body:
Summary: Optim supports a lynx-friendly html
skin. Optim addresses the problem of
low-bandwidth Internet users, giving examples
from Greece. We have an educational mission to
fulfill and Internet may be very under-developed
in Africa and other regions of our planet.
(end:summary)

I would like to have a lynx-friendly html skin.

I need some skin which will NOT include any of
the following:

* any HTML more advanced than version 3.2
* Dynamic HTML and DHTML
* HTML Tables
* Any kind of inline Images
* Java / Javascript / ASP / Any kind of scripting
* DIV and SPAN HTML tags
* Preferably no custom HTML colours.
* Any characters not included on a standard
105-key English keyboard. This means: Avoid HTML
entities, Unicode, etc when it is not absolutely
needed.

One reason I dislike DIV tags is they prevent me
from easily copy-pasting Wikipedia articles which
contains inline images. Selecting the article
text selects the image caption, too.

BTW I have created a "plain vanilla" main page at
[[Wikipedia:Plain vanilla main page]] and I try
to keep it updated whenever I can. Maybe it will
be useful to some, I hope.

It's not only for old browsers. It is for slow
Internet connections too.

I plan to get some Packet-Radio Internet
connection for my laptops, which is expensive and
not fixed-rate. I will have only 40MB per month
and I will pay too much money for any extra
megabyte I download.

Just checking my email involves more than 1
megabyte in traffic. Daily checking of email
makes up somewhat more than 30MB in total.

So, for browsing I will have only 9-10MB per
month.

It would be great to be able edit and contribute
to Wikipedia from the bus, the sea, etc.

Most Internet users in Greece pay per minute they
stay online, or per megabyte they download.

The telecom options a Greek has are:
- GPRS with 45kbps - paid by MB - maximum 40MB
per month but you can pay for extra MBs
- PSTN with 50kbps - paid by minute
- ISDN64 with 64kbps - paid by minute
- ISDN128 with 128kbps - paid by minute <-
extremely expensive
- ADSL256+ paid by minute or MB <- not
immediately available by the telecom provider
- ADSL256+ with fixed rate cost <- expensive to
most greeks, not immediately available by the
telecom provider
- SDSL128+ <- expensive, not immediately
available by the telecom provider

In general, the average Greek has a 50kbps
Internet connection and pays by minute he/she
stays online. I have seen people who still have
33kbps connections.

Personally I am well above the average, but this
does not mean I wouldn't like to have access to a
lynx-friendly html skin. It will be very useful
with a GPRS connection on my laptops.

Recently someone from USA where accessing
Wikipedia with Lynx, if I believe what he said.

And when I think about Africa and other regions
where Internet may be more under-developed, I
think a lynx-friendly skin is a must, considering
that we have an educational mission to fulfil.

--Optim

--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> How hard would it be for us to have and
> maintain a "lynx-friendly"
> html, and serve it to old browsers like this?
> It seems a shame to
> give people something that causes headaches,
> even if they really
> really should upgrade, because maybe they can't
> upgrade for some
> reason (poverty, for example).
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Optim

subject: [WikiEN-l] I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it any more

body:
--- Delirium <delirium at rufus.d2g.com> wrote:
> In the spirit of "soft security", I'd most
> prefer some sort of temporary
> article-level ban
...
> -Mark

I support this article-level ban proposal.

Optim

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] What would Richard Stallman say?

body:
--- Delirium <delirium at rufus.d2g.com> wrote:
> This I think might be a good idea: to start an
> informal policy that we
> credit image authors in the caption
...
> -Mark

I agree.

Optim

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fair use in the UK

body:
Optim wrote:

>I am against the use of "fair use" images and
>other material.
>
>Whenever I use Wikipedia I want to be sure that I
>can redistribute and modify any content I find in
>it under the terms of GFDL.
>
>So a ban on fair use material seems reasonable
>and desired to me.
>
>Perhaps we could divide the English Wikipedia in
>an "American Wikipedia" and an "International
>Wikipedia" (or "Pure GFDL Wikipedia") where the
>American edition would allow fair use material
>and the International edition would be just a
>copy (done automatically by software) without
>fair use material (software should have a
>checkbox "Fair use" in the Upload function so the
>copy routine would just copy all content not
>marked as "Fair use").
>
I have no problem with fair use images, so for me banning them entirely
would be unreasonable.  There are just too many variables.  Tagging
strikes me as more sensible, with a wide variety of possible tags.  The
user could then decide on his own level of risk tolerance rather than
having that decided by a handful of do-gooders who think they know the law.

Ec


from_name: Richard Stallman

subject: [Wikipedia-l] What would Richard Stallman say? (IP users)

body:
    My opinion is that an anonymous user (IP user)
    still owns the copyright of his or her works he
    or she uploads.

Whether the writer of the text is anonymous or not should have no
effect on these issues.  The writer holds the copyright unless it is a
work made for hire.

Wikipedia really should ask a lawyer about this.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Also mad as hell...

body:
KNOTT, T wrote:

>If fabiform doesn't do it I will. I can risk a lawsuit as I don't have a pot to piss in (please excuse the expression) so let him waste his money all he likes.
>
I haven't been following the dispute, but I would have this observation
about the other side:  Having a pot to piss in is of no help to the
person who is pissing into the wind. :-)

Ec


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: User-agent block list & Netscape 3

body:
--- Hunter Peress <hfastjava at yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is wrong to support old browsers because it
> makes wikipedia maintainance more crufty and
> difficult.
>

Disagree. We should try to support all browsers,
all computer architectures, all people.

It's not good to force people upgrade.

--Optim

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


from_name: Allan Crossman

subject: [WikiEN-l] I'm etc

body:
Jimbo writes:

> Yes, agreed!  Allen, don't go.  We need level heads.

It's Allan, you insensitive clod. ;-)

Although my talk page says my return is "possibly hypothetical", that
leaves things pretty open. I've never actually said I'm leaving
forever, so this shouldn't be interpreted as "do what I say or I'm
walking." :-)

--
Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] New "GNU Free Media Licence"? - was: What would
	Richard Stallman say?

body:
--- Caroline Ford <caroline at secretlondon.me.uk> >

> "For other kinds of works, we recommend you
> consider the licenses
> proposed by Creative Commons
> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/>."
>
> Caroline / Secretlondon

I like the idea of Creative Commons.

--Optim

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


body:
--- Vicki Rosenzweig <vr at redbird.org> wrote:
> I am not a lawyer, but I think you're confusing
> moral rights--specifically,
> the right to be identified as the
> author/artist/creator--with copyright, which
> is the right to *control who makes copies of a
> document*.
...
> Vicki

In the past I had this dicsussion:

Someone told me: - "Wow, your new classical music
CDs are very nice."

I said: - "Yeap.."

He said: - "Classical music is old. so there is
no copyright and I can copy and play this music
as I like. Nobody can sue me."

I said: - "No, you cannot do whatever you want.
Beethoven has no copyright rights over this work,
but the ORCHESTRA which played the work, the
COMPANY which recorded and published the work,
ETC, have rights over their work. You will be
sued because you copied Beethoven's music, but
because you copied this particular
orchestra/music company's version of the music"

IANAL - I am not a lawyer

Am I right?

--Optim

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


from_name: Dan Miller

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 7, Issue 42

body:
> Unfortunately, and I'm as guilty of this as any of
> us, doing work like
> this -- approaching people to try to get not just
> standard permission
> but a free license -- will involve stepping outside
> our comfort zone,
> which is "sit and type on the Internet".
>
> --Jimbo
>

I'm not so sure.  The other day I contacted the
Democratic National Committee, asking them to release
a photo for [[Terry McAuliffe]].  If they don't get
back to me by the end of the week, I'll consider
another line of attack, but some places might have
people to handle this, even online.

Meelar

=====
Kiss Me I'm Irish!

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


from_name: Marco Krohn

body:
On Monday 23 February 2004 12:30, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> That's a pretty typical publicity still, and a guy like Bob Keeshan
> must have literally hundreds of these taken over the course of a
> lifelong career in show business.  The picture itself has very little
> commercial value in and of itself, and I can see no particular reason
> why Bob Keeshan's estate,
>
> or CBS (where his show appeared for 30 years)
>
> or one of the wire services (who might own photos of him taken
> at various public events)
>
> or some paparazzi with a huge collection
>
> might not want to make just one or two representative images available
> under a free license.
>
> We won't know until we try.

Absolutely right.

And this is one more thing that makes me a bit afraid about "fair use" images.
The motivation for writing one or two emails to get a really free image needs
a lot more effort and work than just taking the image and using it under
"fair use" doctrine.

In many situations, like the above for example, it could be a typical win-win
scenario. We could offer adding a "generously donated by foo" text to the
image and would get a free image in return.

best regards,
  Marco

--
Marco Krohn
Theoretical Physics
University of Hannover


body:
> You will be
> sued NOT because you copied Beethoven's music,
but
> because you copied this particular
> orchestra/music company's version of the music"

I forgot the "NOT".

--Optim

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


from_name: Evan Prodromou

body:
>>>>> "O" == Optim  <optim81 at yahoo.co.uk> writes:

    O> My opinion is that an anonymous user (IP user) still owns the
    O> copyright of his or her works he or she uploads.

IANAL, TINLA. I think that should be pretty darn clear. Using a
pseudonym or no name at all shouldn't strip you of your copyright.

However, I do seem to remember some talk about how a publisher can
manage and enforce copyright on behalf of an anonymous author, until
or unless that anonymous author steps forward to enforce and manage it
him or herself. I don't remember if this is Anglo-American tradition,
European, or both.

I think it might be hard for, say, Wikimedia to try to claim this role
of publisher w/r/t unidentified users on Wikipedia or other
projects. The publisher of an anonymous work is usually aware of the
real identity of the anonymous creator. Wikimedia does not know the
identity of IP-identified users.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide


subject: [WikiEN-l] Going to Court

body:
Sean Barrett writes:

> I find it hard to believe that the act of editing Wikipedia could
> possibly cause someone to lose his right to seek redress
> through the courts.

