at the reason for an action, instead of assuming good faith, you just go off
on your "vandal-fighting" attitude where all ill-advised behavior and
collateral damage is OK in the name of "fighting vandals".

Parker.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
Lars Aronsson wrote:

>If you want to make copyrighted contents free, I think you should
>avoid to involve money, because Wikipedia's moral argument is far
>stronger than its financial assets will ever be. But is that the
>problem addressed here?  It sounds a lot more as if the real
>problem is how to spend this money that somebody happens to have,
>while at the same time pushing the idea that copyrights are worth
>paying for, and thus shouldn't be given up for nothing.
>
>The whole scheme reeks of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,
>where so-called "money" is spent to help schools, when in fact
>that money is paid to Microsoft Corporation for software licenses,
>that the school could have for free if they used free software.
>
If we are going to pay anyone to buy copyrights it doesn't need to be
the big copyright owners.  I'm sure there are many works where the
author is deceased, and the heirs who hold the copyright have no
intention of republishing the work themselves.  It's limited audience
would not make that worthwhile.  The prospect that someone would make
the work available may leave these owners willing to accept a modest
payment for all rights.

Ec


body:
I watched your nonsense long enough, I've seen plenty of similar comments
sent here including multiple sent to me both publicly over this list and
privately.

If you're going to stop reading because I pointed out how inane your
comments were, feel free to do so. You're more than welcome to be part of
the problem rather than part of the solution.

Parker.

On 10/19/06, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > You do realize how completely stupid you sound, right?
>
> And I hope you realise that I have not read your email because this line
> caught
> my eye. If you want to have a discussion about something, avoid abuse.
>
> -- Matt
>
> Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
> Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> All New Yahoo! Mail ? Tired of Vi at gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect
> you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
>
>
> Here's a summary:
>
> Be nice to newbies. Everyone was a newbie once, even you.

Correct!

Assume good faith. If you were wrong, no harm done. If you assume bad
> faith and you were wrong, lots of harm done.

Correct!

Admins are so entrenched in their elitist jargon and pet policies that
> they forget how to interact with anyone who doesn't know the jargon and
> the policies.

Just about. I'd only add that admins also seem to love making up new
policies or personal policies on the spot, or assigning harsher punishments
for behavior that's one of their pet peeves (even though punishment isn't
supposed to be the goal of our blocking ability in the first place), or
generally treat the newbs like dirt because they know that the newbs won't
know the proper ways to respond and try to report them for it, and even if
they do get reported, it'll be hushed up because the admins are "longtime
respected users" who are "fighting vandals" and we are "short on admins."

We need a welcome bot.

Why a bot? The new user creation script could easily just have a segment
added to make the welcome message automagically appear on the user's new
talk page, and then flag the new account for "new message waiting."

Parker


body:
http://www.courthouseawarenessnews.com/Archives%20of%20campaign%20for%20county%20judge/Ostrich%20head%20in%20sand.jpg

I think that about sums up your reaction nicely.

Parker

On 10/19/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> "Parker Peters" wrote
>
> > We have a bunch of semi-secret policies and procedures hiding
> everywhere, we
> > speak in code, half the supposed "policies" are just something some boob
> > with no life came up with in order to justify his powers anyways, our
> > dispute resolution system is a joke, and AGF has been thrown down the
> > shitter in favor of Admins Rule All.
>
> There seems little evidence, to me, that you are learning to express your
> comments with moderation and plausibility.
>
> Charles
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
> Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Foundation-l] Good example; The works of Charles Darwin freed :)

body:
Hoi,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6064364.stm
Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Justin Cormack

body:
The Uninvited Co., Inc wrote:

>No idea how we're going to unravel this one.
>
>We have received, over a period of months, numerous reports to OTRS
>regarding copyvios from the www.marvunapp.com web site.  That site
>publishes character summaries for scores of comic book characters
>ranging from the well-known to those obscure figures that make only
>cameo appearances.  The summaries are written by a fairly small number
>of contributors to the the site and are generally not edited once they
>are posted.
>
>Their site content is making its way to Wikipedia.  There are three
>problems:
>a) Cut and paste copying of text
>b) Paraphrasing of text
>c) Unattributed copying of images the site has scanned from comic books
>
>(a) and (b) are copyright violations.  The problem goes back at least
>six months and is ongoing.
>
>(c) while not strictly speaking a copyvio since marvunapp.com is merely
>making scans of flat art, is upsetting the site operators due to the
>volume of material involved and the lack of attribution.  If left
>unaddressed (c) is likely to make them more pedantic about their rights
>regarding (a) and (b).  So far they've been pretty understanding and
>supportive, considering.
>
>
Just for clarification:
(c) is a copyvio too. "flat art" is under copyright too. Their site
presumably has no permission to host these pictures either though?
Unless they are claiming fair use?
(b) on the other hand is not a copyvio in general, unless it is really (a).

