subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Ampersand symbol in URLs

body:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:09:04 +1100, Netocrat wrote:

> I noticed while validating the HTML output of an extension that some
> urls are being generated with a plain & instead of encoded as & and
> the W3C validator complains about this as an error.  This patch fixes
> the line of code that was the source of the uncoded ampersand (and
> another line I noticed) if anyone with CVS access chooses to apply it.

Looks like the attachment's been stripped on gmane.  Here it is inline.

Index: Title.php
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/wikipedia/phase3/includes/Title.php,v
retrieving revision 1.243
diff -u -r1.243 Title.php
--- Title.php	13 Nov 2005 04:09:06 -0000	1.243
+++ Title.php	28 Nov 2005 11:30:53 -0000
@@ -678,7 +678,7 @@
 				if( false === strpos( $url, '?' ) ) {
 					$url .= '?';
 				} else {
-					$url .= '&';
+					$url .= '&';
 				}
 				$url .= $query;
 			}
@@ -725,7 +725,7 @@
 					if ( $query == '-' ) {
 						$query = '';
 					}
-					$url = "{$wgScript}?title={$dbkey}&{$query}";
+					$url = "{$wgScript}?title={$dbkey}&{$query}";
 				}
 			}

--
http://members.dodo.com.au/~netocrat


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: SJ

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: yet another image lost for posterity

body:
On 11/28/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
> For a
> while we had some bot assisted notification for some classes of
> speedy delete; hopefully these will return soon if the bot bureaucracy
> can be overcome (er, performance improves). This particular deletion
> is not about this really, it is about communication of changing policies
> to people.

Agreed, this is about politeness and respect for fellow community
members.  There are two problems of rudeness here : users who, despite
the current active warnings, don't take time to tag their images
properly; and users who, in cleaning up the wiki, feel they have the
right - or that their time is so valuable that they need - to delete
the contributions of others without warning.

It's not just a matter of the time-investment of the admins exercising
the delete button.  It's also a matter of the users who feel really
betrayed when they discover one day that a favorite image is gone
forever -- without even a backup.

Suggestions : 1) provide an undelete-image feature!  2) provide a
quarantine area where one can put dubious images "immediately" while
waiting for polite notice to run its course

Ant and others: If you have lost images to zealous copyright
enforcement, see also
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lost_images

SJ


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] NC use

body:
G'day Mike,
> In reply to Mark Gallagher:
> "That's *not* what it's based on.  Please take more care before jumping
> to conclusions in the future...I don't know why the GFDL always allows
> commercial use.  Presumably it's part of the whole ideological "copyleft
> is beautiful" bizzo.  I've taken
> great pains to avoid understanding how the Free Software Movement people
> think, and I cherish my ignorance in this regard.
>
> Given that the entire issue centers on just why commercial use is
> allowed, with all respect, I'm not sure how youre helping me on this one.

The entire issue, at the time I opened my big mouth, was why
*non*-commercial-use on Wikipedia is not allowed.  The discussion has
since evolved.

Please take more care before jumping to conclusions in the future ...
hang on, I've said that before, haven't I?

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/184 - Release Date: 27/11/2005


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Non-Commercial Usage

body:
On 11/29/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> The aggregation clause is the big loophole in the GFDL that would
> probably avoid that.

However, to be in compliance, they would have to make the portion of
the commercial derived from GFDL content freely available, I would
have thought?

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] Non-Commercial Usage

body:
On 11/28/05, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> Minor nit-pick: that situation is improbable because IIRC the brochure
> (if it used GFDL material) has to include the whole whopping GFDL
> licence in it.

Which is why releasing a picture under the GFDL is de facto a
Wikipedia-only license.  There have been a few times where I've
persuaded someone to release an image under GFDL (rather than not at
all) by showing them how hard it would be for someone to legally use
the image outside of a Wikipedia context, especially a print one.

-Matt


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] GFDL compatibility of image licenses

body:
On the wikien list I had written:

> > By the way, this sentence contains at least one common misconception
> > about copyleft.  Images only "become GFDL" if they are released by
> > their copyright holder under the GFDL.  They don't automatically
> > become released under the GFDL.

Someone replied the following (privately, so I'm not sure if ey wants
eir name divulged):

> Well, there is one more case: If the copyright-holder mixes his
> own images with GFDL contents, the result, if distributed, should
> become GFDL, because of the "viral" (or "cascade") effect.

Now that I realize it was a private message I begin to suspect even
more that the person was simply being sarcastic, but since I wasted my
time writing a reply here it is:

No, that is specifically what I'm saying is *not* true (maybe you were
being sarcastic in which case I apologize).

If a copyright holder "mixes his own images with GFDL contents", i.e.
prepares a derivative work derived from GFDL content and his own
images, and does not release the derivative work under the GFDL, then
that copyright holder has committed copyright infringement (barring a
defense such as fair use, at least).  The work is not *automatically*
released under the GFDL.

Like I said, a work can only be released under the GFDL if the author
intentionally grants a license.  If they don't grant such a license,
then there may be an instance of copyright infringement, but there is
no automatic release under the GFDL.  In this regard it is the same as
the GPL.

I just looked for a good description of this in Wikipedia, but I
really can't find one.  Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but Wikipedia
could really use some improvement in this regard.  I was looking for a
detailed description complete with citations from prominent experts
and advocates on different ends of the spectrum (Eben Moglen, RMS,
Bill Gates, etc.).  Anyway, the best I could find was in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft, under "Is copyleft "viral"?":
"Second, even when the included code is substantial enough to warrant
copyright protection, the remaining code will never automatically fall
under a copyleft license. What will happen is that it will not be
legal to distribute the derived work, unless the owner of the
remaining work put it under a compatible license (not necessarily
copyleft). If the work is distributed anyway, that is a simple
copyright violation, and will not affect the license of the work."

Anthony


body:
On 11/29/05, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ant and others: If you have lost images to zealous copyright
> enforcement, see also
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lost_images
>
> SJ

I looked at that page, and it seems to be only for images "which were
formerly available under a compatible license".  AFAICT Ant's images
aren't available under a compatible license.

Anyway, I've restored all the images except for one (wasn't found
under en/upload/d/d9/Acacia.JPG).  So tack on another hour to the
amount of volunteer time it takes to handle this deletion in a
half-assed manner.

Anthony


references:
<dmf1h3$k8t$1@sea.gmane.org> <dmfgge$cmr$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<438B6AC9.7070704@myrealbox.com> <dmft4k$rqn$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<cbffa3750511281349u36ee0cedu7eafcb5adaf93d88@mail.gmail.com>
	<bd4c411e0511281429o65430c02k8b6968b4d45b2bba@mail.gmail.com>
	<bd4c411e0511281429o65430c02k8b6968b4d45b2bba-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
	<31073ef90511281617x7d096a26m53c249a3f1d17e3a@mail.gmail.com>
	<aaCGOxSty6iDFwEO@cartref.demon.co.uk>
	<f80608430511290256o689c4df3te7d8a64322982b00@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 11/29/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/05, Arwel Parry <arwel at cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > In message
> > <31073ef90511281617x7d096a26m53c249a3f1d17e3a at mail.gmail.com>, Mark
> > Wagner <carnildo-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> writes
> > >Assuming Wikipedia is running along smoothly, an administrator can
> > >delete one image every twenty seconds, if they don't notify the user
> > >first or remove the image from pages where it's used, and if they do
> > >only the quickest check to see if the image is tagged correctly.
> > >Deleting all these images would take 185 man-hours of effort.
> > >
> > >If the administrator removes the image from articles where it's used
> > >before deleting it, it takes about 40 seconds to delete an image.
> > >This increases the effort needed to 370 man-hours.
> >
> > Just a minute - are you honestly advocating that images should be
> > routinely deleted without removing links from articles which use them?
> > Because in that case I STRONGLY object to this attitude. For some time
> > I've been coming across articles on my watchlist which suddenly have red
> > image links in prominent places: apart from looking damned ugly, it's
> > highly give a highly unprofessional impression of Wikipedia. It should
> > be OBLIGATORY in my opinion for the people deleting images to FIRST
> > remove the links to them, and hang the extra work involved!
>
>
> {{sofixit}}
>
> --
> geni

Is {{sofixit}} a valid response to someone systematically going
through the encyclopedia and breaking stuff?  If I go around and
delete all facts which are both uncited and not in my own personal
knowledge, can I respond to anyone calling me a vandal with
{{sofixit}}?  The way to fixit is to adopt a policy which doesn't
intentionally create broken links in the first place.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Non-Commercial Usage

body:
On 11/29/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Mike Finucane wrote:
>
> >      I *do* have a
> > problem if someone -say a newspaper - lifts one of my images from
> > Wikipedia, and uses it instead of paying for their own photography, and
> > makes a profit therefrom.
>
> While I disagree with much of what you have said, I'll admit you have a
> point there, Mike. One reason I'll never release images of my friends or
> family under GFDL or CC is that I don't want to be surprised one day
> by finding that their image has been photoshopped into an ad or a
> commercial for a product or company. The only thing worse would be to
> find that they've been photoshopped into a commercial supporting a
> politician I despise so vehemently that I wouldn't piss on them if
> they were on fire.
>
Wouldn't this violate your friends' and family's right to privacy
and/or publicity?  Even if you could argue that the GFDL is a license
to violate those rights, you don't have the right to grant such a
license for your friends and family.

> One could speculate whether this use amounted to some form of libel --
> based on the assumption that association with a given product, service,
> company or politician could be defamatory -- but in the case of dead
> people, I don't think libel or slander applies. I'm not a lawyer, & I'm
> not looking to start a discussion here on the matter, I'm just explaining
> that I've found a simple solution by avoiding the problem.
>
Ah, good point.  Right to privacy and/or publicity doesn't apply to
dead people either, AFAIK.  Of course, if your friends and family are
dead I don't see why it matters that your pictures of them are used in
a commercial any more than any other pictures you've taken.  If your
picture of an orange was transformed into a commercial for Microsoft
Orange Juice (from concentrate) wouldn't you be just as pissed?