It's the other way round. Seeking redress through the courts could
possibly cause someone to lose his right to edit Wikipedia.

--
Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)


subject: [WikiEN-l] I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it any  more

body:
Optim wrote:

>I am concerned with what banned lunatics say
>about us outside Wikipedia.
>
>I have seen many derogatory comments on Slashdot
>:(
>
I hope they spell the name right. :-)

It is often said that bad publicity is better than no publicity.

Ec


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
This is right. I used to be there.

Fred

> From: Optim <optim81 at yahoo.co.uk>
> Reply-To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:42:38 -0800 (PST)
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] User-agent block list & Netscape 3
>
> Summary: Optim supports a lynx-friendly html
> skin. Optim addresses the problem of
> low-bandwidth Internet users, giving examples
> from Greece. We have an educational mission to
> fulfill and Internet may be very under-developed
> in Africa and other regions of our planet.
> (end:summary)
>
> I would like to have a lynx-friendly html skin.
>
> I need some skin which will NOT include any of
> the following:
>
> * any HTML more advanced than version 3.2
> * Dynamic HTML and DHTML
> * HTML Tables
> * Any kind of inline Images
> * Java / Javascript / ASP / Any kind of scripting
> * DIV and SPAN HTML tags
> * Preferably no custom HTML colours.
> * Any characters not included on a standard
> 105-key English keyboard. This means: Avoid HTML
> entities, Unicode, etc when it is not absolutely
> needed.
>
> One reason I dislike DIV tags is they prevent me
> from easily copy-pasting Wikipedia articles which
> contains inline images. Selecting the article
> text selects the image caption, too.
>
> BTW I have created a "plain vanilla" main page at
> [[Wikipedia:Plain vanilla main page]] and I try
> to keep it updated whenever I can. Maybe it will
> be useful to some, I hope.
>
> It's not only for old browsers. It is for slow
> Internet connections too.
>
> I plan to get some Packet-Radio Internet
> connection for my laptops, which is expensive and
> not fixed-rate. I will have only 40MB per month
> and I will pay too much money for any extra
> megabyte I download.
>
> Just checking my email involves more than 1
> megabyte in traffic. Daily checking of email
> makes up somewhat more than 30MB in total.
>
> So, for browsing I will have only 9-10MB per
> month.
>
> It would be great to be able edit and contribute
> to Wikipedia from the bus, the sea, etc.
>
> Most Internet users in Greece pay per minute they
> stay online, or per megabyte they download.
>
> The telecom options a Greek has are:
> - GPRS with 45kbps - paid by MB - maximum 40MB
> per month but you can pay for extra MBs
> - PSTN with 50kbps - paid by minute
> - ISDN64 with 64kbps - paid by minute
> - ISDN128 with 128kbps - paid by minute <-
> extremely expensive
> - ADSL256+ paid by minute or MB <- not
> immediately available by the telecom provider
> - ADSL256+ with fixed rate cost <- expensive to
> most greeks, not immediately available by the
> telecom provider
> - SDSL128+ <- expensive, not immediately
> available by the telecom provider
>
> In general, the average Greek has a 50kbps
> Internet connection and pays by minute he/she
> stays online. I have seen people who still have
> 33kbps connections.
>
> Personally I am well above the average, but this
> does not mean I wouldn't like to have access to a
> lynx-friendly html skin. It will be very useful
> with a GPRS connection on my laptops.
>
> Recently someone from USA where accessing
> Wikipedia with Lynx, if I believe what he said.
>
> And when I think about Africa and other regions
> where Internet may be more under-developed, I
> think a lynx-friendly skin is a must, considering
> that we have an educational mission to fulfil.
>
> --Optim
>
> --- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
>> How hard would it be for us to have and
>> maintain a "lynx-friendly"
>> html, and serve it to old browsers like this?
>> It seems a shame to
>> give people something that causes headaches,
>> even if they really
>> really should upgrade, because maybe they can't
>> upgrade for some
>> reason (poverty, for example).
>>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Kelly Anderson

subject: [Wikitech-l] Simple PHP Wiki

body:
I apologize if this is an inappropriate place to ask this, but do any of
you know of a VERY simple PHP Wiki that would do to edit just a few pages,
without a database, but with a password so that only the person with the
password can edit the page?

If there isn't one, I could probably write it myself shortly. I would
appreciate any pointers.

-Kelly


from_name: Delirium

subject:
[WikiEN-l] HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other imperative
	content

body:
Imran Ghory wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, David Friedland wrote:
>
>
>>  Under what Wikipedia articles are not:
>>* Instructions. Wikipedia seeks to be informative, not instructional.
>>
>>
>
>In the words of [[James Murray]] "we should be descrptive, not
>prescriptive".
>
>
I agree with that proposal.  For my opinion of one possible way to do it
properly, look at the edit history of [[en:turkey (food)]].  It used to
be a "how to cook a turkey" set of recipes, which were moved to
wikibooks, but I refactored the content into an encyclopedia article
about turkey as a food, that actually kept somewhere around 80% of the
material from the recipe article.  Things like "Turkey is often eaten
with cranberry jelly, especially around the holidays in the US and UK"
are encyclopedic, in my opinion, while a straight recipe with
instructions on how many tablespoons of this and that to use, and how
many minutes and at what degrees to bake it at, are not.

To take another example, we really need a [[guacamole]] article, but
there are a zillion ways to make guacamole, so I don't think it's useful
on Wikipedia to give a recipe.

Bad: "to make guacamole, here is one recipe: one tomato; half a lime;
one clove garlic; three avocados.  Peel avocados, and mash into a paste;
finely dice the garlic and mix in, and dice the tomato and mix in.  Add
lime juice and optionally other flavorings, and let sit in the
refrigerator for 30 minutes before serving."

Good: "Guacamole is a popular avocado-based dip, forming a major part of
[[Tex-Mex]] cuisine.  It is often eaten with chips, much like [[salsa]],
but is also often commonly used to season a variety of other Tex-Mex
foods, such as [[taco]]s.  The particular ingredients used to make
guacamole vary (besides the avocados, which are always present), but
often include tomato, garlic, and onion.  In addition, most people add a
small amount of lime juice, both to give the dip some tartness, and
because the acid prevents oxidation of the avocado, which would give the
dip an unappetizing brown color."

(Just a first stab at it, of course.)

So, in general, I'd say "no" to "recipe for guacamole" or "how to remove
viruses from your computer" and so on, but "yes" to similar information
presented as an encyclopedia article.  Sometimes that requires moving
some excessively detailed and special-purpose information to Wikibooks,
but usually it just requires just rephrasing the same information as
descriptive instead of prescriptive, as in the James Murray quote.

-Mark


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other imperative
	content

body:
--- Anthere <anthere8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I understand that.
> Sorry if I am not relaxed, but I can't get it.
> I might be more relaxed if the french cooking
> recipees were not moved
> out of this encyclopedia

Providing no link to Wikibooks' recipes when we
move them is bad.

--Optim

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

body:
At 08:21 PM 2/23/04 +0100, Talthen wrote:
> > Whether the writer of the text is anonymous or not should have no
> > effect on these issues.  The writer holds the copyright unless it is a
> > work made for hire.
>Writer owns the copyright forever no matter what. Even if you made smth for
>hire, you still owns the copyright. Copyright is smth you can't sell, can't
>buy, can't lose. "Copyright by John Smith" means exactly: "John Smith has
>made this". It's just to state the fact.

I am not a lawyer, but I think you're confusing moral rights--specifically,
the right to be identified as the author/artist/creator--with copyright, which
is the right to *control who makes copies of a document*.

Under US law, anything made by someone as an agent of the US government--
that is, as part of their jobs, not, say, a poem or novel written on their own
time--is in the public domain. British law makes equivalent work done for
the British government under copyright by the government. I don't know what
Polish law is.

For the most part, copyright is treated like other property, which means it
can be sold, given away, or inherited. The Beatles couldn't stop Nike from
using their song "Revolution" in a commercial because they had sold the
rights to the song--but they could prevent the use of their recording, because
they hadn't sold those rights.

Also, in theory most copyrights expire. (I say "in theory" because Congress
and Parliament keep extending the dates, so the expirations aren't actually
being reached. And most because there's a specific exception in UK law for
"Peter Pan", which belongs to Great Ormond Street Hospital in perpetuity.)
No royalty payments depend on the arguments over whether Shakespeare
really wrote Hamlet.

Vicki


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other
	imperative content

body:
This always seemed wrong to me. I'd like to see a whole lot more relaxed
attitude.

Fred

> From: Anthere <anthere8 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: anthere8 at yahoo.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:39:54 +0100
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other imperative
> content
>
> That seems like a very convoluted set of sentences; But, whatever the
> wording, many people expressed that they did not agree with such a
> policy. So, please, do not add it to what wikipedia is not, in order to
> ban recipes thereafter. There is no consensus on this, and several
> people expressed the feeling some recipees are perfectly okay to wikipedia.
>
> Typically, rules that are set with no consensus are rules that I do not
> respect :-)
>
> David Friedland a ?crit:
>>
>> The following seems to be the general idea that people have about how-to
>> type content on Wikipedia. i.e. that it belongs on wikibooks, not
>> wikipedia. I couldn't find anywhere where this was written out as
>> policy, so this is my proposed addition to [[What Wikipedia is not]]:
>>
>> Under what Wikipedia articles are not:
>> * Instructions. Wikipedia seeks to be informative, not instructional.
>> Therefore, things like how-tos, recipes, and other types of information
>> that provide instruction on something are not appropriate on Wikipedia.
>> They are appropriate, however, on Wikibooks, and articles that contain
>> only instructional material should be moved to the appropriate area on
>> Wikibooks. It is possible that information about instructions are
>> appropriate on Wikipedia, but it should be presented in the indicative
>> mood, and not the imperative mood that so distinctively marks
>> instructional material.
>>
>> I know the wording is a little weak, but it's my first attempt.
>>
>> Since the WikiEN-l is for discussing policy, I thought I'd bring it up here.
>>
>> - David
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
talthen at wp.pl wrote:
> > Whether the writer of the text is anonymous or not should have no
> > effect on these issues.  The writer holds the copyright unless it is a
> > work made for hire.
> Writer owns the copyright forever no matter what. Even if you made smth for
> hire, you still owns the copyright. Copyright is smth you can't sell, can't
> buy, can't lose. "Copyright by John Smith" means exactly: "John Smith has
> made this". It's just to state the fact.