Justin


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Suggestion: Problem solving feedback system

body:
Mindaugas Indriunas wrote:
> I believe the time has come, and Wikipedia has the level of importance
> to the World, where people would want to give their good ideas out to
> Wikipedia software developers.
>
> So one suggestion would be to make such a feedback system, and there
> should be a much larger number of people giving out their ideas; some
> of which might be of real value.

Until we can demonstrate being able to keep up with the feedback, ideas,
and requests we already get it probably would just be an exercise in
frustration to ask for more. :)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Mark Wagner

body:
On 10/19/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/19/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > And the other /other/ take-home message is that if you're going to
> > > revert someone, and they revert back, discuss it with them! I'm sick and
> > > tired of finding user accounts with many many contributions which were
> > > all reverted as "vandalism", and yet there is nothing on their talk page.
> >
> >
> > That's one of the reasons I gave up on editing Wikipedia and am slowly not
> > bothering even to check my email on here:
>
> Is there any way you can speed up that process?

Better still, is there some way somebody else can speed up the process for him?

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


body:
On 10/19/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 7:27:58 -0400, Sydney aka FloNight
> <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >For an experienced user to simply revert the blanking without any
> >attempt to communicate with the user is more problematic to my mind
> >than the blanking.
>
> Not really.  Page blanking is counted as simple vandalism, suitable
> for use of rollback.  We really mustn't lose sight of the fact that
> this is the only instance thus far presented where page blanking
> without summaries by a new account with no other edits was anything
> other than vandalism.

It may be the only case presented here, but in the short time I've
been involved in OTRS, I've seen several cases where someone is
reporting that they blanked a defamatory article about themselves,
only to have it back the next time they checked.

> Is it really so hard for a new user to find out
> how to correct a problem, contact the office, attract attention or in
> some other way fix the issue?  It may be that it is.

Yes, it apparently is.  Usually, by the time it gets to OTRS, they're
in a mood where it sounds like their next step will be to call their
lawyer.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


body:
Paraphrasing is okay. (Otherwise, writing an article about an oft cited fact
can be impossible.)  Just changing a few words isn't. The difference can be
hard to spot.

Mgm

On 10/19/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
> The Uninvited Co., Inc wrote:
>
> >No idea how we're going to unravel this one.
> >
> >We have received, over a period of months, numerous reports to OTRS
> >regarding copyvios from the www.marvunapp.com web site.  That site
> >publishes character summaries for scores of comic book characters
> >ranging from the well-known to those obscure figures that make only
> >cameo appearances.  The summaries are written by a fairly small number
> >of contributors to the the site and are generally not edited once they
> >are posted.
> >
> >Their site content is making its way to Wikipedia.  There are three
> >problems:
> >a) Cut and paste copying of text
> >b) Paraphrasing of text
> >c) Unattributed copying of images the site has scanned from comic books
> >
> >(a) and (b) are copyright violations.  The problem goes back at least
> >six months and is ongoing.
> >
> >(c) while not strictly speaking a copyvio since marvunapp.com is merely
> >making scans of flat art, is upsetting the site operators due to the
> >volume of material involved and the lack of attribution.  If left
> >unaddressed (c) is likely to make them more pedantic about their rights
> >regarding (a) and (b).  So far they've been pretty understanding and
> >supportive, considering.
> >
> >
> Just for clarification:
> (c) is a copyvio too. "flat art" is under copyright too. Their site
> presumably has no permission to host these pictures either though?
> Unless they are claiming fair use?
> (b) on the other hand is not a copyvio in general, unless it is really
> (a).
>
> Justin
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: dmehkeri at swi.com

body:
> Not really.  Page blanking is counted as simple vandalism, suitable
> for use of rollback.  We really mustn't lose sight of the fact that
> this is the only instance thus far presented where page blanking
> without summaries by a new account with no other edits was anything
> other than vandalism.  Is it really so hard for a new user to find out
> how to correct a problem, contact the office, attract attention or in
> some other way fix the issue?  It may be that it is.
>

WP:BLP suggests that not only is this not the first case, but in fact "...when
the individual involved is not especially notable, such edits _usually are not
vandalism_ but rather an effort by the subject of the article to remove biased
or inaccurate material...."