> But what _might_ be worth a conversation -- or at least a moment's
> consideration -- is that introducing GFDL material into an advertisement
> makes that creation GFDL'd too. By using free images (free as in speech,
> not as in beer, as the cliche goes), the advertisement then -- at least
> in part -- becomes free.
>
The aggregation clause is the big loophole in the GFDL that would
probably avoid that.

And - here we go again - the GFDL doesn't work that way anyway.
Distributing the advertisement without releasing it under the GFDL
might be copyright infringement, but nothing is ever automatically
released under the GFDL.

> This may not stand up in court (the GPL & its related licenses have never
> been tested in court to the best of my knowledge), but the legal uncertainty
> there is strong enough that no businessman will lightly use material
> released under a Gnu-like license. There are enough headaches in publishing
> creative material: why further introduce those surrounding copyright &
> trademark?
>
> But I do wonder at the concept of a GFDL'd commerical, & how that might
> play out in business.
>
I don't really see how this would be much of a big deal, actually.
But then again, I'm kind of a fan of the idea that copyleft can and
does make business sense (except perhaps for the anti-business, hippy
culture surrounding it evidenced in part by this very thread).

> There's more I could say, but I think a pointer to the lawsuit between
> UC Berkeley & AT&T over the UNIX codebase in the early 1990s is sufficient.
> Half of the people on this mailing list know how free software affected
> the outcome of that case (& probably can discuss it better than I), &
> the other half should read about it.
>
> Geoff

Anthony


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: copyright and arbcom issues

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

geni stated for the record:

> We could if jimbo did not insist in interfearing (ok we would need a
> developer to swtich on the voteing softwear.)
>
> --
> geni

When people talk about Jimbo "interfering" with what they want to do, I
immediately acquire a strong suspicion that what they want to do is not
in the best interests of Wikipedia, and it becomes difficult to assume
good faith.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Hey! That's not haiku
 sean at epoptic.org | You're just counting syllables
                  | Stop that this instant!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDjGzyMAt1wyd9d+URAnGTAJ44/472b4KOEVALuNVNrHcRx2oUZgCff5Zv
duE6xrjNGKdVvSjB3Amp3iY=
=4e7b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Deletion of Wikibooks content by Jimbo

body:
On 11/26/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Why delete the jokebook? Earning my bread from cmedy I certainly see it
> > > could be used as an educational tool for people wanting to make their
> > > bread as a comedian.
> >
> > Can these be moved to Wikicities?
>
> There is a comedy Wikicity at <http://comedy.wikicities.com> where
> jokes can be added if it is decided that they are not suitable for any
> Wikimedia project. It would be best to wait until Wikicities upgrades
> its version of MediaWiki before doing any sort of mass import though,
> since we'd need [[Special:Import]] to be working in order to retain
> the page histories.
>
> Angela

It hasn't been decided that jokebooks aren't suitable for any
Wikimedia project.  Jimbo has declared by executive fiat that this is
the case.  Your suggestion is quite plainly unethical, Angela.  Keep
your advertisements off this mailing list.

Anthony


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 11/26/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > There is a comedy Wikicity at <http://comedy.wikicities.com> where
> > jokes can be added if it is decided that they are not suitable for any
> > Wikimedia project. It would be best to wait until Wikicities upgrades
> > its version of MediaWiki before doing any sort of mass import though,
> > since we'd need [[Special:Import]] to be working in order to retain
> > the page histories.
> >
> It hasn't been decided that jokebooks aren't suitable for any
> Wikimedia project.  Jimbo has declared by executive fiat that this is
> the case.

Jokebooks are completely out of place in Wikibooks because they do not serve a
valid educational purpose. A textbook on comedy that had example jokes in it
would be welcome, however. This type of distinction was decided on when I
helped found Wikibooks, so Jimbo is not acting by executive fiat. He is simply
trying to put that project back on track.

> Your suggestion is quite plainly unethical, Angela.  Keep
> your advertisements off this mailing list.

That is totally uncalled for and I think you owe Angela an apology. Angela is
just mentioning a valid alternative place for the content to be placed. Are you
aware of another wiki joke book where the deleted Wikibooks jokebook could
comfortably go? If not, then keep your unfair attacks off the mailing lists. If
so, then please just add that information as an alternative, not as part of an
attack.

-- mav

__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Support freedum of infromashuon

body:
On 11/29/05, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Youre right -- there could be other valid reasons for
> suppressing a document which describes a conversation
> between public officials about committing terrorism
> against private citizens of a friendly state. We
> should just defer to the wisdom of the Krown.
>

You don't know that is all the document contains. It could for example
disscuss submerine patrol patterns (logical if they were planning a
cruise missile strike).

> Well then she could just send us a takedown notice and
> we'll immediately obey, offering to polish the crown
> jewels if she likes as a peace offering.
>
> Stevertigo

In keeping with normal policy we sould remove the copyvio as soon as
we became aware of it.
--
geni


from_name: Steve Block

references:
<dmf1h3$k8t$1@sea.gmane.org>	<2859ad8d0511280828y3264c1ebp3228850fa314555c@mail.gmail.com>	<dmfgge$cmr$1@sea.gmane.org>	<438B6AC9.7070704@myrealbox.com>
	<dmft4k$rqn$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Anthere wrote:
> Steve Block wrote:
>
>> Anthere wrote:
>>
>>> Norvy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=SablePlante.JPG
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> yet another image deleted
>>>>> *without any personal warning to the uploader
>>>>> *even though it was uploaded before the tags ever existed...
>>>>>
>>>>> I find that pityful. Really pityful. Really really pityful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To be fair, you were asked to tag them on December 16th, 2004.
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anthere/box#Image_tagging
>>>> Seems like plenty of warning to me.
>>>> --
>>>> Norvy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> see for example
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anthere/box#Unverified_images
>>>
>>> it says
>>>
>>> Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:
>>>     ?     Image:DjeDje.jpg
>>>     ?     Image:Dune.JPG
>>> I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you
>>> add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if
>>> you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}}
>>> if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this
>>> means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and
>>> I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk,
>>> automation script)]] 04:02, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
>>> P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images.
>>> Thanks again.
>>
>>
>>
>> To be fair, the above looks like an automated message, so it doesn't
>> actually state that fair use tags are acceptable on user pages.
>
>
>
> I think you should not play on words if you were fair.
>
> A year ago, fair use was authorized, with no mention if it was
> authorized in the encyclopedic content or in the user page.
> Amongst the two untaggued pages listed above, one was a picture of my
> daughter and labelled as such. It was clearly not meant for encyclopedic
> space.

Ah, I see what you are saying. Yes it looks like policy was changed in
this edit,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&oldid=23949737
on the 24 Septembe 2005, 23:53 by Kelly Martin, who comments it is Jimbo
approved.  There's probably an important lesson here somewhere.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/184 - Release Date: 27/11/05


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Fwd: Google Alert - Wikipedia

body:
Matt Brown wrote:
> On 11/28/05, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>>Sadly, though, in some instances, i.e. for illustrating articles
>>regarding comics, you will never get a free-licensed image.
>
>
> True.  Although a position one could describe as 'extreme eventualism'
> would state that the comics will eventually fall into the public
> domain and then be usable ...
>

No, I think extreme eventualism would acknowledge that, the way
copyright law is moving, there will be no public to have domain when
that happens.  When Mickey Mouse is in public domain, I'll believe it is
possible.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/184 - Release Date: 27/11/05


body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

> Are there really admins who don't know who Anthere is?

Yes.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/184 - Release Date: 27/11/05


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikitech-l] pages update call :-)

body:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_partners_and_hosts

This page is very badly outdated. Could it be possible
that it be cleaned up and straightened before the
beginning of the fundrive (roughly a good week) ?

Thanks

Ant

__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] code gripes

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

>S. Woodside wrote:
>
>
>>It seems like this might be a good place to insert an intermediate
>>parsing format (something between the article{wikitext, ...} and the
>>final HTML.
>>
>>
>
>There's a couple attempts at this floating around, not sure what the state is.
>
>
>
Perfect opportunity for yet another shameless plug of mine :-)

http://magnusmanske.de/wiki2xml/w2x.php

converts wikitext into XML. It can work directly off wikitext, or using
an existing MediaWiki installation as source, in which case it can
automatically resolve templates.

It probably needs some testing for bugs, but generally seems to work
quite well.

Code is in CVS, module "wiki2xml", directory "php".

Magnus


subject: [WikiEN-l] speaking of licence, please check...

references:
<dmf6nm$79u$1@sea.gmane.org>	<20051128153513.39372.qmail@web25002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<dmfba6$oj4$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jcmurphy

The Foundation received an email from the possible owner of one of the
picture uploaded by Jcmurphy. From his talk page, this editor could have
an history of copyvio upload. Please check. Thanks

Ant


references:
<dmf1h3$k8t$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<dmf5at$1e5$1@sea.gmane.org>	<bd4c411e0511280701m66ac19abt4b4c63ef8e9936be@mail.gmail.com>	<dmf6nm$79u$1@sea.gmane.org>	<bd4c411e0511280735q22e20bd1vfd4acd96bfa7066@mail.gmail.com>	<dmfh0f$eho$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<438B79C3.4080308@apple.com>	<dmfuc0$vsq$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<f80608430511281428m4003fb87u7cd9961e915006da@mail.gmail.com>

body:
geni wrote:
> On 11/28/05, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>incidently, this major issue is the reason why Jimbo will probably not
>>answer the questions about the arbcom for a while... so, please, show
>>patience :-)
>>
>>ant
>
>
> We've shown a lot of patience however we have run out of time. D-day
> is december the 1st.
>
>
> --
> geni

Then, I fear you will have to handle the issue all by yourselves :-)

see schedule : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales

:-)


body:
Justin Cormack wrote:
> How is anyone supposed to remember the usernames of everyone on the
> foundation and why do they expect to get special treatment? For a
> while we had some bot assisted notification for some classes of
> speedy delete; hopefully these will return soon if the bot bureaucracy
> can be overcome (er, performance improves). This particular deletion
> is not about this really, it is about communication of changing policies
> to people.
>
> Justinc

On another note, I think it is not a good idea to use a *bot* for any
action that can not be reverted (such as image deletion). Bots are not
intelligent, they should not be given such power.

ant


references:
<dmf1h3$k8t$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<dmf5at$1e5$1@sea.gmane.org>	<bd4c411e0511280701m66ac19abt4b4c63ef8e9936be@mail.gmail.com>	<dmf6nm$79u$1@sea.gmane.org>	<bd4c411e0511280735q22e20bd1vfd4acd96bfa7066@mail.gmail.com>	<dmfh0f$eho$1@sea.gmane.org>	<98dd099a0511281145w7ca9346cp1ebcd176125d5823@mail.gmail.com>	<dmfru9$nle$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<98dd099a0511281726m7d77d95bqcc0d0c81139694d6@mail.gmail.com>

body:
Fastfission wrote:
> On 11/28/05, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Does that clarify ?
>
>
> It clarifies your particular situation but it doesn't clarify why I
> should be terribly heartbroken that an image you didn't see fit to use
> on any page whatsoever got deleted as part of a generally sensible
> policy. The people doing this sort of maintenance are neither psychic
> nor have nor need the patience required to notify the hundreds of
> users who have uploaded images tagged as fair use but not used in
> articles and then wait for responses. If they are tagged as fair use,
> they should be either used or deleted -- I don't think this is in any
> way a rash policy, it is just one which recognizes that a "fair use"
> claim resides in "use" and is not a license or a free ticket to "I
> want to keep this image here but I cannot or will not license it
> freely".