Look, I appreciate people chiming in with information, but if you
don't know what you're talking about, please don't chime in as if you
are speaking authoritatively.  This is an unmoderated list, so you're
welcome to post, but really, I think a bit of restraint is in good
taste.

For the record, the stuff that talthen at wp.pl wrote is all completely
wrong, and has absolutely no applicability to anything we're
discussing.

And a lot of stuff that other people are writing, though I prefer not
to name names, is equally speculative and wrong.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Bureaucrat on French Wikipedia

body:
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:

>From: "Nicolas Weeger" <nweeger at noos.fr>
>
>>Guillaume Blanchard a rit :
>>
>>>You created a statu of bureaucrat so Wikipedias are not any more need to
>>>request the developers to ratify the vote of the new administrators, but the
>>>
>>>only user who has this statu on French Wikipia is a user that don't taking
>>>
>>>part in French Wikipedia and who don't speak French. Can you make some
>>>French-speaking bureaucrats?
>>>
>>Unless i'm mistaking, any sysop can make other users sysop.
>>Bureaucrat kind of disappeared :)
>>
>
>On French Wikipedia, sysop get a message "you need bureaucrat statu" when
>trying to acces the "Turn a user into a sysop" page.
>
I tried to promote someone at Wikisource and got the same message.

Ec


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [Wikipedia-l] IP Users

body:
 From a legal standpoint, it doesn't really make all that much
difference if you were a logged in user or not.  Sure, maybe you've
signed up for an account, but that doesn't mean you are who you claim to
be, and it certainly doesn't mean that the text you submit is owned by
you.  Even if Wikipedia confirms your email address, it's going to take
an awful lot of work to track that email address down to a real person.
What matters is 1) can you show enough evidence to convince a court that
you created that text and 2) can Wikipedia show enough evidence that the
copyright holder allowed them to use the text under some sort of
license.  And none of that even matters as long as Wikipedia is online,
because they are protected by the DMCA safe harbors.

At least if you're logged in and have confirmed an email address
Wikipedia might have a slightly easier time tracking you down to verify
who you are for real.  But in essence you're already anonymous.


body:
--- Anthere <anthere8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Wikip?dia really needs more mothers, with feet
> firmly set in the ground.
>

and fathers!

--Optim

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fair Use material in Wikipedia

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:

>I find this entire argument about "fair use" images annoying.  When I
>contacted Her Majesty's Stationery Office to inquire about the use of
>Crown Copyright material, I was told that Wikipedia could use that
>material as long as we used it accurately and not disparagingly -- no
>problem -- but that we also had to require that anyone else using it
>had to also comply with those restrictions.  Opinion was overwhelming
>that since we can't pass on those restrictions, even though we have no
>problem complying with them ourselves, we can't use the material.
>
>What's the difference?
>
This type of restriction seems reasonable.  I can't see why we can't
just tag the image as "subject to UK Crown Copyright" which links to a
page of ours that describes those restrictions.  This is a requirement
rather than a restriction; there is no need to put more into the meaning
of "require" than is already there.

Ec


from_name: Lee Pilich

subject: [WikiEN-l] Going to Court

body:
At 09:43 23/02/2004 -0500, Ed wrote:

>I'd rather not be a volunteer here, if people are going to sue each
>other over talk page comments. If I were on the Arbitration Committee,
>I'd most likely veto to expel anyone who threatened another Wikipedian
>legal action in some real-world court.

Well, I wouldn't put it that broadly - after all, legal action has been
threatened against people who have issued death threats on the Wikipedia,
and there may well be other legitimate reason to threaten a legal action.
But I'd certainly say that threatening users with legal action does not, in
general, indicate a willingness to work in a productive manner with other
users and is likely to create an unpleasant work environment. In extreme
cases these things may well be grounds for banning people.

Just my view, of course.

Lee (Camembert)


subject: [Wikitech-l] DNS servers.

body:
I trust Daniel completely, so I'm satisfied with his word on this.  His
intentions have been stated publicly, and that's good enough for me.

Perhaps in the future, we will be able to do some kind of institutional
transfer.  But this is perfectly fine for now.

Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen wrote:

> Hi.
>
> I've registered the domain "wikipedia.no" (Norway). In Norway, such domains
> must be owned by Norwegian registered companies or organizations, so it's not
> possible for me to transfer it completely to the Mediawiki Foundation.
>
> Jimbo suggested my company sit as owners until Mediawiki opens shop in Norway,
> or rules here change. In the mean time, if someone felt it was necessary, we
> could set up a lease contract.
>
> Anyway, I've set up a http redirect for the moment, but I'd like to set up the
> domain with Wikipedia's own DNS servers, and have the no.wikipedia.org site
> answer directly to www.wikipedia.no.
>
> How do I go about arranging this?
>
> -- Daniel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Irismeister

body:
O.k., I refer the matter of Irismeister to the arbitration committee.

Poor, Edmund W wrote:

> My talk with Irismeister went as predicted: nowhere.
>
> His incoherent ravings cast too much doubt on the value of his edits for
> me to condone his continued participation here.
>
> Jimbo, please ask the Arbitration Committee to block Irismeister, at
> least temporarily.
>
> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Irismeister for details.
>
> Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] I don't care what Richard Stallman would say

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:

>>I want the images. Those who took the images WANT us to use them
>>(provided we reference them). Readers want the images. Mirrors of
>>Wikipedia want the images. The copyright laws are stupid. GFDL is
>>stupid. And the right way to get stupid laws changed is not to obey
>>them.
>>
>Not obeying stupid laws doesn't get them changed; it bankrupts the
>violator from court costs and penalties.
>
Civil disobedience can be perfectly acceptable, but I think we're still
quite far from even needing to consider that as a tactic.  There is
nothing illegal about fair use, so what law is being broken?  There are
still a number of steps to be followed (like a take down notice) before
court costs and penalties become a factor.  This alarmism is just
another version of copyright paranoia.

>>Be reasonable.
>>
>It's easy to be "reasonable" when it's someone else you are driving
>into bankruptcy on your whim.
>
>And not realizing that flagrant violations of the law will not result
>in widespread freedom, but rather the complete disappearance of
>Wikipedia is not reasonable, it is ... well, to use your word: stupid.
>
Being "reasonable" does not include "flagrant" violations.  Flagrant
violations are not the problem.  The problem illustrations all have a
strong element of reasonable doubt attached to them.  There is no need
to use whatever interpretation of the law would give us a worst case
scenario.  If there is a reasonable interpretation of the law which
favours us we should follow that.

.Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Instructions

body:
I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning on NPOV and so
on, but I agree with the ends.  Recipes, down to
degrees for baking, do not belong in an encyclopedia.
That said, articles on food should be encouraged.  It
needn't be discouraging for new users to submit a
recipe, only to have it moved--a note on a talk page,
inviting an_article_on that food, could be polite.  At
any rate, it's good to have this discussion, since
I've seen many more recipes on VfD recently than there
used to be.

=====
Kiss Me I'm Irish!

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


from_name: Sean Barrett

in_reply_to:
<403AA88D.8070102@telus.net> (message from Ray Saintonge on Mon,
	23 Feb 2004 17:27:41 -0800)

body:
> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:27:41 -0800
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> X-Accept-Language: en-us
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Sender: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on
> 	orwen.epoptic.com
> X-Spam-Level:
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_SORBS autolearn=no
> 	version=2.61
>
> Sean Barrett wrote:
>
> >I find this entire argument about "fair use" images annoying.  When I
> >contacted Her Majesty's Stationery Office to inquire about the use of
> >Crown Copyright material, I was told that Wikipedia could use that
> >material as long as we used it accurately and not disparagingly -- no
> >problem -- but that we also had to require that anyone else using it
> >had to also comply with those restrictions.  Opinion was overwhelming
> >that since we can't pass on those restrictions, even though we have no
> >problem complying with them ourselves, we can't use the material.
> >
> >What's the difference?
> >
> This type of restriction seems reasonable.  I can't see why we can't
> just tag the image as "subject to UK Crown Copyright" which links to a
> page of ours that describes those restrictions.  This is a requirement
> rather than a restriction; there is no need to put more into the meaning
> of "require" than is already there.
>
> Ec

Fine with me, as long as no one is ever allowed to make the mistake of
thinking that those tagged images are licensed under the GFDL.  HMSO
have clearly expressed their opinion that Crown Copyright is NOT
compatible with the GFDL, and may well reiterate that opinion more
forcefully if we choose to ignore their earlier statement.


body:
> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:27:41 -0800
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> X-Accept-Language: en-us
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Sender: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on
> 	orwen.epoptic.com
> X-Spam-Level:
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_SORBS autolearn=no
> 	version=2.61
>
> Sean Barrett wrote:
>
> >I find this entire argument about "fair use" images annoying.  When I
> >contacted Her Majesty's Stationery Office to inquire about the use of
> >Crown Copyright material, I was told that Wikipedia could use that
> >material as long as we used it accurately and not disparagingly -- no
> >problem -- but that we also had to require that anyone else using it
> >had to also comply with those restrictions.  Opinion was overwhelming
> >that since we can't pass on those restrictions, even though we have no
> >problem complying with them ourselves, we can't use the material.
> >
> >What's the difference?
> >
> This type of restriction seems reasonable.  I can't see why we can't
> just tag the image as "subject to UK Crown Copyright" which links to a
> page of ours that describes those restrictions.  This is a requirement
> rather than a restriction; there is no need to put more into the meaning
> of "require" than is already there.
>
> Ec

Fine with me, as long as no one is ever allowed to make the mistake of
thinking that images so tagged are licensed under the GFDL.  HMSO
have clearly expressed their opinion that Crown Copyright is NOT
compatible with the GFDL, and may well reiterate that opinion more
forcefully if we choose to ignore their earlier statement.