Even for non-BLP, instead of {{subst:test1}}, I often start with something like:

== [[Name of article]] ==
Is there a problem with the article? ~~~~

Regards,
Dan


from_name: Denis Barthel

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
Compared to the most dreams before, I guess I am quite modest:

I would love to buy the rights of pictures (and maybe add a few
signature-tunes  ;) ) of all the important pre-war blues-musicians. Of
many of these artists only a single or two photographs are known and
they are mostly in the hand of collectors, who hold the copyright too.
As the pictures are almost always anonymously made in the 1920's and
1930's, we are not able to illustrate the concerning articles before
2020-2040. This does not only affect the artist-articles, but those on
the genre too. Just have a look o the commons-gallery. It is so sad,
that the origin of most western popular musical genres needs to be
almost text-only still for decades ....

Regards,
Denis Barthel (de)


from_name: Chris Picone

subject: [WikiEN-l] good example of overuse of {{fact}}

body:
> It's also a waste of time to state obvious facts in an encyclopedia article.

Why is it a waste of time? It's not like Wikipedia needs to be
competed rght now. We can spend all the time in the world editing,
regardless of efficiency level.

--Chris
"I hate —es!" --Me

On 10/17/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 10/16/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 16, 2006, at 6:12 PM, jayjg wrote:
> > >
> > > People keep claiming that it's hard to source "obvious facts";
> > > however, in practice that's almost never the case. Obvious facts are
> > > generally extremely easy to source.
> >
> > A better and more important issue is that it's a waste of time to
> > source obvious facts.
> >
> It's also a waste of time to state obvious facts in an encyclopedia article.
>
> For less than "obvious" facts I do think that a source should be *somewhere*
> in the references.
>
> I also don't think people should be removing facts that they know to be
> true, just because they are unsourced.
>
> Further, and not everyone agrees with me on this, someone should do a quick
> check for a source before removing (or {{fact}} tagging) something which
> isn't at least probably false (or unprovable and therefore POV).
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: ROSC Club Director

subject: [Foundation-l] www.wikportal.tk

body:
www.wikiportal.tk is live and will redirect to www.wikimedia.com.

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less.


subject: [Foundation-l] www.wikportal.tk


from_name: Luis Alberto Riveros

subject: [WikiEN-l] Question about sources

body:
In this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University
It seems that VERIFIABILITY :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Walnut.png> This
policy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies>in a
nutshell:
*Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts,
viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they
have already been published by reliable
sources<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources>.
Articles should cite these sources
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CITE>whenever possible. Unsourced
material may be challenged and removed.

Is in a way in contradiction with the policy below in the same page:

* *Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of
dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information so long as:*

   - *It is relevant to the organization's notability;*
   - *It is not contentious;*
   - *It is not unduly self-serving;*
   - *It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not
   directly related to the subject;*
   - *There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.*

Please clarify this.
Do you want reliable sources or not? If an antagonistic group starts an
article and uses a self-published source to hurt an organization's image, is
this considered "non contentious"? or "relevant to the organization
notability?" or "unduly self-serving"?Thank you for your attention to this.

--
Have a blissful day!
Luis Alberto Riveros


from_name: Sean Barrett

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mark Wagner stated for the record:

> On 10/19/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 10/19/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>And the other /other/ take-home message is that if you're going to
>>>>revert someone, and they revert back, discuss it with them! I'm sick and
>>>>tired of finding user accounts with many many contributions which were
>>>>all reverted as "vandalism", and yet there is nothing on their talk page.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's one of the reasons I gave up on editing Wikipedia and am slowly not
>>>bothering even to check my email on here:
>>
>>Is there any way you can speed up that process?
>
>
> Better still, is there some way somebody else can speed up the process for him?

We can only hope.  Until that happy day, keeping hitting delete.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | In America, anyone can be President.
 sean at epoptic.com | That's one of the risks you take.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFN8gp/SVOiq2uhHMRApPjAKDJeXIzm9wtN5pcD68kaGrNdiZhwACgthvP
Yo9sGNLDcCpkgSV6BMyfT94=
=bvuI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: jayjg

body:
On 10/19/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > And the other /other/ take-home message is that if you're going to
> > revert someone, and they revert back, discuss it with them! I'm sick and
> > tired of finding user accounts with many many contributions which were
> > all reverted as "vandalism", and yet there is nothing on their talk page.
>
>
> That's one of the reasons I gave up on editing Wikipedia and am slowly not
> bothering even to check my email on here:

Is there any way you can speed up that process?