Some of the images were used at a point, but were for some reasons
delinked from the articles.

> It sounds to me like you feel somewhat entitled to use Wikipedia as a
> personal file server. But perhaps I am misinterpretted or misreading
> something.
>
> FF

Personal file server ?

Again, maybe you may not really realised, but when I uploaded these
images, Commons did not existed. So, it was perfectly understandable
that an editor with a bunch of images that could be useful for the
encyclopedia would upload them where it was possible to upload them.

Now that we have commons, there is no more valid reason to upload images
on wikipedia, and I very very rarely do so (I decided not to upload any
more images on the english wikipedia a year ago anyway).

Images are uploaded on commons precisely to build up a huge database of
images. Would you tell any editor uploading an image on commons that he
is using commons as a personal file server ????

Ant


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Anthere's Algeria images

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 11/28/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>>Hmm, I might have this in a tarball.  Can someone tell me the
>>directory it'd be in (e.g.  en/upload/0/00/)?  I'll try to figure out
>>the hash function in the mean time but hopefully someone will get it
>>for me first :).
>>
>>Anthony
>>
>
> Found it.  The hash is just an md5 of the file name.
> [[Image:Dune1.JPG]] is back (had the lowest valued hash).  Extracting
> these from the tarball is taking a *long* time though, so I might have
> to put the rest off until tomorrow.  I assume Ant will copy these
> somewhere then re-delete them.
>
> Anthony

Thanks a lot Anthony and Justin.

Yes, I will copy them on my new computer. Then, I will probably delete
all Algeria images remaining on the english wikipedia, to avoid any
trouble in the future. We never know how much a vandal I could be (we
might foresee I will sue Jimbo in the future).

ant


from_name: Peter Mackay

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Poor, Edmund W
> Sent: Tuesday, 29 November 2005 02:45
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] extremely weak dispute resolution mechanisms
>
> > > This can also be done by a single admin, e.g. this is mostly what
> > > Linuxbeak is applying to his dear little charges - beat
> them around
> > > the head with a cluebat until they realise he means it,
> then gently
> > > suggest they behave with suggestions of how to. It's
> sometimes more
> > > work than it seems like it should be, but can work if the
> idjit is
> > > cluifiable at all.
> >
> > Don't be too hard on yourself, David.
> >
> > Peter (Skyring)
>
> Our whole process of "dispute resolution" needs an overhaul.
> It's slipped down to relativism:
>
> We are viewing each dispute in a moral vacuum, with both
> parties considered to have equal standing. This can never work.
>
> IF one party is strongly upholding our civility or accuracy
> standards (or making a plea for Neutrality on a Controversial
> Topic), while the other insists on being uncivil, adding
> inaccurate information, or using the article to push their
> point of view (POV)
>
> THEN
>
> * it's not a matter of two people "disputing"
> * it's a matter of one party being "right" and the other
> party being "wrong"
>
> Let's change our procedures so that there's a way to enforce
> civility and accuracy as key values of our community - and
> stamp out bias too!

I'm totally in favour of this.

The point I was making in what may have been too subtle a fashion, is that
far too often disputes are concluded in a rankist fashion. Being a WP editor
for years doesn't make someone right (or wrong, for that matter), but it
certainly allows them to push their opinion further.

Peter (Skyring)


body:
Steve Block wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
>> Are there really admins who don't know who Anthere is?
>
>
> Yes.

Very likely yes.

I know of many non-english editors who have absolutely no idea who Jimbo
is :-) So, yes.

Steve, I am a very dangerous dissident. Beware.

Amongst my crimes, I am french (which in itself is a crime for some
editors, or a quality for others :-)).

Another crime is that my english is far from perfect, which sometimes
lead me to make strange statements, which might be shocking to some (or
making their day...).

Another crime is that I love arguing. A worse one is that I tend to take
things personally.

Also, I tried to keep the recipees in the english encyclopedia...

I put 5 images or so under fair use, thus threatening the project in its
whole.

<small>I use powerpoint, word and excel at home</small> (which was very
strongly criticized by a few at Wikimania...)

I was blocked once by Jimbo in a 142 issue (granted, the situation was
quite confused...).

I have been called a vandal by RK (where is RK by the way ?).

Now that I think about it, Mav also called me a vandal once, because I
was working on an old computer with an old system, and I was all the
time breaking special caracters and pages over 32 k... My technical
inability is great.

If you are a dangerous admin, I will unsysop you :-) Especially under
PMS situation.

Another crime is that I do consider Jimbo as a human being much more
than a king. So, in spite of great respect for him, and long term
appreciation to him for having changed my life, and much dedication to
him as well, I also dare tell him when he is wrong and when he should
get out of the way. So to speak.

Other than that, I am 37, straight married female, 2 kids and pregnant
(which might save admins).

Uh, and yes, I joined the project in feb 2002, so rules have changed a
lot since then..


references:
<dmf1h3$k8t$1@sea.gmane.org>	<2859ad8d0511280828y3264c1ebp3228850fa314555c@mail.gmail.com>	<dmfgge$cmr$1@sea.gmane.org>	<438B6AC9.7070704@myrealbox.com>	<dmft4k$rqn$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<438C0912.7030507@myrealbox.com>

body:
Steve Block wrote:

>> A year ago, fair use was authorized, with no mention if it was
>> authorized in the encyclopedic content or in the user page.
>> Amongst the two untaggued pages listed above, one was a picture of my
>> daughter and labelled as such. It was clearly not meant for
>> encyclopedic space.
>
>
> Ah, I see what you are saying. Yes it looks like policy was changed in
> this edit,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&oldid=23949737
> on the 24 Septembe 2005, 23:53 by Kelly Martin, who comments it is Jimbo
> approved.  There's probably an important lesson here somewhere.

Sigh. Thanks for finding it. I tried yesterday, but I did not find it. I
was not in the correct page. My mistake for not following :-(

ant


from_name: Stephen Forrest

subject: [Wikipedia-l] moderation of mark williamson

body:
On 11/29/05, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Agreed on both counts.  If Mark is moderated from this list in part
> due to his language posts, then we absolutely need a separate mailing
> list for discussing new language proposals.

Agreed.  I have only periphally participated in discussions on this
list, but while I find Mark's posting history to be, shall we say,
voluminous, his language posts bring important subjects to a wider
audience, and I have always gotten the impression that he is acting in
good faith.  I haven't received the same impression from some of his
detractors.

Steve


from_name: Mark Wagner

body:
On 11/28/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 11/28/05, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> > On 29 Nov 2005, at 00:43, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > >>
> > > So if 25 people spend 1 hour a week it'll take...less than a year.
> > > The problem with this would be?
> > >
> >
> > The other tens of thousands of images uploaded in the mean time. The
> > fact that when people complain about removal of one non free image they
> > point to others and say this hasnt gone yet why should mine go.
> >
> But, this person is specifically complaining about an image that was
> uploaded years ago.  I could see deleting the tens of thousands of
> images uploaded more recently first, though I think you're severely
> exaggerating how many unfree images are going to be uploaded in the
> next 44 weeks.  And you ignored the point about how many of those
> images are by *unique individuals*.  There's no need to tell someone
> who has already been told time and time again, but telling people at
> least once (look, here's a list of images of yours we're going to
> delete unless you add a tag) is the least that can be done.

To answer these points:
1) Back at the beginning of the drive to clear out [[Category:Images
with unknown source]], I sometimes checked the image contributions of
uploaders.  I would usually find two or three other images tagged as
unsourced, and an equal number of other unsourced images.  Assuming
this rate is typical, that's between 5 000 and 9 000 uploaders that
need to be notified.
2) When I did check the contributions of uploaders, about 75% didn't
have a userpage.  90% had fewer than 50 edits.  All but one had not
contributed in the last month.
3) Deleting images "in order of upload" or "most recently first" is
almost impossible.  The category system sorts images alphabetically by
filename.
4) Judging from the amount of churn on the first page of
[[Category:Images with unknown source]], somewhere between 200 and 500
unsourced images are uploaded each week.   If the proportions are
similar for the other categories, then in the year you're saying
should be taken to delete the existing 33 000 images, another 17 000
to 43 000 bad images will be uploaded.

--
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: normannormal at gmail.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] Introduction

body:
Hello to everyone!

My name's Luis, from Uruguay.
I am new to the list, and hope I will be able to help in the
development of the wonderful MediaWiki. I?ve been looking for some tasks in bugzilla to start (any suggestions?)

Also, once I have familiarized with the development process, I am very interested in the MediaWiki 2 projects and the Complex tasks.