--
 Sean Barrett     | Pobezhdaiut ne chislom, a umeniem.
 sean at epoptic.com |


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Instructions

body:
Dan Miller wrote:

>I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning on NPOV and so
>on, but I agree with the ends.  Recipes, down to
>degrees for baking, do not belong in an encyclopedia.
>That said, articles on food should be encouraged.  It
>needn't be discouraging for new users to submit a
>recipe, only to have it moved--a note on a talk page,
>inviting an_article_on that food, could be polite.  At
>any rate, it's good to have this discussion, since
>I've seen many more recipes on VfD recently than there
>used to be.
>
>
That I'll agree with.  The vast majority of recipes don't need to be
deleted--they need to be refactored as encyclopedia articles.  At the
very least it should be possible to replace a recipe for [[Flan]] with a
stub saying "'''Flan''' is a [[dessert]] made from ..., commonly eaten
in [list of countries]...".  Of course, perhaps the recipe should also
be moved to WikiBooks, because there is some interest in eventually
producing an actual cookbook.  But in either case it's rarely necessary
to actually delete the article completely (in some cases moving it from,
say, [[How to cook a turkey]] to [[turkey (food)]] might be necessary,
but that doesn't need VfD either).

-Mark


from_name: David Friedland

subject: [WikiEN-l] HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other imperative content

body:
The following seems to be the general idea that people have about how-to
type content on Wikipedia. i.e. that it belongs on wikibooks, not
wikipedia. I couldn't find anywhere where this was written out as
policy, so this is my proposed addition to [[What Wikipedia is not]]:

  Under what Wikipedia articles are not:
* Instructions. Wikipedia seeks to be informative, not instructional.
Therefore, things like how-tos, recipes, and other types of information
that provide instruction on something are not appropriate on Wikipedia.
They are appropriate, however, on Wikibooks, and articles that contain
only instructional material should be moved to the appropriate area on
Wikibooks. It is possible that information about instructions are
appropriate on Wikipedia, but it should be presented in the indicative
mood, and not the imperative mood that so distinctively marks
instructional material.

  I know the wording is a little weak, but it's my first attempt.

Since the WikiEN-l is for discussing policy, I thought I'd bring it up here.

- David


body:
Perhap I am misunderstood. I think all the deletions of recipes and how-to's
is too strict and decreases rather than increases the encyclopedia's utility
to casual users and readers.

Fred

> From: Anthere <anthere8 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: anthere8 at yahoo.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:23:24 +0100
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other imperative
> content
>
> I understand that.
> Sorry if I am not relaxed, but I can't get it.
> I might be more relaxed if the french cooking recipees were not moved
> out of this encyclopedia, some with no links left to the recipee itself,
> not to mention cases where the article is just plain deleted.
> Some of these recipees have encyclopedic value, they are typical
> examples of a certain way of life, they are typical examples of cooking
> techniques. Just a dozen of recipees do not impair the quality of highly
> cultural articles, at least no more than the thousand of tiny american
> city articles. We have room. It is not because another project is about
> cooking that cooking should just disappear from Wikipedia. Plus it
> breaks international links, for other wikipedias consider recipees have
> value. Plus it is unnice for all the contributors (often newbies) who
> wrote the recipee, and who do not find articles any more.
> How do these few dozens recipees bother any one ? When they are famous
> dishes, they should not be deleted. That is bad. This is destroying
> information. We *have* room. And some believe this is valuable information.
>
> And the solution is not to go claim consensus and update policies when
> someone try to discuss the matter.
>
> Thinking about it, a bit of promotion :-)
>
> This page is directly linked from our front page. It should be enriched,
> but well, you will get the idea I think
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recettes_du_mois
>
> Isnot that neat ?
>
> Ant
>
> Fred Bauder a ?crit:
>> This always seemed wrong to me. I'd like to see a whole lot more relaxed
>> attitude.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>
>>> From: Anthere <anthere8 at yahoo.com>
>>> Reply-To: anthere8 at yahoo.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:39:54 +0100
>>> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other imperative
>>> content
>>>
>>> That seems like a very convoluted set of sentences; But, whatever the
>>> wording, many people expressed that they did not agree with such a
>>> policy. So, please, do not add it to what wikipedia is not, in order to
>>> ban recipes thereafter. There is no consensus on this, and several
>>> people expressed the feeling some recipees are perfectly okay to wikipedia.
>>>
>>> Typically, rules that are set with no consensus are rules that I do not
>>> respect :-)
>>>
>>> David Friedland a ?crit:
>>>
>>>> The following seems to be the general idea that people have about how-to
>>>> type content on Wikipedia. i.e. that it belongs on wikibooks, not
>>>> wikipedia. I couldn't find anywhere where this was written out as
>>>> policy, so this is my proposed addition to [[What Wikipedia is not]]:
>>>>
>>>> Under what Wikipedia articles are not:
>>>> * Instructions. Wikipedia seeks to be informative, not instructional.
>>>> Therefore, things like how-tos, recipes, and other types of information
>>>> that provide instruction on something are not appropriate on Wikipedia.
>>>> They are appropriate, however, on Wikibooks, and articles that contain
>>>> only instructional material should be moved to the appropriate area on
>>>> Wikibooks. It is possible that information about instructions are
>>>> appropriate on Wikipedia, but it should be presented in the indicative
>>>> mood, and not the imperative mood that so distinctively marks
>>>> instructional material.
>>>>
>>>> I know the wording is a little weak, but it's my first attempt.
>>>>
>>>> Since the WikiEN-l is for discussing policy, I thought I'd bring it up
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>> - David
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-
>>
>> l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Gabriel Wicke

body:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:52 -0500, Nick Pisarro wrote:

> Perhaps the solution here is to have a "Legacy Browser" skin? You might be
> able to find out what browser the user is using from an HTTP parameter and
> flip to such a skin automatically.

Imo the solution is simply no stylesheet for anything that doesn't support
it. Take a look at http://wp.aulinx.de/test/ with NS4 or NS3, it'll
degrade to a dull-looking but functional page. The same applies for screen
readers.
--
Gabriel Wicke


subject: [Wikitech-l] DNS update, traffic ahead

body:
The DNS update to end coronelli's idleness hasn't gone through yet, the
secondary DNS joey.bomis.com still lists the old data.

With 500k articles traffic peak ahead it would be of great benefit to
tackle this rather soon. Nearly doubling the ram cache size available will
be good for the hit ratio and therefore for the overall speed of wikipedia.
--
Gabriel Wicke


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 7, Issue 44

body:
Optim wrote:

> In the past I had this dicsussion:
>
>Someone told me: - "Wow, your new classical music
>CDs are very nice."
>
>I said: - "Yeap.."
>
>He said: - "Classical music is old. so there is
>no copyright and I can copy and play this music
>as I like. Nobody can sue me."
>
>I said: - "No, you cannot do whatever you want.
>Beethoven has no copyright rights over this work,
>but the ORCHESTRA which played the work, the
>COMPANY which recorded and published the work,
>ETC, have rights over their work. You will be
>sued NOT because you copied Beethoven's music, but
>because you copied this particular
>orchestra/music company's version of the music"
>
>IANAL - I am not a lawyer
>
>Am I right?
>
With the NOT inserted, you are correct. Works that are based on public
domain material can still have a copyright based on the added
contributions of their authors. The implications are significant. For
example, it effectively means that no decent-quality sound recordings
have passed into the public domain due to age, even if the recorded work
is in the public domain.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> We are big and getting bigger.  Millions of people see our work each
> year.  Millions of people love what we are doing, love the idea of it,
> and would love to help.  We need to give them tools and incentives to
> do exactly that.

Or, we "make a deal" with some of the companies that supply the news
agencies with pictures. As you said, we're gettin bigger, meaning more
and more people will view wikipedia pages. If the image description
would read "Image by [[Reuters]], released under GFDL", it would be a
great advertivement for them, and it would cost them only a small image,
perhaps of second-grade quality (which would be fine for us, but never
printed in a magazine anyway).

Magnus


body:
I just want to motivate this a little bit more:

Claim: Wikipedia should not include instructional material.

I believe that instructional material is inherently opinionated: an
instruction comes with the embedded assumption that the method described
is somehow "correct". People only make imperative statements if they
believe that the action they are directing is the "correct" action.  By
making imperative statements, Wikipedia is asserting the opinion that
the instructions themselves are correct. NPOV policy clearly stands
against this: "assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't
assert opinions themselves."

Let's take the example of recipes. There can be disagreements about how
different dishes are to be prepared. How do you neutralize disagreements
without changing the mood from imperative to indicative?

Example of an instruction from a guacamole recipe:

    Add all the avocado to the bowl, then add the other ingredients. Mix
well.

    vs.

    Add half the avocado to the bowl, then add the other ingredients.
Mix well, then gently stir in the other half of the avocado.

Is either one of these correct? Or should we say "Some chefs suggest
setting aside half the avocado before mixing all the ingredients
together, then gently stirring in the remaining avocado, to ensure the
guacamole has a chunky texture, whereas other chefs prefer the smooth
texture of mixing everything together all at once."

I believe it is the intent of the NPOV not to take sides, even if there
is only one side. Imperative language inherently takes the side of the
instructions, and so should be avoided. Since HOWTOs and recipes use
imperative language, they shouldn't be on the Wikipedia. Much of the
content can perhaps be modified for inclusion on the Wikipedia, but it
has to be rephrased so that each step is not only in the indicative
mood, but is contextualized and/or justified.

Resolved: HOWTOs, recipes, and similar instructional materials should be
located in wikibooks, and Wikipedia articles should contain only NPOV
descriptions and links to the relevant pages in wikibooks.