Jay.


from_name: Delphine Ménard

subject: [Foundation-l] www.wikimedia.co.nr

body:
On 10/17/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/18/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/17/06, Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
>
> > I strongly advise anyone possessing a TLD domain that they wish to
> > redirect to the Wikimedia projects to put up a very simple page along
> > the lines of:
> >
> > "You are probably looking for the xxxx language edition of [insert
> > name of project here]. Please update your bookmarks and follow this
> > link to find the original [link to project]"
>
> Wikimedia.org.au is a redirect until the Australian chapter is doing
> enough work to require a separate wiki. For now, that work is on meta.
> It will become the "real URL" once we've got more going on.

I would say it is even more critical for wiki*m*edia.xx domains to
*not* redirect directly to projects. The solution chosen by the
Australians (redirect to meta) is a good compromise solution for those
domains in the mean time. Another solution would be to redirect to
www.wikimedia.org.

Delphine

--
~notafish
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.


subject: [Foundation-l] www.wikimedia.co.nr


from_name: geni

body:
On 10/19/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6064364.stm
> Thanks,
>     GerardM

No it isn't:

The materials provided on this website may be freely cited, downloaded
and printed for private study or distribution to students but
reposting on other websites, publishing, or other reproductions are
subject to written permission. Contact: Dr John van Wyhe. See Terms of
Use and Copyright declaration.

--
geni


body:
On 10/19/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> How can he hold the copyright to a work that's over a century old?

I belive the president under english and welsh law is the Graves case.
The royal society is doing something simular with their scans of old
documents. Would you like me to send you a copy of the three pages of
conditions that the imperial war museam put on the use of copies of
their PD material?

>This
> isn't right. He doesn't deserve it. Anyone who takes works and decides to
> sell it as a MASS PRODUCED PRODUCT doesn't deserve financial security.

No evidence that anyone is selling it.

--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] www.wikimedia.co.nr

body:
Hoi,
Wikiversity is missing at www.wikimedia.org.. Somebody with the rights
skills may want to rectify this :)
Thanks,
    GerardM

Delphine M?nard wrote:
> On 10/17/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/18/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/17/06, Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I strongly advise anyone possessing a TLD domain that they wish to
>>> redirect to the Wikimedia projects to put up a very simple page along
>>> the lines of:
>>>
>>> "You are probably looking for the xxxx language edition of [insert
>>> name of project here]. Please update your bookmarks and follow this
>>> link to find the original [link to project]"
>>>
>> Wikimedia.org.au is a redirect until the Australian chapter is doing
>> enough work to require a separate wiki. For now, that work is on meta.
>> It will become the "real URL" once we've got more going on.
>>
>
> I would say it is even more critical for wiki*m*edia.xx domains to
> *not* redirect directly to projects. The solution chosen by the
> Australians (redirect to meta) is a good compromise solution for those
> domains in the mean time. Another solution would be to redirect to
> www.wikimedia.org.
>
> Delphine


subject: [Foundation-l] www.wikimedia.co.nr


from_name: Matt R

body:
--- "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:

> And the other /other/ take-home message is that if you're going to
> revert someone, and they revert back, discuss it with them! I'm sick and
> tired of finding user accounts with many many contributions which were
> all reverted as "vandalism", and yet there is nothing on their talk page.

Discussing is good practice in most situations, but I think in this type of
instance the onus is on the blanker to provide some reason. If a new user
blanks an article without explanation, the odds are overwhelming that it's
vandalism (or a test, or whatever). Just revert; it's simply not worth the time
to drop a note with such odds. Moreover, it's very likely is that someone with
a genuine reason to blank the article will communicate his reason very shortly
thereafter (did that happen in this case?)

-- Matt

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Brad Patrick

subject: [Foundation-l] Microsoft IE7 default search setting

body:
FYI:  If you download the new IE 7 from Microsoft, you can set Wikipedia
as your default search tool.  Have a look!

-Brad


body:
On 10/19/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> He's doing the next worst thing: taking a public domain revolutionary
> publication and owning it. It's not even his.

Under current english and welsh case law (which as far as I know
hasn't inbvolved an actual case in over 100 years) the copy is his. If
you can get hold of the originals you would under english and welsh
law be free to do what you like with them. However this is a copy and
he owns the copy (I'll probably contact him in a few days to find out
what his reasoning is but I will assume he is a bit busy right now).

Incerdental current US case law has come to the oposite conclusion.

--
geni


body:
On 10/19/06, The Uninvited Co., Inc <uninvited at nerstrand.net> wrote:
> No idea how we're going to unravel this one.
>

I've contacted WikiProject Comics. They are the people most likely to
be able to do something about this.

--
geni


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

body:
On 10/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll bite.

Me too!

> a) is an infringement of the copyright of the site's authors and is rude.

Very true, on both accounts.

> b) is plagiarism and is rude.