Cheers,
Luis


references:
<dmf1h3$k8t$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<2859ad8d0511280828y3264c1ebp3228850fa314555c@mail.gmail.com>
	<dmfgge$cmr$1@sea.gmane.org> <438B6AC9.7070704@myrealbox.com>
	<dmft4k$rqn$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<cbffa3750511281349u36ee0cedu7eafcb5adaf93d88@mail.gmail.com>
	<bd4c411e0511281429o65430c02k8b6968b4d45b2bba@mail.gmail.com>
	<bd4c411e0511281429o65430c02k8b6968b4d45b2bba-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
	<31073ef90511281617x7d096a26m53c249a3f1d17e3a@mail.gmail.com>
	<aaCGOxSty6iDFwEO@cartref.demon.co.uk>

body:
On 11/28/05, Arwel Parry <arwel at cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In message
> <31073ef90511281617x7d096a26m53c249a3f1d17e3a at mail.gmail.com>, Mark
> Wagner <carnildo-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> writes
> >Assuming Wikipedia is running along smoothly, an administrator can
> >delete one image every twenty seconds, if they don't notify the user
> >first or remove the image from pages where it's used, and if they do
> >only the quickest check to see if the image is tagged correctly.
> >Deleting all these images would take 185 man-hours of effort.
> >
> >If the administrator removes the image from articles where it's used
> >before deleting it, it takes about 40 seconds to delete an image.
> >This increases the effort needed to 370 man-hours.
>
> Just a minute - are you honestly advocating that images should be
> routinely deleted without removing links from articles which use them?
> Because in that case I STRONGLY object to this attitude. For some time
> I've been coming across articles on my watchlist which suddenly have red
> image links in prominent places: apart from looking damned ugly, it's
> highly give a highly unprofessional impression of Wikipedia. It should
> be OBLIGATORY in my opinion for the people deleting images to FIRST
> remove the links to them, and hang the extra work involved!

Guess why images tagged as "fair use" but not used in any article
(such as the image Anthere was complaining about) are being deleted so
quickly?  It's because the images can be deleted without removing any
links to them.  Links from talk pages shouldn't be removed, because
doing so would disrupt history, links from userpages can be ignored
because they shouldn't have been made in the first place, and links
from templates have mostly been taken care of by the drive to remove
fair-use images from template-space.

--
[[User:Carnildo]]


references:
<dmf1h3$k8t$1@sea.gmane.org> <dmf5at$1e5$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<bd4c411e0511280701m66ac19abt4b4c63ef8e9936be@mail.gmail.com>
	<dmf6nm$79u$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<bd4c411e0511280735q22e20bd1vfd4acd96bfa7066@mail.gmail.com>
	<dmfh0f$eho$1@sea.gmane.org> <438B79C3.4080308@apple.com>
	<dmfuc0$vsq$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<f80608430511281428m4003fb87u7cd9961e915006da@mail.gmail.com>
	<dmh39d$qnt$2@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 11/29/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Then, I fear you will have to handle the issue all by yourselves :-)
>
> see schedule : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales
>
> :-)
>

We could if jimbo did not insist in interfearing (ok we would need a
developer to swtich on the voteing softwear.)

--
geni


body:
On 11/29/05, Arwel Parry <arwel at cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> In message
> <31073ef90511281617x7d096a26m53c249a3f1d17e3a at mail.gmail.com>, Mark
> Wagner <carnildo-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> writes
> >Assuming Wikipedia is running along smoothly, an administrator can
> >delete one image every twenty seconds, if they don't notify the user
> >first or remove the image from pages where it's used, and if they do
> >only the quickest check to see if the image is tagged correctly.
> >Deleting all these images would take 185 man-hours of effort.
> >
> >If the administrator removes the image from articles where it's used
> >before deleting it, it takes about 40 seconds to delete an image.
> >This increases the effort needed to 370 man-hours.
>
> Just a minute - are you honestly advocating that images should be
> routinely deleted without removing links from articles which use them?
> Because in that case I STRONGLY object to this attitude. For some time
> I've been coming across articles on my watchlist which suddenly have red
> image links in prominent places: apart from looking damned ugly, it's
> highly give a highly unprofessional impression of Wikipedia. It should
> be OBLIGATORY in my opinion for the people deleting images to FIRST
> remove the links to them, and hang the extra work involved!

{{sofixit}}

--
geni


from_name: Gordon Joly

subject: [Wikitech-l] RC patrol for ~50 smallest wikipedias

body:
At 15:11 -0500 27/11/05, Brian wrote:
>There have been numerous reports recently of finding rampant
>vandalism on small Wikipedias/Wiktionaries. It might be useful to
>create an RC page and/or IRC channel which brings together the RC's
>of the ~50 smallest Wikipedias.
>
>brian0918

I run about 5 or 6 wikis using Mediawiki and from time to time we
have vandalism of various kinds. So I would welcome this!

--
Gordo (aka LoopZilla)
gordon.joly at pobox.com
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
http://www.loopzilla.org/


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Fair use in non-English Wikipedias (moved from
	wikien)

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On 11/27/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>
>>What about non-free pictures that are legal for Wikipedia to use?
>>No-derivatives images, non-commercial only images, by permission
>>images.  Are these banned?  Are there many floating around?  I believe
>>these are banned from commons, except for some logos owned by
>>Wikimedia.
>>
>>
>These are banned on *english* Wikipedia and I presume on all others.
>
>We would rather have the smallest amount of fair use content (or
>otherwise unfree content) on Wikipedia possible, because it would
>maximize our goal to be a *free* encyclopedia.
>
This makes philosophical sense.  It allows for "some" free use
material.  "Some" is a moving target that relies on flexibility and
common sense.  Unfortunately, some people prefer absolute black and
white rules that avoid exercising common sense.

>This would be true even
>if there was no confusion or international disconnect over fair use.
>However,  the English Wikipedia community has decided that in order to
>do our job successfully we must make some non-minimal use of fair use
>content because a great many historically significant images are only
>available that way and a great many other images are much more
>available.
>
The public interest argument when used alone may be very weak.  The
first question that should come up when fair use is claimed is, "Does
this contributor understand fair use?"  Perhaps the information page for
any image claimed to be fair use should include a fair use analysis
section where the contributor MUST answer a series of relevant
questions.  In addition to applying the four criteria of US law the
person would need to show where the picture comes from.  If it is from a
book he would need to show any credits which the author of the book gave
with regards to the picture; it's important to be able to trace a
picture to its original source..

He should also be prepared to show why the picture is NOT in the public
domain.  This is important because having a work in the public domain
would make any fair use argument moot.

>We don't extend the same tolerance for 'with permission' or
>'non-commercial' because it isn't at all clear that choice of freedom
>in that case cuts us out from a great number of images which we could
>obtain in no other way.
>
I would follow this, but not without some regret..  Simply put, I think
that a lot of people who add these provisions to our apparent source
have probably not thought this through.  Personally, I would prefer to
allow much of this material with the proper credits and caveats.  In
many ways the due dilligence required by a downstream user of our
pictures is no different from that required by a downstream user of our
information.  That user has his own responsibility for verifying that
the information is accurate.

>In any case, there is already pressure from some on English Wikipedia
>to further restrict our use of fair use to only cases where it can
>clearly be articulated that no reasonable freely licensed content
>could be created to replace the fair use image.
>
This is one more question that could be asked in a fair use analysis

>>This might be a misunderstanding of what I was saying.  Not including
>>non-free images clearly has positives and negatives.  Personally I
>>believe the positives outweigh the negatives, at least in the vast
>>majority of cases.  In my opinion every article should have at least
>>some image in it eventually.  Adding a non-free image fixes that
>>problem in the short term, but in the long term it lessens the chance
>>that a free image will come along.
>>
>>
>You make it sound a lot more cut and dry than it actually is... Fair
>use is not a blanket permission to violate copyright as such it is not
>really a good quick fix to a missing image. In most interesting
>jurisdictions, since parody isn't something we are likely to do, we
>must be making critical commentary of the creative work we borrow from
>in order to make a strong fair use claim.
>
Section 107 of the US copyright law includes "Notwithstanding the
provisions of Sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work,
... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research,
is not an infringement of copyright.

This is much wider that just criticism.  The reference to Section 106A
suggests that it is not even necessary to even attribute the source, but
this seems contrary to the fair dealing as it exists in other
countries.  Notwithstanding this I think that academic integrity
requires proper attribution even for works that have been in the public
domain for a very long time.

>For the case of a great many articles, it's simply easier to nag
>someone with access to the right place or object to take a picture.
>
>
>>Anyway, the English Wikipedia seems to be relying less on fair use
>>than it has in the past.  I think it's good for us to look at the
>>other languages to see that it really wouldn't be that horrible to
>>drop reliance on it completely.
>>
>>
>Ah, so you've spotted that trend. It's true and I think it is an
>unquestionably good thing.
>
It's good that reliance is being reduced, but an absolutism that denies
the use of all fair use images does not seem warranted.  It is easy to
imagine situations where allowing a fair use image would be the right
thing to do.  This might include images where the copyright status is
unclear, or orphan works.  These can always be taken down easily if
there is a complaint from a person with the right to make that
complaint.  If such material lasts long enough (I would suggest three
years from the upload date.) the doctrine of laches could become applicable.

Ec


body:
On 11/29/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 11/26/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > There is a comedy Wikicity at <http://comedy.wikicities.com> where
> > > jokes can be added if it is decided that they are not suitable for any
> > > Wikimedia project. It would be best to wait until Wikicities upgrades
> > > its version of MediaWiki before doing any sort of mass import though,
> > > since we'd need [[Special:Import]] to be working in order to retain
> > > the page histories.
> > >
> > It hasn't been decided that jokebooks aren't suitable for any
> > Wikimedia project.  Jimbo has declared by executive fiat that this is
> > the case.
>
> Jokebooks are completely out of place in Wikibooks because they do not serve a
> valid educational purpose. A textbook on comedy that had example jokes in it
> would be welcome, however. This type of distinction was decided on when I
> helped found Wikibooks, so Jimbo is not acting by executive fiat. He is simply
> trying to put that project back on track.
>
> > Your suggestion is quite plainly unethical, Angela.  Keep
> > your advertisements off this mailing list.
>
> That is totally uncalled for and I think you owe Angela an apology. Angela is
> just mentioning a valid alternative place for the content to be placed. Are you
> aware of another wiki joke book where the deleted Wikibooks jokebook could
> comfortably go? If not, then keep your unfair attacks off the mailing lists. If
> so, then please just add that information as an alternative, not as part of an
> attack.
>
> -- mav

I'm not going to apologize to Angela for that statement.  I stand by
it.  This message board is not the place to advertise Wikicities.