-- David

On preview, what Delirium said. And I love that we both use guacamole as
the example.


from_name: talthen at wp.pl

body:
> Whether the writer of the text is anonymous or not should have no
> effect on these issues.  The writer holds the copyright unless it is a
> work made for hire.
Writer owns the copyright forever no matter what. Even if you made smth for
hire, you still owns the copyright. Copyright is smth you can't sell, can't
buy, can't lose. "Copyright by John Smith" means exactly: "John Smith has
made this". It's just to state the fact.

Regards,
Talthen


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

subject: [Wikitech-l] User-agent block list & Netscape 3

body:
Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:

> :-) Well, this is amusing, but a better answer would be to serve them
> a plaintext page.  Maybe the 'printable' version would be happy enough?

Maybe, but don't get me wrong.  The text was meant as a boiler
plate--the normal article text should follow.

BTW, using lynx you can read (and edit?  I didn't try) the WP article
pretty well.

No need to support a dated and proprietary(!) like NS 3.x.

--
                                                         |      ,__o
                                                         |    _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |   (*)/'(*)


from_name: Till Westermayer

body:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . .

>> Whether the writer of the text is anonymous or not should have
>> no effect on these issues.  The writer holds the copyright
>> unless it is a work made for hire.
>Writer owns the copyright forever no matter what. Even if you made
>smth for hire, you still owns the copyright. Copyright is smth you
>can't sell, can't buy, can't lose. "Copyright by John Smith" means
>exactly: "John Smith has made this". It's just to state the fact.

Depends. In the US, you can, in Germany, you can't.
 __ .
 / / / /                            ... Till Westermayer - till we *)
. .
  . mailto:till at tillwe.de . www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072
  . Habsburgerstr. 82 . 79104 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179
  . . . . .


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Going to Court

body:
Fred wrote:
>A contract is created. Contractual rights not civil rights.

Fair enough. Now what you wrote makes sense. I was talking about civil rights.

--mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


from_name: Nils Kehrein

subject: [Wikitech-l] Image thumbnail problem

body:
Hi,

the thumb creation is a bit curious:
The thumbnail of a 14 KB PNG file is more than twice as large as the
original image. Just have a look at it:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_II
And 36 KB only for a 180 x 112 PNG is more than strange...

Regards,
Nils.

--
Created by 100 monkeys with 100 typewriters.


from_name: Caroline Ford

references:
<E1AuAuo-0001oK-1j@fencepost.gnu.org>	<200402202011.45801.news@RobertMichel.de>	<E1Av2Hq-0006TY-Ob@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<200402232154.51816.news@RobertMichel.de>

body:
Robert Michel wrote:

>Salve,
>
>Am Sonntag, 22. Februar 2004 23:41 schrieb Richard Stallman:
>
>
>>The questions you are asking are legal technicalities.  You need
>>to ask a lawyer--I am not capable of giving advise about such points.
>>
>>
>
>So I can state that there hasn`t been a discussion about a special GNU licence
>for pictures yet and nobody dissagreed that there is probably a need for one.
>Richard is right that this for asking a lawyer, but I?m interested in starting
>points.
>
>As long as the world is software patents free, we have the freedom to create
>similar softwaretools - also the text for the wikipedia could be written by
>our-self. But historical pictures like this:
>
>Vietnam Execution (1968) Eddie Adams
>http://www.edelmangallery.com/killer1.htm
>
>we can`t make our-self. When the photographer is still alive and hasn`t sold
>his pictures right, that do we have the chance to ask him to support the
>wikipedia. Jimbo has ask me to go on with my idea of a tutorial ""HowTo ask
>effective for the use of pictures with the condition of the GNU-FDL" and
>start to write it.
>But even when we have equal skills to Casanova, propose something smartfull
>what will be a pleasure for the contributur and the Wikipedia - Casanova had
>the advantage to choose willing women. Most of right holders of pictures with
>the aim of make as much as possible money aren`t like women with unromatic
>husbands.
>
>In this case we need to make compromises, this could be one like:
>A - getting one picture for using with GNU FDL
>B - getting the right to use this picture only on official Wikipedia server/
>mirrors, CD-Roms & official Wikipedia books (a special new licence)
>C - getting the right to use this picture with a redused quality and size
>D - creating a non public pay per view area inside the wikipedia
>E - using this picture with "fair use"
>F - don`t use this picture inside the wikipedia and use an external link
>G - finding a very rich donator who buy the whole right of one picture and
>free it
>H - finding a rich donator to free a picture for B only
>
>Some still open questions:
>-How can we ensure by a licence, that the information of the picture will
>sticked together for all future?
>-How can we make it more believable that this picture is not manipulated?
>-How can be one digital signature used for the picture and the information?
>-Aren`t there reasons for creating a GNU-Free_Picture/Grafic_Licence?
>-Has there already been discussions about his?
>-Where can I found archievs of them?
>-Where is the best place to discuss a new picture/media licence?
>-Should this licence be a GNU or a Wikipedia licence?
>
>-Who is interested in joining such discussion?
>
>The GFDL is IMHO only about text and not about pictures, the GFDL do not
>mention picture or photo. Beside the question if a GNU Free Picture Lisence
>would be better - does the GFDL protect that this pictures are maybe allowed
>to use without GFDL, too? I?m not keen in having just another licence, but
>especialy the documentation of picture manipulation and sticking the picture
>information to the picture is need enough to think about a GNU Free Picture
>Licence, or more better about a Free Media Licence (picture, maps, sheet
>music, audio, video...)
>
>Gruss
>rob
>
>
>PS: I would use the wappon "blaming the right owner" to do not support
>wikipedia very carfully and very singular - only with good reasons and maybe
>only for govermental organisation like ESA:
>"We are very disapointed to do not be able to serve you pictures to this
>article, but the ESA deny us the support and the right to use pictures which
>was made by 100% tax paid science. We do not have any appreciative for this
>mindset, because the NASA is serving free pictures and make it possible to
>complete more than 500 articles with the help of NASA pictures. Please sign
>this petition adressed to ESA to reconsider their mindset".
>But maybe the ESA will be friendly when we do ask them or institutes which
>have made the science research. ;)
>But even in this case will be a more diplomatic strategie more successfull.
>When we increase the number of "friends of the wikipedia" and some
>wikipedianer has spoken with a minister for science and education, and this
>minister is liking the wikipedia, he can please the minister to request ESA
>to support wikipedia. The price for such an hight level intercessor could be
>that we care about one wish of the minister like creating articles of one
>field e.g. genetic engineering and print readers will a collection of this
>articles for schools. When we have fulfilled one of his wish, we can raise
>our next one. And a good contact to our minister would help to lobby against
>more restrictive patent and copyright laws.
>
>Beside of writing good articles, try to win new friends for the wikipedia!
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>
The GNU web site suggests creative commons.

"We believe that published software and documentation should be free
software and free documentation <licenses.html#Intro>. We recommend
making all sorts of educational and reference works free also, using
free documentation licenses such as the GNU Free Documentation License
<licenses.html#FDL> (GNU FDL)."

"For other kinds of works, we recommend you consider the licenses
proposed by Creative Commons <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/>."

Caroline / Secretlondon


from_name: Robert Michel

references:
<E1AuAuo-0001oK-1j@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<200402202011.45801.news@RobertMichel.de>
	<E1Av2Hq-0006TY-Ob@fencepost.gnu.org>

body:
Salve,

Am Sonntag, 22. Februar 2004 23:41 schrieb Richard Stallman:
> The questions you are asking are legal technicalities.  You need
> to ask a lawyer--I am not capable of giving advise about such points.

So I can state that there hasn`t been a discussion about a special GNU licence
for pictures yet and nobody dissagreed that there is probably a need for one.
Richard is right that this for asking a lawyer, but I?m interested in starting
points.

As long as the world is software patents free, we have the freedom to create
similar softwaretools - also the text for the wikipedia could be written by
our-self. But historical pictures like this:

Vietnam Execution (1968) Eddie Adams
http://www.edelmangallery.com/killer1.htm

we can`t make our-self. When the photographer is still alive and hasn`t sold
his pictures right, that do we have the chance to ask him to support the
wikipedia. Jimbo has ask me to go on with my idea of a tutorial ""HowTo ask
effective for the use of pictures with the condition of the GNU-FDL" and
start to write it.
But even when we have equal skills to Casanova, propose something smartfull
what will be a pleasure for the contributur and the Wikipedia - Casanova had
the advantage to choose willing women. Most of right holders of pictures with
the aim of make as much as possible money aren`t like women with unromatic
husbands.

In this case we need to make compromises, this could be one like:
A - getting one picture for using with GNU FDL
B - getting the right to use this picture only on official Wikipedia server/
mirrors, CD-Roms & official Wikipedia books (a special new licence)
C - getting the right to use this picture with a redused quality and size
D - creating a non public pay per view area inside the wikipedia
E - using this picture with "fair use"
F - don`t use this picture inside the wikipedia and use an external link
G - finding a very rich donator who buy the whole right of one picture and
free it
H - finding a rich donator to free a picture for B only

Some still open questions:
-How can we ensure by a licence, that the information of the picture will
sticked together for all future?
-How can we make it more believable that this picture is not manipulated?
-How can be one digital signature used for the picture and the information?
-Aren`t there reasons for creating a GNU-Free_Picture/Grafic_Licence?
-Has there already been discussions about his?
-Where can I found archievs of them?
-Where is the best place to discuss a new picture/media licence?
-Should this licence be a GNU or a Wikipedia licence?

-Who is interested in joining such discussion?

The GFDL is IMHO only about text and not about pictures, the GFDL do not
mention picture or photo. Beside the question if a GNU Free Picture Lisence
would be better - does the GFDL protect that this pictures are maybe allowed
to use without GFDL, too? I?m not keen in having just another licence, but
especialy the documentation of picture manipulation and sticking the picture
information to the picture is need enough to think about a GNU Free Picture
Licence, or more better about a Free Media Licence (picture, maps, sheet
music, audio, video...)