Not if you provide a source it ain't. If you provide a reference for
the information it is simply another piece of the encyclopedia. Hell,
this is what we do! We summarize and paraphrase other sources and put
it in neat little packets called "articles". If this really was just
paraphrasing (and not, as Mgm points out, just changing a few words) I
have no problem with it. Source it, and it's not only ok, it is
standard practice.

> c) is plagiarism *and* copyright infringement of the comic book
> authors/artists, the latter of which we believe is justifiable under the
> mysterious "fair use" and "fair dealing" clauses present in many
> English-speaking countries (especially the US). It's also rude.

Again, it is only rude if we don't tell people were we got the images.
But lets not forget: this website has no claim whatsoever on the
copyrights. We don't have to give them anything, this is all Marvels
IP. I agree that we should give them credit because it's the nice
thing to do, but lets not forget that if it is genuine fair use and we
want the images, they have no right to complain.

> In short:
>
> 1. DON'T INFRINGE ON COPYRIGHT. "Fair use" images should be the
> exception to the rule and should NOT be used when a Free alternative is
> available.

Yeah, how many free images of copyrighted superheroes do you think
there are? I can tell you: there ain't any! This is exactly why fair
use exists, this exact purpose! It would be insane (insane I tell
you!) not to take advantage of that glorious right.

> 2. Don't use a source without attribution. If we can do it for NASA and
> the US Government who so graciously put their works into the Public
> Domain, we can at least acknowledge the hard work of people who have
> carefully scanned (often rare) comic books and made those images
> available online, and researched and written detailed summaries on said
> comics.

Agree completely.

--Oskar


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 10/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/19/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> > So the other take-home message is that when blanking an article you
> > should give some indication of _why_ you're blanking it. Saves trouble
> > all around.
>
> I couldn't agree more. I can't just assume a blanking is valid if the person
> doing it provides no reason whatsoever.

Hopefully you have something around 1.2 KG of greyish white mush
between your ears. This mush has the amazing ability of enabling you
to read as well as make decisions and a reader who wishes to 'fix' it
but is unaware of exactly how they should do so.

A lot (most?) of blanking happens as a result of accidents or bad
behavior but a non-trivial amount of blanking happens because we have
libelous or otherwise bad information.

The bot issue is a complex one which we will address over time. We can
add heurestics to the bots to identify potential trouble articles and
send them to humans for review rather than just autounblanking.

But it is ABSOLUTELY INEXCUSABLE for a human to act in a manner which
is no more intelligent than a bot. If you are not going to read when
you revert a blanking, you should leave the work to a bot which will
generally do a better, faster, and more consistent job than you ... a
human who is pretending to be a bot.

The argument that these users are breaking our rules about blanking is
entirely bogus:  We allow open editing by anyone, even people who have
not read a single rule.   If you don't like that, argue to close
membership.. don't make excuses for mistakes with the argument that
the mistake wouldn't have been made if only some new user was aware of
one of our numerous esoteric rules.

It would appear that WP:NOT needs a new line: "Wikipedia is not a video game".


from_name: Travis Derouin

subject: [Wikitech-l] slow diffs

body:
Hi,

We've had some complaints off and on about diffs taking a long time.
This happens at random times, doesn't happen often and clears itself
up after awhile. When this happens,  the load on the Apache servers
seem low and the database seems ok.

We did seem to have this problem if users had the Google toolbar
installed a few months ago, but it appears that the problem is back
and unrelated.

I wonder if the job queue has anything to do with it, sometimes it
get's up to over 10,000 on us, but usually is at 0. I haven't been
able to check what it's at when users experience this problem.

Does anyone have any ideas on how to debug, or what the possible
causes might be? We're still running 1.6.7.

Thanks,
Travis


body:
>
> Assume good faith is a fine principle, but the suggestion here seems to be
> that editors must engage every such page blanker in dialogue based on the
> remote chance that they just might have a good reason for doing it, even
> though they didn't bother giving it at the time. That just doesn't seem
> worthwhile to me; the effort involved seems disproportionate to any
> possible harm.

Depends. The possible harm varies. Sometimes the possible harm is libel.

Dan


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 7:27:58 -0400, Sydney aka FloNight
<poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:

>For an experienced user to simply revert the blanking without any
>attempt to communicate with the user is more problematic to my mind
>than the blanking.

Not really.  Page blanking is counted as simple vandalism, suitable
for use of rollback.  We really mustn't lose sight of the fact that
this is the only instance thus far presented where page blanking
without summaries by a new account with no other edits was anything
other than vandalism.  Is it really so hard for a new user to find out
how to correct a problem, contact the office, attract attention or in
some other way fix the issue?  It may be that it is.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG