subject: [WikiEN-l] RCT Locomotion -- again!

body:
Why do the moderators keep letting this come through?
Jimbo did not write this and point 2 isn't written by any Wikipedia staff.
It would be a lot easier to ignore if it didn't end up in my inbox.

Mgm

On 1/13/07, rctlocomotionwikipeida at yahoo.com <
rctlocomotionwikipeida at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I got an email from the Wikipedia staff, reading:
>
> "Removing semi-protected tags when this article or articles is/are still
> protected that you're not allowed to do that is against Wikipedia policy.
>
> There are reasons:
>
> 1. Wikipedians who kept removing semi-protected tags will be banned
> permanently from interactivity on Wikipedia.
>
> 2. If you're firing Brad Patrick (permanently), I'll get Donald Trump, and
> he'll fire you for bothering him.
>
> Wikipedia enforces a zero tolerance policy in regards to wiki vandalism in
> Wikipedia. There is a possibilty that you will be banned from interactivity
> on Wikipedia if you continue to vandalize any wiki stuff. If you have
> questions, email me. It should be noted that replies to this email will go
> unanswered and your only course is emailing me!
>
> --Jimbo"
>
> Wikipedia enforces a zero tolerance policy for that crap. It's because of
> wiki spamming in the park.
>


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jared Williams

subject: [Wikitech-l] Falcon

body:
> Alex,
>
> I was reading about MySQL's Falcon engine (which appears to
> have reached an
> > alpha branch), and was wondering if anyone had tried it
> with Mediawiki,
> > and
> > for that matter the whole Wikipedia dataset. Curious to know how it
> > behaves,
> > and how much efficiency the compressed storage engine gets...
>
>
> Falcon isn't suitable for now to run Wikipedia dataset. It
> doesn't have
> covering indexes (all reads hit data rows), it doesn't have
> 'ORDER BY ...
> LIMIT' optimization, it is hungry for filesorts, etc.
>
> Mediawiki's primary engine is InnoDB, then some sites may
> attempt to use
> MyISAM, though that isn't well supported...
>
> For some wikipedias though, BLACKHOLE seems to be the best
> engine MySQL has
> produced.
>

Isn't it lacking replication too, which is rather important.

Jared


list: wikien-l

from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] African maps

body:
On 1/13/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Absolutely, there's lots of reasons, but the reasons should be there on
> an item by item basis.  Do we need to indiscriminately host their entire
> corpus of maps when we only have use for a few?

There are very few things we need to do. In this case the reason is why not?

> We all love to hate M*******t,

Speak for yourself.

>partly because it dominates its
> industry.

Plently of other industries have been dominated to the same degree
without the same level of disslike.

> We need to be conscious of not becoming resentfully referred
> to as W*******a because of our dominance.

Nah people will find plently of other reasons to disslike us. They already do.

> I think that it's important
> to view ourselves as a part of a community of websites developing free
> access to information.  That requires maintaining the respect of other
> members of that community, and you don't do that by raiding their
> efforts.

How many flicker images do we have these days anyway. One of the
common values of provideing free stuff is seeing it reused.

> The survival of a vision depends on sharing that vision, and
> that cannot happen if our allied co-visionaries are  put in a position
> where they need to defend their efforts from the superpower on the block.
>

Why would they need to do that? What do people lose by haveing their
material on wikimedia projects?

You see a key part of the vission of free material is that others will
use it. There are probably near 1000 sites that use large chunks of
wikimedia material.

> Ethical considerations rest upon forseeing the consequences of one's own
> actions.  Ethics are not governed by rules and laws, nor are they
> imposed through fear of arbitrary ounishment.  Ethics involves a
> willingness to be at a disadvantage when it is the right thing to do.
>

That would really rather depend on the system of ethics. Calling your
morality an ethical system does not make it so.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] African maps

body:
On 1/13/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> My point was not about permissions.  It even assumes that we will
> receive all the permissions we want.  It's about why we are better
> suited to carry this material than Northwestern U.