Gruss
rob

PS: I would use the wappon "blaming the right owner" to do not support
wikipedia very carfully and very singular - only with good reasons and maybe
only for govermental organisation like ESA:
"We are very disapointed to do not be able to serve you pictures to this
article, but the ESA deny us the support and the right to use pictures which
was made by 100% tax paid science. We do not have any appreciative for this
mindset, because the NASA is serving free pictures and make it possible to
complete more than 500 articles with the help of NASA pictures. Please sign
this petition adressed to ESA to reconsider their mindset".
But maybe the ESA will be friendly when we do ask them or institutes which
have made the science research. ;)
But even in this case will be a more diplomatic strategie more successfull.
When we increase the number of "friends of the wikipedia" and some
wikipedianer has spoken with a minister for science and education, and this
minister is liking the wikipedia, he can please the minister to request ESA
to support wikipedia. The price for such an hight level intercessor could be
that we care about one wish of the minister like creating articles of one
field e.g. genetic engineering and print readers will a collection of this
articles for schools. When we have fulfilled one of his wish, we can raise
our next one. And a good contact to our minister would help to lobby against
more restrictive patent and copyright laws.

Beside of writing good articles, try to win new friends for the wikipedia!


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: What would Richard Stallman say?

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Exactly! We have WAY too many images that don't have this type of information.
>IMO, we should stop all uploads and launch a tagging effort. Once that is fully
>underway a form should be added to the upload page that would force uploaders
>to enter text into author, source, and license fields. I consider the current
>situation to be untenable and dangerous to the long term viability to the
>project.
>
My early observations at Wikisource is that most contributors haven't
got a clue or a care about copyright.  Whatever position we may take in
this family of threads, by being here we have given the matter some
attention.  At Wikisource we are dealing with whole texts, so fair use
will usually not be relevant.

Much of the contributed material seems very much in the public domain,
and is probably perfectly acceptable, but it would be nice if people
would provide enough information to enable the copyright to be verified.
 Translations are a bigger problem.  The works of Plato are well into
the public domain, but people tend to ignore that last year's new
translation is very much copyright.

I don't like doing other people's homework, especially not for anonymous
users to who I can't send a polite query.  I like even less having to
play the heavy when no substantiation  comes up.

Ec


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] Simple PHP Wiki

body:
Kelly-
> I apologize if this is an inappropriate place to ask this, but do any of
> you know of a VERY simple PHP Wiki that would do to edit just a few pages,
> without a database, but with a password so that only the person with the
> password can edit the page?

If it doesn't have to be PHP I would recommend UsemodWiki. It's a CGI-BIN
Perl script without a database, super easy to install, allows password
protection. -> www.usemod.com

If it has to be PHP, try PhpWiki, which supports using flat files instead
of a database. -> phpwiki.sf.net

For a complete list of wiki engines by implementation language see:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiEngines

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen

subject: [Wikitech-l] DNS servers.

body:
Hi.

I've registered the domain "wikipedia.no" (Norway). In Norway, such domains
must be owned by Norwegian registered companies or organizations, so it's not
possible for me to transfer it completely to the Mediawiki Foundation.

Jimbo suggested my company sit as owners until Mediawiki opens shop in Norway,
or rules here change. In the mean time, if someone felt it was necessary, we
could set up a lease contract.

Anyway, I've set up a http redirect for the moment, but I'd like to set up the
domain with Wikipedia's own DNS servers, and have the no.wikipedia.org site
answer directly to www.wikipedia.no.

How do I go about arranging this?

-- Daniel


body:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:42:38 -0800, Optim wrote:

You can tell any decent browser like mozilla not to download images or (by
using something like wwwoffle) to replace them (you can specify which ones
with regexes) with an image of your choice, a transparent thumbnail for
example. Wwwoffle should be very useful for your needs- i used it during
the last two years because i spent a lot of time travelling. Whenever i
found an internet cafe i filled wwwoffle using wget and a list of sites i
liked and read it somewhere else (offline) afterwards. I even powered the
laptop with a solar panel... Wwwoffle can also record requests for
uncached pages and get them all at once the next time you go online.

Imo xhtml is a much better choice than html3.2, being more
well-formed and having more support in mobile devices. Using wikipedia
with lynx already works fine, even editing. Try it yourself.
--
Gabriel Wicke


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: DNS servers.

body:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 23:08:12 +0100, Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen wrote:

> Anyway, I've set up a http redirect for the moment, but I'd like to set up
> the domain with Wikipedia's own DNS servers, and have the no.wikipedia.org
> site answer directly to www.wikipedia.no.
>
> How do I go about arranging this?

You shouldn't as it would defeat caching. Any alternative domains should
redirect to the canonical version. Example: http://www.wikipedia.de/
redirects to http://de.wikipedia.org/.
--
Gabriel Wicke


from_name: Dan Drake

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: I'm mad as hell,
	and I'm not gonna take it any (a scenario)

body:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 08:54:02 UTC, Optim
<optim81 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> From below the thread starts becoming silly.
> Don't continue reading if you don't have time to
> waste.
>
> Bad-User-1 may post libel or personal information
> against Crazy-User-2 on Wikipedia pages...

Not bad.

I can hope that "He started litigation against me over a Wikipedia issue"
wouldn't result in an immediate ban without any inquiry. I hope that's not
too optimistic[nothing personal].

--
Dan Drake
dd at dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com

Whoever tries to imagine perfection simply reveals his own emptiness.
 --George Orwell


from_name: Martin Harper

subject: [WikiEN-l] legal threats, temp bans, and Jimbo

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> Legal threats against Wikipedians are unacceptable, period.

So you'd agree with something like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats

Feel free to boldly edit and/or express your support or distaste (or hatred, disgust,
etc)

Also, note that current and (especially!) past versions of the [[Wikipedia:Submission
Standards]] and [[Wikipedia:terms of use]] interfere with the ability of users to take
legal action without first going through arbitration, so you may wish to browse the
discussion there at some point and consider the benefits of making them official.

Erik later wrote:

> Jimbo is needed to allow us instant tempbans in case this particular policy
> is violated

That's a point of view. Another point of view is that it's up to the community to
decide under what circumstances tempbans by individual sysops are applicable,
and up to the arbitration committee and beauracrats to enforce the wishes of the
community in the matter.

If the community believes that tempbans by individual sysops are only permissable
in circumstances explicitly laid down by Jimbo Wales, then these two points of view
are identical. I wonder if this is the case.

-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper


references:
<E1AuAuo-0001oK-1j@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<200402232154.51816.news@RobertMichel.de>
	<403A73FD.9090008@secretlondon.me.uk>

body:
Salve Caroline,

Am Montag, 23. Februar 2004 22:43 schrieb Caroline Ford:
> "For other kinds of works, we recommend you consider the licenses
> proposed by Creative Commons <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/>."

This is an interesting startin point, and with creativecommons I found an
similar initative:

http://www.uvm.nrw.de/kunden/uvm/
www.nsf/0/0F0DB203B9B03CBAC1256E35003BB72D?OpenDocument&K0101

But both does not care the originalty of one picture as much as I like to see.

And I haven`t understud the reason for a German/European creativecommons
licence and the intercompatibility of them. I fear after the agreemet of Bern
about international copy right there is a need for an international agreement
for free use licences.

Thank you very much for this link,
rob


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
"Karl Eichwalder" <ke at gnu.franken.de> schrieb:
> Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:
>
> > :-) Well, this is amusing, but a better answer would be to serve them
> > a plaintext page.  Maybe the 'printable' version would be happy enough?
>
> Maybe, but don't get me wrong.  The text was meant as a boiler
> plate--the normal article text should follow.
>
> BTW, using lynx you can read (and edit?  I didn't try) the WP article
> pretty well.

If I remember correclty it was quite irritating to scroll to the top and
sidebars to get to the article.

As for editing: Yes, editing is possible. There are some points though:

* Lynx does not allow one to add new lines, nor to go beyond a certain
  number of lines. A Lynx user cannot insert a new line or edit more than
  a certain number (20?) of lines down the article - where every return
  counts as a line
* Lynx will 'transcribe' a UTF-8 page to Latin-1 (doing a commendable task
  at it, by the way, Japanese seemed to become correct romaji). It will
  be this Latin-1'ed page that is saved

There might well be more problems with it.

Andre Engels


from_name: Claus Färber

body:
Gareth Owen <wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk> schrieb/wrote:
> "Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen" <daniel at copyleft.no> writes:
>> Fair use is illegal in many large countries outside the US.
> But the Wikipedia servers are not in any of those countries,
> and so this is completely irrelevant.

In many countries it is enough that Wikipedia is intentionally
accessible there to bring an action before local courts based on the
violation of local copyright.
It may or may not be possible to enforce such judgments within the US --
I don't think there are many precedents. It is certainly a bad idea to
rely on that.

Of course, this only applies to actions brought against the Wikimedia
Foundation and users within the US. Users of the Wikipedia outside of
the US (both authors and licencees are subject to non-US law anyway. The
latter is also true for mirrors.

Claus
--
http://www.faerber.muc.de


subject: [Wikipedia-l] What would Richard Stallman say?

body:
Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen wrote:

>Fair use is illegal in many large countries outside the US.
>
This does not seem logical.

Illegal suggests that there is a specific provision making such an act
against the law.  If the matter is not mentioned in the statute, one
cannot fairly draw the conclusion that is illegal.  Of course the Berne
Treaty provision would be law in any country that has ratified the
Treaty.  Whether you call it "fair use", "fair dealing", or "fair
practice" the word "fair" is the constant theme in those expressions.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requests for arbitration: Heph

body:
Hi all.

A few days ago, Jimbo referred the cases of Wik, Anthony, and Hephaestos to us.
You can see comments to date at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration]].

While Wik has received many comments, and Anthony has received some.
Hephaestos has received precisely none (edit: one)

As an arbitrator, I must decide whether or not I believe it is appropriate for us to
investigate the matter of Hephaestos. Some assistance would be appreciated.

Note that asking us to investigate is not a condemnation of Heph: you may simply
wish us to officially clear him, if you feel he is in the right. Likewise, asking us not to
investigate is not an approval: you may simply feel the case is not important
enough.