That said, I'm taking a break from posting to the message boards for
the rest of the week.

Anthony


from_name: Justin Cormack

references:
<dmf6nm$79u$1@sea.gmane.org>	<20051128153513.39372.qmail@web25002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<dmfba6$oj4$1@sea.gmane.org> <dmh34e$qnt$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 29 Nov 2005, at 08:23, Anthere wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jcmurphy
>
> The Foundation received an email from the possible owner of one of
> the picture uploaded by Jcmurphy. From his talk page, this editor
> could have an history of copyvio upload. Please check. Thanks

Looks like blatent copyvio to me. Tagged and listed on http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2005_November_29
and removed from all
articles.

Justinc


from_name: Keith Old

body:
Fastfission,

Very well put.

Apart from being massively POV, it would also be original research. We
should base our articles on verifiable material published in other reliable
sources. We should not be publishing original documents ourselves. At best,
it would be a matter for Wikisource.

Regards

*Keith Old*

Keith Old
User:Capitalistroadster

On 11/29/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've got no problem with "freedom of information" and certainly think
> that this alleged memo should be published widely when and if it is
> released/exists/etc., but Wikipedia and the WMF cannot be vehicles for
> this sort of political controversy (talk about POV pushing). If WP has
> any legal obligation to follow the Official Secrets Act or whatever (I
> imagine it does -- the idea that the UK and US wouldn't have worked
> out these sorts of things in treaties seems unrealistic to me) then it
> shouldn't break the law. Doing so would put the whole project at risk
> for what would in practice be little gain. I do not think there will
> be a difficulty in finding people to post the contents of whatever
> this memo is. If it comes down to Wikipedia being the last possible
> outlet in the world, then maybe we could talk about it.
>
> And let's also remember that Wikipedia is a place full of contributors
> from all political and ideological backgrounds, all of which are
> welcome to contribute as long as they obey a few simple rules.
>
> FF
>
>
>
> On 11/28/05, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Since Wikipedia is supposed to be, like, into this
> > 'freedom of information thing,' (and stuff) and, like,
> > that includes our friends even in the UK, who arent
> > used to like, living under freedom (and stuff)...
> >
> > I thought it might not be out of our mandate to put
> > this little image (
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Illpublish.png ) on
> > the front page. Maybe even at Wikisource! (Im sure
> > somebody here is an admin there. Ive only got my meta
> > priveleges left now - snif!). The image is a little
> > white box that says "Ill publish the Al Jazeera memo."
> > It may or may not be linked to the Blairwatch.org
> > site.
> >
> > Anyway, though it might, like, be cheezy to stand up
> > for freedom of information (and stuff) though. Plus,
> > that might violate Wikisource's NOR policy.
> >
> > Stevertigo
> >  Confused: Is it still called 'Valspeak'
> >  when a guy uses it?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Image Thumbnails

body:
On 11/29/05, Darwin Sadeli <darwin.sadeli at gmail.com> wrote:
> Currently I'm trying to replicate wikipedia contents into a local
> system for a research project. I've managed to download the whole
> article database and image dumps, but the image thumbnails are still
> missing. Are the image thumbnails available for download, and if yes,
> where can I download it? Thanks.

They should be autogenerated on load-demand.


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 29/11/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've got no problem with "freedom of information" and certainly think
> that this alleged memo should be published widely when and if it is
> released/exists/etc., but Wikipedia and the WMF cannot be vehicles for
> this sort of political controversy (talk about POV pushing). If WP has
> any legal obligation to follow the Official Secrets Act or whatever (I
> imagine it does -- the idea that the UK and US wouldn't have worked
> out these sorts of things in treaties seems unrealistic to me) then it
> shouldn't break the law. Doing so would put the whole project at risk
> for what would in practice be little gain. I do not think there will
> be a difficulty in finding people to post the contents of whatever
> this memo is. If it comes down to Wikipedia being the last possible
> outlet in the world, then maybe we could talk about it.

I have been not following the news at all for the last week or so, but...

The major issue with publishing militarially sensitive material in the
UK is D-notices; for the Americans, these are basically standing
requests from HMG that before detailed information is published on
various issues - nuclear weapons, aspects of the security services,
military operational plans - that "advice be sought". A polite warning
of sensitive areas which would probably result in various legal
controversy in order that it not all end in tears, so that someone
can't say "Well, I didn't realise you didn't *want* me to publish the
names of members of SIS..."

Officially, they have no legal standing, and are simply advisory; in
practice it's a "voluntary code" which is followed most of the time,
and it's understood that going against them is clearly seen as
crossing the Rubicon. You might not wind up in court, but you'd
certainly know you were dipping your toes in the shark pool. These
have no legal force outside the UK barring in the sense of "a request
through gritted teeth", and I have a vague recollection that OSA and
DORA are really only applicable once someone's signed them - and I
would hope any of our contributors who have are being sensible and
restricting their writing to articles about kittens, just to be safe.

So "breaking the law" is debatable. But actively making a political
point of the fact we're considering doing it? Oooh, that would be so
not good and god no and ugh. WP:NOT a campaigning body; this would be
a vastly more contentious issue on-list were it solely in the US, I
suspect.

Fastfission is, as always, being sensible. I concur that, if this is
significant, we should write about it. But we should not write about
it simply to make a political point, not publish it simply to make
that point. There will, after all, be no shortage of copies of it
hosted around the world to refer to.

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


body:
On 29 Nov 2005, at 08:30, Anthere wrote:

> Justin Cormack wrote:
>> How is anyone supposed to remember the usernames of everyone on the
>> foundation and why do they expect to get special treatment? For a
>> while we had some bot assisted notification for some classes of
>> speedy delete; hopefully these will return soon if the bot
>> bureaucracy
>> can be overcome (er, performance improves). This particular deletion
>> is not about this really, it is about communication of changing
>> policies
>> to people.
>> Justinc
>
> On another note, I think it is not a good idea to use a *bot* for
> any action that can not be reverted (such as image deletion). Bots
> are not intelligent, they should not be given such power.

They dont do the deletion, just tagging and notification, and putting
into
categories for human checking.

Justinc


from_name: Puddl Duk

body:
> > > Can these be moved to Wikicities?
> >
> > There is a comedy Wikicity at <http://comedy.wikicities.com> where
> > jokes can be added if it is decided that they are not suitable for any
> > Wikimedia project. It would be best to wait until Wikicities upgrades
> > its version of MediaWiki before doing any sort of mass import though,
> > since we'd need [[Special:Import]] to be working in order to retain
> > the page histories.
> >
> > Angela
>
> It hasn't been decided that jokebooks aren't suitable for any
> Wikimedia project.  Jimbo has declared by executive fiat that this is
> the case.  Your suggestion is quite plainly unethical, Angela.  Keep
> your advertisements off this mailing list.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________

Angela didn't make this suggestion, I did. She just answered my question.

And even if Wikicities did make this suggestion, so what, it's GFDL.

Don't be a jerk, Anthony


from_name: GerardM

body:
Hoi,
Calling what Angela says unethical is something that I strongly object to.
Why would it be unethical to show that there are options when the jokebook
IS going to be removed. She gives an answer to a direct question; she even
points out what the problems are.

What I object to is that you do not assume good faith. I do not mind that
you oppose what Jimbo decreed, but it is no excuse to accuse Angela of being
unethical.. Shame !!

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 11/29/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 11/26/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Why delete the jokebook? Earning my bread from cmedy I certainly see
> it
> > > > could be used as an educational tool for people wanting to make
> their
> > > > bread as a comedian.
> > >
> > > Can these be moved to Wikicities?
> >
> > There is a comedy Wikicity at <http://comedy.wikicities.com> where
> > jokes can be added if it is decided that they are not suitable for any
> > Wikimedia project. It would be best to wait until Wikicities upgrades
> > its version of MediaWiki before doing any sort of mass import though,
> > since we'd need [[Special:Import]] to be working in order to retain
> > the page histories.
> >
> > Angela
>
> It hasn't been decided that jokebooks aren't suitable for any
> Wikimedia project.  Jimbo has declared by executive fiat that this is
> the case.  Your suggestion is quite plainly unethical, Angela.  Keep
> your advertisements off this mailing list.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
geni wrote:

>The image situation on wikipedia is a toxic dump of a mess. Sorting it
>out is not easy. If you think you know a better way do it do so. No
>one is going to stand in your way.
>
Not quite true - as this thread has shown, there are people who want
to do the summary executions anyway, despite expressed objections.

Now as it happens, I agree with the expedited process - I've tried
pinging uploaders in the past myself, and the response rate is about
5-10%, so it's generally seemed like a waste of time. If we had more
people doing image patrolling, it might be possible to adopt a more
stately approach, but the number of bad uploads is too high to keep
up with now. It's unfortunate that Anthere's images got caught in the
crossfire, but expect that kind of thing to keep happening until the
uploads are under better control. (As with the DDR copyvios on de:,
mass image copyvios are the kind of publicity we don't really want!)

Stan


from_name: Jim Trodel

body:
All

Please review,
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Votes_for_undeletion#The_Manual_of_Crime,
on
"The Manual of Crime" - this is so absurd and contrary to the mission of
wikibooks that I can't believe it is still there.