Anyway, if you could add an appropriate comment to [[Wikipedia:Requests for
arbitration]], that would be great. I wouldn't want to disrupt your important
discussions.

Thanks,
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper


from_name: Imran Ghory

body:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, David Friedland wrote:
>
>   Under what Wikipedia articles are not:
> * Instructions. Wikipedia seeks to be informative, not instructional.

In the words of [[James Murray]] "we should be descrptive, not
prescriptive".

Imran
--
http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran


from_name: Anthere

body:
That seems like a very convoluted set of sentences; But, whatever the
wording, many people expressed that they did not agree with such a
policy. So, please, do not add it to what wikipedia is not, in order to
ban recipes thereafter. There is no consensus on this, and several
people expressed the feeling some recipees are perfectly okay to wikipedia.

Typically, rules that are set with no consensus are rules that I do not
respect :-)

David Friedland a ?crit:
>
> The following seems to be the general idea that people have about how-to
> type content on Wikipedia. i.e. that it belongs on wikibooks, not
> wikipedia. I couldn't find anywhere where this was written out as
> policy, so this is my proposed addition to [[What Wikipedia is not]]:
>
>  Under what Wikipedia articles are not:
> * Instructions. Wikipedia seeks to be informative, not instructional.
> Therefore, things like how-tos, recipes, and other types of information
> that provide instruction on something are not appropriate on Wikipedia.
> They are appropriate, however, on Wikibooks, and articles that contain
> only instructional material should be moved to the appropriate area on
> Wikibooks. It is possible that information about instructions are
> appropriate on Wikipedia, but it should be presented in the indicative
> mood, and not the imperative mood that so distinctively marks
> instructional material.
>
>  I know the wording is a little weak, but it's my first attempt.
>
> Since the WikiEN-l is for discussing policy, I thought I'd bring it up here.
>
> - David


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>But "never under any circumstances" doesn't strike me as a remotely
>plausible position.
>
>2.  The "hardliners" (of whom I count myself one) are hardliners in
>part because of a certain set of views on copyright.  These views
>ought to lead us to want to _expand_ the doctrine of fair use.
>Therefore, we *want* fair use, we want to rely on it, we want to use
>our position of influence to break down the myth that just because
>something is copyright, it's entirely untouchable.
>
This is consistent with my philosophies about law-abidance.  If you are
to be successful in expanding a concept it's going to be through working
in its murky and uncertain edges, rather than in the safe middle where
there is a certainty to the laws.  Goal-hugger is the most derogatory
term that can be applied in a game of hide-and-go-seek.

Ec

>


body:
I understand that.
Sorry if I am not relaxed, but I can't get it.
I might be more relaxed if the french cooking recipees were not moved
out of this encyclopedia, some with no links left to the recipee itself,
  not to mention cases where the article is just plain deleted.
Some of these recipees have encyclopedic value, they are typical
examples of a certain way of life, they are typical examples of cooking
techniques. Just a dozen of recipees do not impair the quality of highly
cultural articles, at least no more than the thousand of tiny american
city articles. We have room. It is not because another project is about
cooking that cooking should just disappear from Wikipedia. Plus it
breaks international links, for other wikipedias consider recipees have
value. Plus it is unnice for all the contributors (often newbies) who
wrote the recipee, and who do not find articles any more.
How do these few dozens recipees bother any one ? When they are famous
dishes, they should not be deleted. That is bad. This is destroying
information. We *have* room. And some believe this is valuable information.

And the solution is not to go claim consensus and update policies when
someone try to discuss the matter.

Thinking about it, a bit of promotion :-)

This page is directly linked from our front page. It should be enriched,
but well, you will get the idea I think

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recettes_du_mois

Isnot that neat ?

Ant

Fred Bauder a ?crit:
> This always seemed wrong to me. I'd like to see a whole lot more relaxed
> attitude.
>
> Fred
>
>
>>From: Anthere <anthere8 at yahoo.com>
>>Reply-To: anthere8 at yahoo.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:39:54 +0100
>>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other imperative
>>content
>>
>>That seems like a very convoluted set of sentences; But, whatever the
>>wording, many people expressed that they did not agree with such a
>>policy. So, please, do not add it to what wikipedia is not, in order to
>>ban recipes thereafter. There is no consensus on this, and several
>>people expressed the feeling some recipees are perfectly okay to wikipedia.
>>
>>Typically, rules that are set with no consensus are rules that I do not
>>respect :-)
>>
>>David Friedland a ?crit:
>>
>>>The following seems to be the general idea that people have about how-to
>>>type content on Wikipedia. i.e. that it belongs on wikibooks, not
>>>wikipedia. I couldn't find anywhere where this was written out as
>>>policy, so this is my proposed addition to [[What Wikipedia is not]]:
>>>
>>>Under what Wikipedia articles are not:
>>>* Instructions. Wikipedia seeks to be informative, not instructional.
>>>Therefore, things like how-tos, recipes, and other types of information
>>>that provide instruction on something are not appropriate on Wikipedia.
>>>They are appropriate, however, on Wikibooks, and articles that contain
>>>only instructional material should be moved to the appropriate area on
>>>Wikibooks. It is possible that information about instructions are
>>>appropriate on Wikipedia, but it should be presented in the indicative
>>>mood, and not the imperative mood that so distinctively marks
>>>instructional material.
>>>
>>>I know the wording is a little weak, but it's my first attempt.
>>>
>>>Since the WikiEN-l is for discussing policy, I thought I'd bring it up here.
>>>
>>>- David
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-
>
> l


body:
Wikip?dia really needs more mothers, with feet firmly set in the ground.

David Friedland a ?crit:
> I just want to motivate this a little bit more:
>
> Claim: Wikipedia should not include instructional material.
>
> I believe that instructional material is inherently opinionated: an
> instruction comes with the embedded assumption that the method described
> is somehow "correct". People only make imperative statements if they
> believe that the action they are directing is the "correct" action.  By
> making imperative statements, Wikipedia is asserting the opinion that
> the instructions themselves are correct. NPOV policy clearly stands
> against this: "assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't
> assert opinions themselves."
>
> Let's take the example of recipes. There can be disagreements about how
> different dishes are to be prepared. How do you neutralize disagreements
> without changing the mood from imperative to indicative?
>
> Example of an instruction from a guacamole recipe:
>
>    Add all the avocado to the bowl, then add the other ingredients. Mix
> well.
>
>    vs.
>
>    Add half the avocado to the bowl, then add the other ingredients. Mix
> well, then gently stir in the other half of the avocado.
>
> Is either one of these correct? Or should we say "Some chefs suggest
> setting aside half the avocado before mixing all the ingredients
> together, then gently stirring in the remaining avocado, to ensure the
> guacamole has a chunky texture, whereas other chefs prefer the smooth
> texture of mixing everything together all at once."
>
> I believe it is the intent of the NPOV not to take sides, even if there
> is only one side. Imperative language inherently takes the side of the
> instructions, and so should be avoided. Since HOWTOs and recipes use
> imperative language, they shouldn't be on the Wikipedia. Much of the
> content can perhaps be modified for inclusion on the Wikipedia, but it
> has to be rephrased so that each step is not only in the indicative
> mood, but is contextualized and/or justified.
>
> Resolved: HOWTOs, recipes, and similar instructional materials should be
> located in wikibooks, and Wikipedia articles should contain only NPOV
> descriptions and links to the relevant pages in wikibooks.
>
> -- David
>
> On preview, what Delirium said. And I love that we both use guacamole as
> the example.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Language file updates

body:
I'm sorry a lot of these have been held up for a while; we've been
mainly working on stabilizing the wikis under the new server setup and
preparing to put out a new release of the MediaWiki software with all
the latest fixes and features -- for which of course we'll want the
latest language files included.

My old todo list page has gotten rather unwieldy and out of date, I'm
afraid, and it's hard to tell what's been done, what hasn't, etc. It
would be a big help if people could put the relevant information onto
these new wiki pages (currently empty):

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_list_of_language_names
All the suggestions for native language names that have been posted
separately recently.

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_files_to_be_updated
Please link to the exact wiki page that contains the updated file, or
attach an update and send it to this list and say which was sent.
If possible, please compare against the version of the file in CVS:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/wikipedia/phase3/languages/ and
ensure that anything that got updated separately in CVS is also in your
version.

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_language_bugs
Any other bugs or problems that are specific to one of the
languages/wikis: missing or corrupted messages, logo updates, sysops,
etc.

Hopefully we can get these things cleared up in the next few days...

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040224/be9cab4d/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: User-agent block list & Netscape 3

body:
Eike Frost wrote:
> A line has to be drawn somewhere. It's impossible to support
> all/all/all. Now, where that line should be drawn is a subject of
> hot debate :)

In a sense you're right.  It'd be silly, as someone pointed out, for
us to try to support proprietary extensions to HTML from Netscape 3.0
which eventually went away.  But if current modern standards-based web
pages break an old browser, we can at least try to send those browsers
a very simple plaintext page.

> (personally, I think a site should conform to current accepted and
> implemented standards such as xhtml 1.1, css1/2, svg, etc. and not
> worry too much about browsers that don't render those well (as
> opposed to not at all, in which case a transformation to plaintext
> may be needed as an alternative).

What I'd say is that Wikipedia is the sort of site that is 99% usable
even in an extremely plaintext layout.  Very simple html does a
passable job of rendering article text.  So if we hear that the site
sucks in some frightening old browser, it is a valid option to just
serve that browser a very simple plaintext version.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikitech-l] DNS servers.

body:
Contact jasonr at bomis.com

If you have a suggestion for a contract form between the Wikimedia Foundation
and your company, send it to me, and I'll read it, and we can do that.  It
does seem like the wise thing to do, now that you've talked me into it.  :-)

Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> > I trust Daniel completely, so I'm satisfied with his word on this.  His
> > intentions have been stated publicly, and that's good enough for me.
>
> The problem is that one can never trust a company. Companies regularly go back
> on their words if it's profitable for them. Also, companies can go bust and
> their property sold off to to cover debts.
>
> This also goes for my company, and it's made me think I should try to transfer
> it to some local organization instead - a LUUG or the local branch of the EFF.
>
> These are considerations we should take with all such domains, and with all
> contact we have with companies: Only contracts and licenses will do.
>
> ---
>
> Btut I still don't know who to contact in order to hook up the domain to
> Wikipedia's DNS servers.
>
> Can anyone help me here?
>
> -- Daniel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other
	imperativecontent

body:
I have always been of the opinion that recipies/howtos/instructions
are perfectly fine for wikipedia.  Wiki is not paper, after all, and
knowledge about how to do things is knowledge.

I don't buy the argument that recipes are inherently POV.  First of
all, it's a bit odd to think of a recipe as potentially biased, isn't
it?  I suppose it's possible for one to be biased about a recipe "This
is the only proper way to boil an egg".  But it's also entirely
possible to be NPOV, by giving alternate methods in the same article
or in different articles.

Britannica has 66,000 articles, I believe.  It seems likely that in
en: alone, we will have 10x that many within a few more years.  Even
if we stick to "traditional conventions" about what belongs in an
encyclopedia, our superior production methods mean that we can have
10x their coverage.  But if we understand that wiki is not paper, I
can imagine us having 100x their coverage.

I'm not a dogmatist on this point (recipes), I'm just throwing out for
consideration -- what exactly makes this non-encyclopedic, other than
the constraints of paper on traditional encyclopedias?

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fair use in the UK

body:
Nathan Russell wrote:
> Jimbo, to what extent do we need to respect the policies of other
> nations, and which other nations?  No offense is meant to the many UK
> folks on this list, but I would not want wikipedia to have to remove all
> content that the Chinese or Saudi government objected to.

First, it's important to differentiate between content-neutral
restrictions and content-based restrictions.  There may be some
overlap, but I think in the vast majority of cases, the restrictions
we face will be largely one or the other.

Content-based restrictions we must ignore whenever they conflict with
our NPOV mission.  If a government objects to our work on political
grounds, that's tough for them.  We are very strongly protected by the
United States government in this matter.

Some Content-based restrictions we may end up obeying, not out of
respect for laws which violate the freedom of expression, but as a
consequence of our NPOV mission.  Both France and Germany have laws
restricting the freedom of speech in various ways, but we are (in my
opinion) unlikely to run afoul of those anyway, because we are an
encyclopedia with an NPOV policy.

For example, a British newspaper distributed in France was fined for
calling Jacques Chirac a worm.  That's an inexcusable violation of
human rights on the part of the French government, but it doesn't seem
likely to cause us any trouble since we srupulously avoid making ALL
controversial claims.  We would, of course, report on the flap, in a
neutral manner, but French law is not (to my knowledge) an obstacle to
that.

Similarly, Germany has laws against some forms of expression relating
to Naziism, but again, to my knowledge, so long as we stick to our
NPOV mission, we aren't going to come close to violating those laws.
(And, again, if we do, then we must ignore German law.)

For content-neutral restrictions, for example extremely narrow fair
use provisions, we will have to make some judgment calls, and we may
have to be creative.  We want to preserve maximal freedom for
downstream users, while at the same time not hampering our NPOV and
encyclopedic mission.  For the most part, we can obey such
restrictions without compromising our mission, since the restrictions
are content-neutral.

Is that explanation and distinction helpful?

I think it's a mistake to think that British limitations on fair use
that may be slightly (or greatly) more restrictive that U.S. law are
in anything like the same category as speech restrictions in North
Korea or China or Iran or Saudi Arabia, etc..

They aren't even in the same category as speech restrictions in
Germany and France.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fair use

body:
Yann Forget wrote:
> What about this image (screenshot of MS Windows by a Wikipedian)?
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows
>
> And about this one?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Winxp_rc1_rev_02.gif

Those are both perfectly acceptable both from the point of view of
"fair use" in the U.S., and also because they are both within the
very liberal and open-ended permission given by Microsoft for such
things:
http://www.microsoft.com/permission/copyrgt/cop-img.htm#ScreenShot

When you're reading that, remember that companies often give
permission to do things that you can already do anyway, while
purporting to place some restrictions on you.

For example, Microsoft _gives permission_ to use screenshots, but says
that you may not alter them in any way.  That only applies within the
context of their permission.  But in U.S. law, parody is a very
strongly protected form of expression, and so even though someone who
alters a screenshot to make fun of Microsoft is doing so outside the
scope of the permissions, they are well within the bounds of fair use.

The same would be true for an article about Microsoft which is
"disparaging".  Even though Microsoft's liberal permission policy
appears to forbid such use, all that means is that if you disparage
them then you don't have their permission.  But you wouldn't normally
need their permission anyway, so long as you're within the realm of
fair use critical commentary.

In our case, of course, we don't disparage anyone, and so we fit well
within their permission policy.

--Jimbo


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: What would Richard Stallman say? (IP users)

in_reply_to:
<93R6RCh8bzB@westermayer-74391.user.cis.dfn.de> (Till
	Westermayer's message of "23 Feb 2004 22:01:00 +0100")

body:
Till Westermayer <till at tillwe.de> writes:

> Depends. In the US, you can, in Germany, you can't.

I guess you meant the "urheberrecht" in Germany - it is conceptionally
different from the US copyright.  The one who creates a work owns the
"urheberrecht" and he or she can grant the right to make use of the work
to somebody else.  That's it roughly.

--
                                                         |      ,__o
                                                         |    _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |   (*)/'(*)


from_name: Dan Miller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: recipes

body:
>I'm not a dogmatist on this point (recipes), I'm just
>throwing out for
>consideration -- what exactly makes this
non->encyclopedic, other than
>the constraints of paper on traditional
encyclopedias?

--Jimbo

I'd have fewer problems if they were accompanied by an
article on the food item in question.  A recipe, on
its own, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

Meelar

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


body:
Optim <optim81 at yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> Disagree. We should try to support all browsers,
> all computer architectures, all people.

Sure.  But what really important is to serve conforming HTML or XHTML
code.  If a user claims to use NS 3 we should serve HTML 2.0, if he
uses Mozilla 1.3 he can expect HTML 4.01 or XHTML

> It's not good to force people upgrade.

It is the user's responsibility to use a browser which can deal with
conforming HTML.

--
                                                         |      ,__o
                                                         |    _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |   (*)/'(*)


from_name: Evan Prodromou

subject:
Low-end MediaWiki client (was Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: User-agent block
	list & Netscape 3)

body:
>>>>> "EF" == Eike Frost <wikipedia at kefro.st> writes:

    EF> A line has to be drawn somewhere. It's impossible to support
    EF> all/all/all. Now, where that line should be drawn is a subject
    EF> of hot debate :)

Well, for read-only browsing, MediaWiki uses:

      * Paragraphs
      * Italic
      * Bold
      * Links
      * Images

I think HTML 2.0 or above should handle these. For Wiki participation,
and searching, we use:

      * HTML forms

Which I think is also in HTML 2.0.

MediaWiki markup can produce tables, so we also need to support
tables. Tables come in some time around HTML 3.0, I believe.

We use cookies for authentication. To have a user account, you need
cookies. That's an HTTP thing, and I have no clue when Netscape and
buddies started the whole shebang. Netscape 3.0, I think? Anyways,
HTTP/1.1 supports cookies, but lots of HTTP/1.0 processors also
support cookies as a custom extension.

Pretty much none of the Javascript, CSS, or what have you are
necessary for using Wikipedia. They make things look nicer, or easier,
but they're not mainline crucial.

Anyways, if I was going to do a formula, I'd say:

         HTML 2.0 (Base)
         Tables
         Cookies

...should be enough to make you a constructive participant in
MediaWiki wikis. Yeah, that sets the bar pretty damn low, I know.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide


from_name: KNOTT, T

body:
>Providing no link to Wikibooks' recipes when we
>move them is bad.

>--Optim

I agree. Also it should be made clear that wikibooks is a sister project, not any old external web site.

__________________________________
/wikien-l


from_name: Eike Frost

body:
Hi,

On Monday 23 February 2004 23:04, Optim wrote:
> --- Hunter Peress <hfastjava at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > It is wrong to support old browsers because it
> > makes wikipedia maintainance more crufty and
> > difficult.
>
> Disagree. We should try to support all browsers,
> all computer architectures, all people.
>
> It's not good to force people upgrade.

A line has to be drawn somewhere. It's impossible to support all/all/all. Now,
where that line should be drawn is a subject of hot debate :)

(personally, I think a site should conform to current accepted and implemented
standards such as xhtml 1.1, css1/2, svg, etc. and not worry too much about
browsers that don't render those well (as opposed to not at all, in which
case a transformation to plaintext may be needed as an alternative). If
trying to stay backwards compatible means making compromises for the majority
of users, it's not worth it IMHO.)

Wikipedia runs reasonable well on everything I've tried and use, so the status
quo ain't that bad :)

ttyl,
  Eike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040224/9177cbdb/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Irismeister

body:
Can I ask for people to help me out a bit here. Irismeister is following me around trying to provoke me. My tactic of doing my best to ignore him seems to be winding him up as he made a couple of absurd edits yesterday - he removed "if swallowed ....... seek medical help" from ammonium chloride on the ground that seeking medical help from unqualified persons wastes time and is therefore dangerous. This _may_ be because english is not his first language and he doesn't realize the phrase means - go to a doctor or ring the emergency services, but I think it's just that he's baiting me.

Another example is on the reflexology page where he deleted a quote that I put in calling it obscene. This is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard so I reverted.

My problem is, I am now at the stage where I simply revert all the deletions he makes of my work without even considering his arguments. It may well be that I make a bad edit, irismeister reverts it and I revert it back again simply because it was him. I am concerned that other editors may be reluctant to argue with me for fear of agree with him, or even for fear of getting involved in the war. So I'm asking for you lot's help. If you see me revert irismeister and you think that even though he is a jerk, his edit had some merit please say so on the talk page. I can't bring myself to argue my case with him anymore, but I don't want the quality of wikipedia to suffer as a result.

Cheers.

Theresa