In addition to not having any class for which it could be a textbook, it is
subject to subtle vandalism of the type pointed out by Whiteknight:

> I want to draw everybody's attention to some quotes from the manual of
> crime that got it in trouble in the first place:
>
*
>
> Many rapists use a gun or a knife to threaten their victims with bodily
> harm to keep them compliant. You may hear things like "stop, please" but
> don't let that discourage you. Tonight is your night. Don't let anything
> stand in your way.*
>
Tonight is your night"? This isnt a textbook, and this isn't going to teach
> anybody, nor is it going to make anybody any more safe by knowing this
> stuff. This book is disgusting, plain and simple. Now, I would not be
> against a book entitled "How to Avoid Crime", or "How not to be a victim of
> crime*",* or "how to survive a violent attack", or something like that.
> This book however is a blot on the wiki project, and needs to be deleted. So
> help me, I will get jimbo in here to delete this one personally if the vote
> here doesnt reach a *delete* concensus. --Whiteknight<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Whiteknight>
> T <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User_talk:Whiteknight>C<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Whiteknight>
> E <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/Whiteknight> 18:52, 29
> November 2005 (UTC)

I agree this is a blot on the wikiproject. Those that seem to think Jimbo's
actions are an abuse, please read the comments on the VfUnD - and help get
this project focused through reasoned debate or the board, as a trustee of
our reputation, may be forced to take unilateral action again.

Jim
--
Jim (trodel at gmail.com)
"Our love may not always be reciprocated, or
even appreciated, but love is never wasted"
- Neal A Maxwell


subject: [WikiEN-l] Non-Commercial Usage

body:
Karl A. Krueger wrote:

>
>The claim that "no businessman will lightly use material released under
>a Gnu-like license" seems rather unusual.
>
Having sat in a number of meetings with businesspeople considering
the use of GNU-licensed material, I can attest that the decision is
usually made with considerable anguish and argument. The most painful
decisions are when they realize that the techies have boxed them in
already, and it's either use GNU, or fire all the techies and spend
enormous sums re-creating from scratch - at these moments it's
terrible hard not to grin as free software racks up another victory. :-)

Stan


from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [WikiEN-l] citations, etc.

body:
SJ wrote:
> For those of you foolish enough to use Wikipedia as a source, you
> should check out the bells and whistles on
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Cite , when it's up and working.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Cite?page=Red_Sox
>
> The projects could still use a good Wikicite project, to collage
> citation information about non-WP content... to provide that kind of
> comprehensive multi-format citation detail about every cite used in/by
> an article, and offer editors a place to comment on the citations
> (quality, reliability, disambiguation with better-known cites)
> themselves.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikicite
>
> ++SJ
>
>
Ohhhh. Shiny...

Thank you!

-- Neil


from_name: Delirium

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:

>When people talk about Jimbo "interfering" with what they want to do, I
>immediately acquire a strong suspicion that what they want to do is not
>in the best interests of Wikipedia, and it becomes difficult to assume
>good faith.
>
>
I don't think that's always the case.  Jimbo understandably is not a
full-time member of every community on all the various projects, so
sometimes his actions appear to be a sort of outside interference by
someone who hasn't been around to understand the entirel context.  This
is of course a relatively infrequent sort of thing, but I think it's
possible both for Jimbo to be acting in good faith and for people to in
good faith think he's interfering somewhere he shouldn't be, because the
two have different views and levels of involvement in what's going on.

In this case, there is also a disagreement over whether the arbcom
should continue to be run as a benevolent dictatorship of sorts, with
Jimbo running the show and soliciting votes when it seems appropriate,
or should instead move to a more community-run model, like the one used
on the French Wikipedia, that would not have Jimbo involved at all
(which I think is what geni is advocating).

-Mark


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
Mike Finucane wrote:

>
> In reply to:
> > Because Wikipedia is free as in freedom. Your pictures are not free
> > (though apparently they are gratis); you are limiting who can
> distribute
> > them. Please re-evaluate contributing to Wikipedia if you are unwilling
> > to support freedom.
>
> My answer is that I do not see how enriching private corporations
> furthers freedom. My pictures are indeed gratis.
> The only objection I have is to allowing others to make profits from
> my work.

There is a German company who, now for the third time, sells a copy of
the German Wikipedia on DVD. They sell it for ?9,90 and make little
profit of that (last time they gave ?1 per DVD sold to Wikimedia).
Mostly, it is a PR thing, as well as the ability to offer a current
encyclopedia (they usually specialize in public domain texts on CD).

We have the encyclopedia. They have the software and the infrastructure
to distribute it on DVD. The end user has the ability to buy a good
encyclopedia on DVD for a decent price.

You can not honestly tell me that the above is a bad thing. In fact,
many German wikipedians, myself included, have actively helped that
company to get these DVDs ready, as unpaid volunteers, because it is a
good thing.

However, your images would have to be excluded from such a DVD.

Face it: Noone will become insanely rich by selling images from
Wikipedia, yours or other people's. And even if one or the other image
turns up in some high-quality production, GFDL or CC-BY-SA make sure
they'll have to credit the author, which would mean free advertising for
you.

On the other hand, there is a market for low-priced works, encyclopedia,
wikibook, wiki-reader or whatever, that will extend the range of people
we can reach to those whithout (permanent) internet access. If someone
provides, say, printed wikipedia editions, and charges his printing
costs plus a few bucks to keep his business afloat, so what? Would you
go to peolpe who would buy such a printed edition, or who would be given
one by some organisation that buys them, ans say "sorry, folks, you
could have had an encyclopedia, but someone would have made $5 of it,
and that's unacceptable"?

I, for one, will keep co-licensing my pictures under GFDL and CC-BY-SA,
so *our readers* can (hopefully) profit from them. Truth is, noone would
by my pictures anyway. So if someome manages to sell them, lucky him. I
don't mind.

Magnus


body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 11/27/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Again, from a legal standpoint, I don't think it should matter whether
>>99% of editors and readers live in Poland or 5% do.  So if someone
>>*could* sue Wikipedia for an image in the Polish Wikipedia, then they
>>probably *could* sue Wikipedia for an image in the English Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>In case it's not clear, I'm implying here that Wikipedia probably
>*could* be sued for copyright infingement which is fair use even on
>the English Wikipedia.
>
I don't think that it's in anybody's interest to pursue such a
convoluted legal scenario.  A convoluted suit works against the
plaintiff because there are too many places where his action can be
derailed.  The interests of justice would probably be best served by
stripping issues down to the basics.

>I've had some conversations with actual lawyers about this, and
>they've suggested that this is possible even in the case of images
>whose copyright is held by US companies.
>
"Possible" covers a very wide range of probabilities, many of which are
not realistic.  Unless there is something on the table, a lawyer's
opinion is not significantly different from anyone else's.
International copyright law is not something that most lawyers get
involved with, so they have likely not had a chance to research it.
Some of our non-lawyer Wikipedians are probably more familiar with
copyright law than most lawyers.

>The US company could get a
>ruling in a foreign court using foreign laws.  Whether or not this
>ruling could be enforced is another question, but as Wikipedia is
>starting to hold assets in lots of different countries that part is
>becoming easier.
>
The whole topic is one big cloud of uncertainty.  Has there ever been
any legal case anywhere where the GFDL was a major issue?  I think that
there are some areas where we should welcome being sued.  Without that
things will only get worse.  We just need to be clear about what issues
are worth taking a stand on.  We don't lack people who only guess at
what the law is, and then proceed to interpret theri guesses
restrictively to our disadvantage. All the time the underlying tone is
one of wanting to be squeaky clean law abiders..  Law is just not that
clear cut.

The deepening pockets argument is a problem one.  Perhaps this can best
be handled by having national chapters own their equipment, and setting
up firewalls between national chapters.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Non-Commercial Usage

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>Stan Shebs wrote:
>
>>Karl A. Krueger wrote:
>>
>
>>>The claim that "no businessman will lightly use material released under
>>>a Gnu-like license" seems rather unusual.
>>>
>
>>Having sat in a number of meetings with businesspeople considering
>>the use of GNU-licensed material, I can attest that the decision is
>>usually made with considerable anguish and argument. The most painful
>>decisions are when they realize that the techies have boxed them in
>>already, and it's either use GNU, or fire all the techies and spend
>>enormous sums re-creating from scratch - at these moments it's
>>terrible hard not to grin as free software racks up another victory. :-)
>>
>
>
><whisper>why they don't just use FreeBSD ...</whisper>
>
<whisper>No compiler or debugger...</whisper>

Stan


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Non-Commercial Usage

body:
Stan Shebs wrote:

> <snip>
>
> Also, by saying "non-commercial only", you're excluding many
> worthwhile activities, for instance a 1-person print shop that's
> taken a job producing brochures for a women's shelter. Even though
> the shelter might be non-profit, if the print shop is a normal company,
> your non-commercial restriction prevents the shop from using your
> pictures in the brochure they produce.
>
> Stan

Minor nit-pick: that situation is improbable because IIRC the brochure
(if it used GFDL material) has to include the whole whopping GFDL
licence in it. That's why Wikitravel (or whatever they're called) used
the Creative Commons licence instead. Your basic
analogy/example/metaphor/whatever still holds, though.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


from_name: Kai Kumpf

subject: [Wikipedia-l] the road to stability

body:
i know this topic keeps reoccuring and so my point may not be very
original.
it has been said that wikipedia is "work in progress" and will probably
continue to to so. on the other hand it ails from the fact that at no
given point in time you can be certain to have a 1. consistent , 2.
unvandalized and 3. correct throughout wikipedia. (compared to those
three points the shortcoming of non-completeness dwindles to almost
nothing.)
let me draw your attention to the fact that the construction plans for
roads to stability - or at least local optima - have long been laid out
by physics. heat a dynamic system quickly then let it cool down in a
slower and controlled fashion, allowing less and less dramatic changes
to take place as time passes. simulated annealing
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing) is the magic spell
that might work for wikixyzs in a way similar to that in the real world.
the rationale behind my suggestion is of course that articles that have
matured over time are statistically speaking less likely to improve when
large modifications are made than relatively new ones. some of the
articles have reached a stage where well-meant editing effectively mucks
up the inner structure and logic. what i think reasonable is to lift the
threshold for substantial edits, maybe not by limiting access but by
asking for more substantial background information from the authors
(references, printed, electronic,...) than the simple comment line.
there is to much unproven and partially unprovable information in the
wp. that could have been prevented long ago by obliging the authors to
give references for their information. besides, this task would make it
successively harder to simply put established statements upside down.
whereas scientific journals have peer review, wp only offers the weak
weapons of discussion pages and reverts - by others, mostly admins, i
guess. why not confer a little bit more of  responsibility to the
authors? he/she could be aided by predefined lists, checkboxes,
comboboxes (for ref. type, etc.)
i find myself increasingly involved in hunting down vandals and their
work - partly due to the ease of use wp offers for non-serious edits,
too, and i can't help feeling that a larger and larger part of wp keeps
a larger and larger part of the community busy with just keeping up the
existing standard.
comments?
best
kai (kku)


from_name: stevertigo

subject: [WikiEN-l] Support freedum of infromashun

body:
--- Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> Going for the "irony thick and sticky enough to suck
the boots right off
> your feet" award, are we?

I was rather proud of the "UK has a substantial
English-speaking population" bit, myself, but others
are free to pick their own favorites. My own personal
favorite remains this little piece of tutelage by Andy
Lih re TCM :

It's fascinating that AC can accuse folks (who
advocate a balance and coexistence of East and West)
of "breathtaking ethnocentrism." At the same time, AC
implies that only the West was capable of a scientific
process in medicine. (And again, no sources or
attribution for these views). I suppose for those
thousands of years that TCM was practiced, there was
no exploration into new substances, no evaluation of
outcomes, no experimentation in quantities of doses,
no conversation between practitioner and patient, and
no observation that the patient was, well, dead or
alive...

:)
Stevertigo

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Netocrat

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Re: Ampersand symbol in URLs

body:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:40:56 -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Netocrat wrote:
[incorrectly patching Title.php/getLocalURL() and getFullURL() to encode
ampersands]
> This patch is incorrect, and will cause broken URLs to be output
> throughout the wiki.

Too hasty - I didn't notice that there were already escaped versions of
these functions and that unescaped versions were necessary.

> Instead, you should locate the individual *output* of the bad URL that
> you found and patch *that* to properly HTML-encode its output.

I based part of the extension on code from BoardVote.php, which doesn't
use the escaped url function to generate the action of a form.  So the
patch is not very significant anyhow but this is what it should have been:

Index: BoardVote.php
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/wikipedia/extensions/BoardVote/BoardVote.php,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -r1.4 BoardVote.php
--- BoardVote.php	13 Sep 2005 14:12:09 -0000	1.4
+++ BoardVote.php	29 Nov 2005 05:05:56 -0000
@@ -155,7 +155,7 @@
 		global $wgBoardCandidates, $wgOut;

 		$thisTitle = Title::makeTitle( NS_SPECIAL, "Boardvote" );
-		$action = $thisTitle->getLocalURL( "action=vote" );
+		$action = $thisTitle->escapeLocalURL( "action=vote" );
 		if ( $this->mHasVoted ) {
 			$intro = wfMsg( "boardvote_intro_change" );
 		} else {

--
http://members.dodo.com.au/~netocrat


body:
On 11/29/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >We would rather have the smallest amount of fair use content (or
> >otherwise unfree content) on Wikipedia possible, because it would
> >maximize our goal to be a *free* encyclopedia.
> >
> This makes philosophical sense.  It allows for "some" free use
> material.  "Some" is a moving target that relies on flexibility and
> common sense.  Unfortunately, some people prefer absolute black and
> white rules that avoid exercising common sense.

(I presume you intended 'fair' not free above)

I think we should be as black and white as it makes sense, but no more.
A complete prohibition against fair use would make a substantial
number of subjects effectively unillustratable and would put us at a
competitive disadvantage to other encyclopedias.

> The public interest argument when used alone may be very weak.  The
> first question that should come up when fair use is claimed is, "Does
> this contributor understand fair use?"

The answer to that on english wikipedia is a resounding NO in a great
many cases.

> Perhaps the information page for
> any image claimed to be fair use should include a fair use analysis
> section where the contributor MUST answer a series of relevant
> questions.  In addition to applying the four criteria of US law the
> person would need to show where the picture comes from.  If it is from a
> book he would need to show any credits which the author of the book gave
> with regards to the picture; it's important to be able to trace a
> picture to its original source..

I would support this, but there is such a huge amount of material
already there and such a huge resistance to removing any of it. (I get
yelled at when tagging totally orphaned 'fair use' material for
deletion!).  I'm not sure of how we get there from where we are today.

> He should also be prepared to show why the picture is NOT in the public
> domain.  This is important because having a work in the public domain
> would make any fair use argument moot.

That's usually pretty darn easy, (unfortunately) thanks to modern copyright law.

> >We don't extend the same tolerance for 'with permission' or
> >'non-commercial' because it isn't at all clear that choice of freedom
> >in that case cuts us out from a great number of images which we could
> >obtain in no other way.
> >
> I would follow this, but not without some regret..  Simply put, I think
> that a lot of people who add these provisions to our apparent source
> have probably not thought this through.  Personally, I would prefer to
> allow much of this material with the proper credits and caveats.  In
> many ways the due dilligence required by a downstream user of our
> pictures is no different from that required by a downstream user of our
> information.  That user has his own responsibility for verifying that
> the information is accurate.

I don't agree. In many cases where we use an image under fair use,
there is very little to no chance of getting the work available under
a free license.  If the work has already been licensed under
cc-by-nc-sa it is highly likely that we can get a copy under cc-by-sa
or GFDL, by using the argument that the SA requirements (or GFDL's
requirements) are onerous enough that people engaging in the sort of
commercial distribution they are trying to inhibit via cc-by-nc will
still be interested in obtaining a separate copyright license under
more liberal terms.

Furthermore, some people feel that cc-by-nc-sa is unethical because
claims to discriminate against some classes of use rather than just
distribution (but likely actually fails in that goal because as a
copyright license, rather than a contract, it has no ability to impose
such limitations).

Frankly, our fair use images are actually more 'free' than cc-by-nc-sa
content that we could have for many of our uses. If we were to produce
a print edition we could only use cc-by-nc-sa if we could also claim
fair use, which happens to be less likely for this content simply
because of its nature.

I want it to be possible to produce and sell a print edition of
Wikipedia complete with illustrations, this is only realistically
possible if we limit our content to be Free or fair use (because a
print edition would be able to make the same fair use claims as the
online).

> >In any case, there is already pressure from some on English Wikipedia
> >to further restrict our use of fair use to only cases where it can
> >clearly be articulated that no reasonable freely licensed content
> >could be created to replace the fair use image.
> This is one more question that could be asked in a fair use analysis

It's a question we're starting to ask.

> Section 107 of the US copyright law includes "Notwithstanding the
> provisions of Sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work,
> ... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
> (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research,
> is not an infringement of copyright.
>
> This is much wider that just criticism.  The reference to Section 106A
> suggests that it is not even necessary to even attribute the source, but
> this seems contrary to the fair dealing as it exists in other
> countries.  Notwithstanding this I think that academic integrity
> requires proper attribution even for works that have been in the public
> domain for a very long time.

The statute is vague, and you've only quoted it in part making it moreso.
A reading of what you've quoted would imply that a school can
willfully ignore any copyright they wish as long is it is in the
furtherance of their primary objection. As a taxpayer who has seen
what his local school district spends on text books, I certainly wish
this were true. Alas...

The fact of the matter is that most everything that matters about fair
use in the US comes out of case law, not the statute.

You are correct that the simple use of the word criticism was an
oversimplification. However, I believe such a statement captures the
spirit of the primary intention of fair use in the US (and its cousins
around the world) which is that we need to provide some relaxation of
the otherwise oppressive control a copyright holder has in order to
safeguard the ability for the public to engage in criticism,
discussion, and other academic endeavors.

> It's good that reliance is being reduced, but an absolutism that denies
> the use of all fair use images does not seem warranted.  It is easy to
> imagine situations where allowing a fair use image would be the right
> thing to do.  This might include images where the copyright status is
> unclear, or orphan works.  These can always be taken down easily if
> there is a complaint from a person with the right to make that
> complaint.  If such material lasts long enough (I would suggest three
> years from the upload date.) the doctrine of laches could become applicable.

While I agree that there are cases where permitting fair use makes
sense, I think your cited examples are cases where we should not use
fair use.  If we can not claim fair use via traditional rationale,
then we are just saying "Lets break the law, call it fair use, play
stupid, and IFF we are caught we'll fix it because we know the penalty
isn't so bad".

That you continue the argument with "(if we break the law long enough)
maybe we'll get a ruling that we're allowed to contine because they
didn't catch us sooner".

It is *exactly* this sort of reasoning that worries me so greatly.
Were I a judge and someone brough me a case where it was shown that:
1) Wikipedia was persistently infringing their copyrights.
2) Wikipedia was requiring the copyright holder to jump through a
hoops for each and every image they wanted down.
3) Wikipedia was making outrageous claims of fair use
4) Wikipedia administrators having discussions about how we don't need
to worry too much about following the law because we can take material
down after a complaint (and thus after much damage is potentially
done) and not suffer any harm.
5) Wikipedia administrators having discussions about how if we ignore
our legal obligations long enough we might just manage to kill the
copyright holders right...

Well, if someone brought me that I wouldn't think to hard before
issuing an injunction demanding Wikipedia be taken off line until it
could demonstrate that it wasn't infringing on anyone's copyrights.


from_name: Frieda Brioschi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Portale: and autore: namespaces

body:
Hi,
I've two new namespaces request: one for it.wiki and one for it.source.

For it.wiki:
as English, German and French Wikipedia we'd like to have a
namespace "Portale" too [here's the discussion on our village pump:
<http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar#Namespace_portali>]

For it.source:
we are already using a pseudo-namespace "Autore" [take a look here:
<http://it.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Speciale%3AAllpages&from=Autore%3A&namespace=0>],
is it possible, instead, having a "real" namespace "Autore"?

Thanks!

Ciao,
Frieda

2005/9/8, Ashar Voultoiz <hashar at altern.org>:
> Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
> > Hi,
> > We requested a new 'portal' namespace about one year ago but this came
> > to nothing. Some days ago, we discovered the English and German
> > Wikipedia are now using this namespace (sic!) so we requesting to be
> > able to do same [1]. The French word for portal is 'portail'.
> > Regards,
> >
> > Aoineko
> >
> > [1]
> > http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/30_ao%C3%BBt_2005#Un_espace_de_nom_pour_nos_portails
>
> Done:
>  namespace 100 : Portail
>  namespace 101 : Discussion_Portail
>
> Announcing it on the local village pump.
>
>
> --
> Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
> http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
> IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

___________________________________________
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Frieda


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: speaking of licence, please check...

body:
"Justin Cormack" <justin at specialbusservice.com>
wrote in message
news:99D24661-D581-43D7-A297-DA61B831DCE0 at specialbusservice.com...
>
> On 29 Nov 2005, at 08:23, Anthere wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jcmurphy
>>
>> The Foundation received an email from the possible owner of one of  the
>> picture uploaded by Jcmurphy. From his talk page, this editor  could have
>> an history of copyvio upload. Please check. Thanks
>
> Looks like blatant copyvio to me. Tagged and listed on http://
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2005_November_29  and
> removed from all
> articles.

Sharp work.

Can I make a plea to all of those like you who do stuff like this: please
make a note somewhere easily accessible of all those articles you removed it
from. This might seem like a slam-dunk, but it might not be, and in general
it would be good to be able to recover from a copyvio claim which proved
bogus or negotiable.

Oh, and do we actually have a URL for what is claimed to be the original?
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Karl A. Krueger

subject: [WikiEN-l] Non-Commercial Usage

body:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 10:01:32PM -0800, Geoff Burling wrote:
> While I disagree with much of what you have said, I'll admit you have a
> point there, Mike. One reason I'll never release images of my friends or
> family under GFDL or CC is that I don't want to be surprised one day
> by finding that their image has been photoshopped into an ad or a
> commercial for a product or company.

As others have noted here, the relevant law preventing this unjust act
has nothing to do with copyright (or defamation) and everything to do
with [[personality rights]].  There are GFDL-licensed photographs of
Richard Stallman available on the FSF's Web site, but I would still be
violating Stallman's rights if I were to take one and turn it into a
poster implying that Stallman endorsed my favorite project.

Hell, even if I were to take a picture of Stallman myself (and thereby
hold the copyright outright!) I would still not be within my rights to
use that image to misrepresent Stallman as promoting my project.

> But what _might_ be worth a conversation -- or at least a moment's
> consideration -- is that introducing GFDL material into an advertisement
> makes that creation GFDL'd too. By using free images (free as in speech,
> not as in beer, as the cliche goes), the advertisement then -- at least
> in part -- becomes free.

This seems to be a common confusion.  A person who inserts GFDLed work
into their own published work does not *thereby* grant a GFDL license
for their work.  (If that were the case, GFDL would be a contract of
adhesion, which it is not; it is merely a copyright license.)

Rather, if I insert GFDLed work into my own published work and *fail* to
grant a GFDL license for my work, I thereby infringe upon the GFDLed
work's owner's copyright.

What happens next is for me and the copyright holder to negotiate.  It
may be that the copyright holder is willing to grant me a license to
republish their work on different terms, perhaps for a fee, so that I am
no longer infringing.  It may be that they convince me to relicense my
work under the GFDL and thereby stop infringing.  It may be that (if
they have a registered copyright) they sue me and collect statutory
damages for my infringement.  Or it may be that they simply go get an
injunction forbidding me from publishing my infringing work at all.

In any case, there's *nothing* in either the GFDL nor the copyright law
that would *automatically* place my work under the GFDL without my
explicit action to do so.  Copyright permits the original author to
forbid the publication of derivative works -- it DOES NOT permit the
original author to appropriate those works' copyright and set their
licensing terms.

> This may not stand up in court (the GPL & its related licenses have never
> been tested in court to the best of my knowledge), but the legal uncertainty
> there is strong enough that no businessman will lightly use material
> released under a Gnu-like license.

Hardly!  The GPL has certainly been tested in a number of legal cases;
and GPLed material is used (and distributed) by a huge number of
businessmen and -women.

The only case which actually reached a final decision by a court was in
Germany, between the authors of the Linux Netfilter (iptables) code and
a company called Sitecom.  In that case, the court upheld that Sitecom
had infringed the Netfilter authors' copyright by failing to adhere to
the terms of the GPL.

(See [[General Public License]].)

Other cases involving the GPL have led to settlements ... which is not
unusual since most lawsuits end in settlements.  However, these
settlements have been uniformly in support of the GPL's strength.

One of the earliest involved NeXT and the FSF.  NeXT released a modified
version of the GCC compiler as their Objective-C compiler, without
meeting their GPL obligations.  FSF pursued them for it; they settled,
with NeXT agreeing to release their changes under the GPL.  That release
ended up being quite profitable:  After NeXT folded back in to Apple
Computer, they were able to use GCC's Objective-C compiler (which had in
the meantime been maintained by the FSF) in Mac OS X.

A more recent case was the one between NuSphere and MySQL AB, which also
ended up in a settlement favorable to the GPL.

(And then there are the several ongoing cases in which SCO is presently
embarrassing themselves.)

The claim that "no businessman will lightly use material released under
a Gnu-like license" seems rather unusual.  Today, some huge number of
businesses do use and distribute material (specifically, software)
released under just such licenses.  While some proprietary software
firms have attempted to panic the marketplace about GPL-type licenses,
their motives for doing so are pretty transparent and their arguments
not especially credible.  What are yours?

--
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>


from_name: geni

body:
On 11/29/05, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> geni stated for the record:
>
> > We could if jimbo did not insist in interfearing (ok we would need a
> > developer to swtich on the voteing softwear.)
> >
> > --
> > geni
>
> When people talk about Jimbo "interfering" with what they want to do, I
> immediately acquire a strong suspicion that what they want to do is not
> in the best interests of Wikipedia, and it becomes difficult to assume
> good faith.
>

Lets see we had the candidate page set up, we had had a full
disscussion on reform (pretty much everything was rejected by the
way), Signpost was running a string of pre-election areticles and
candidates were declaring themselves. Everything was going along
nicely for december elections. Then jimbo made a hit and run edit and
messed everything up. That is interfearing.

En is not the only wiki with an arbcom. Is jimbo going to apoint
people on other language projects as well?

--
geni


subject:
Credit card processing for forthcoming fundraiser: Was: Re:
	[Wikitech-l] pages update call :-)

body:
Anthere wrote:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_partners_and_hosts
>
> This page is very badly outdated. Could it be possible
> that it be cleaned up and straightened before the
> beginning of the fundrive (roughly a good week) ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ant
>
>
If there's going to be another fundraiser soon, does anyone know if any
progress has been made towards accepting credit card donations?

I believe that this could significantly improve the amount of money
donated, by removing a barrier to donation for people would like to
donate but do not have PayPal-style accounts, and do not want the hassle
of money orders, inter-bank-transfers and so on.

This has been promised for the last two fundraisers, and has never
happened; it might be even worth delaying the forthcoming fundraiser for
a week or so if this made accepting credit cards possible.

Googling for "credit card processing" unearths large numbers of
companies offering to do nearly all the work for you on this, for a
fixed fee per transaction (a few tens of cents) and a small percentage
of the value of the transaction.

I seem to recall that the setup is generally on the lines of:
* set up a CC processing account with the vendor, which generally
requires a small amount of checking of your credentials
* registering an SSL certificate for your domain [wikimedia.org,
presumably] (takes a few hours, and a fax or two if you're in the phone
book), and serving your payment page via HTTPS
* creating/installing a CGI / web form script for that page with a bit
of prevalidation logic (all needed fields filled in, right number of CC#
digits, Luhn checksum and other sanity checks) that then proxies the
finished CC payment requests to the processor's actual online CC
acceptance server, also via HTTPS, for a final go/no go decision.

Once it's set up once, you can then accept CC payments from anywhere in
the world, and you can of course change CC processors at a later date
with much less hassle.

Presumably Bomis and/or Jimbo know everything there is to know about
this; perhaps they might be willing to lend some technical / financial
know-how?

-- Neil


subject: [WikiEN-l] Non-Commercial Usage

body:
geni wrote:

>It could be argued that they do not however do so likely. Certian
>element of the GFDL make it a pain in the neck to use for traditional
>media. Particulary when you get the insane numbers of authors certian
>wikipedia articles can rack up.
>
>
Well, the GFDL did anticipate this possibility, and has a clause to
avoid burdensome requirements like listing 500 people as authors---if
there are more than 5 authors, the reuser of the content may choose and
credit 5 of them.

That's not to say that the GFDL is not burdensome to commercial reusers,
but it's not burdensome for that specific reason.

-Mark


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Credit card processing for forthcoming fundraiser

body:
Before anyone asks about internationalization, I would imagine that even
an English-only CC payment page would be vastly superior to none at all,
and there would be no shortage of volunteers to rapidly provide
translations for the very limited amount of text needed in such a page.

-- Neil


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Jokebooks are completely out of place in Wikibooks because they do not serve a
>valid educational purpose. A textbook on comedy that had example jokes in it
>would be welcome, however. This type of distinction was decided on when I
>helped found Wikibooks, so Jimbo is not acting by executive fiat. He is simply
>trying to put that project back on track.
>
>
I may be misremembering, but I don't recall an explicit and narrow
requirement that Wikibooks be "educational" when it was set up, and
certainly not "educational" in the narrow sense of "something that a
university would teach".  Of course textbooks were a major sort of book
that people had in mind, but I don't recall anyone saying that *only*
textbooks would be permitted (not to mention defining what constitutes a
"textbook"!).

Instead, I recall a focus mostly centered around *format*---Wikibooks
was to be a place for book-like things that were of a detail, length, or
tone (e.g. how-tos or lengthy narrative exposition) unsuitable for an
encyclopedia article and therefore unsuitable for Wikipedia, but still
useful as information in some sense.  I took as a possibly mistaken
implicit assumption that the *content* was to be basically the same as
Wikipedia---anything verifiable and neutral.

-Mark