Since we are not stopping them from carrying it it is irrelivant.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
On 1/14/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Why shouldn't both sides need to stay on topic.

Ah you miss the point. The wikiproject sort to exclude those who did
not believe in alt med.

>  Admittedly I chose not
> to participate in that debate because I was not ready to do the research
> needed to properly defend the closed-minded attacks from the opponents
> of alternative medicine.

So you admit that you like to take positions on the basis of belief
rather than evidence and logic?

> Who said anything about a monopoly?  Or that they have any new
> "powers"?  Or that outsiders would not be able to participate?
>

You did.

"You can establish your expertise through your participation in the
relevant WikiProject"

Giving WikiProjects an effective monopoly.

--
geni


list: foundation-l

from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [Foundation-l] NEH grant

body:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
> I went through the application information and I think we could
> definitely be a strong contender, if we had a good partner and a sound
> project.
>
> Please contribute ideas here:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NEH_Advancing_Knowledge_grant
>
> Basically, we can't use it to purchase existing collections, and we
> need to have a specific project with a partner such as a library,
> museum or archive. So we need to brainstorm on either what good
> projects would be (and then, who would be good to approach as a
> partner?) or on who good partners would be (and then, what would make
> sense as a collaborative project?).
>
> After mulling over this a bit, it just screams LIBRARY + WIKISOURCE to
> me. We need a partner who is sympathetic to open content and not
> putting restrictions on public domain material.
>

The Internet Archive? They're widely recognised and have existing
partnerships with some libraries...

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070114/b69aeff6/attachment-0001.pgp


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] NEH grant

body:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
> I went through the application information and I think we could
> definitely be a strong contender, if we had a good partner and a sound
> project.
>
> Please contribute ideas here:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NEH_Advancing_Knowledge_grant
>
> Basically, we can't use it to purchase existing collections, and we
> need to have a specific project with a partner such as a library,
> museum or archive. So we need to brainstorm on either what good
> projects would be (and then, who would be good to approach as a
> partner?) or on who good partners would be (and then, what would make
> sense as a collaborative project?).
>
> After mulling over this a bit, it just screams LIBRARY + WIKISOURCE to
> me. We need a partner who is sympathetic to open content and not
> putting restrictions on public domain material.
>

The Internet Archive? They're widely recognised and have existing
partnerships with some libraries...

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070114/b69aeff6/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] NEH grant

body:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
> I went through the application information and I think we could
> definitely be a strong contender, if we had a good partner and a sound
> project.
>
> Please contribute ideas here:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NEH_Advancing_Knowledge_grant
>
> Basically, we can't use it to purchase existing collections, and we
> need to have a specific project with a partner such as a library,
> museum or archive. So we need to brainstorm on either what good
> projects would be (and then, who would be good to approach as a
> partner?) or on who good partners would be (and then, what would make
> sense as a collaborative project?).
>
> After mulling over this a bit, it just screams LIBRARY + WIKISOURCE to
> me. We need a partner who is sympathetic to open content and not
> putting restrictions on public domain material.
>

The Internet Archive? They're widely recognised and have existing
partnerships with some libraries...

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070114/b69aeff6/attachment-0001.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week

body:
On 1/14/07, rfrangi at libero.it <rfrangi at libero.it> wrote:

> Fair use images have to be removed as well if you reuse the contents in places where the >concept of fair use does not exist.

If you match the rate which en deletes "fair use" material deleting NC
material I doubt there will be many complaints.

>
> Beside that, please understand that you can't force a community to abandon NC's, when >they consider fair use as being worse than NC. No way.

I can think of a couple ways to do it. Only one requires a software
change (commons would have a fit mind).

> I wish both will not be accepted, but NC is a licence

Ever read it?

>, fair use is a trick,

No it is an affirmative defense under US law.

--
geni


from_name: rfrangi at libero.it

body:
> So, I'm against using non-commercial images unless we're using them
> under fair use because we don't have a substitute.
>
> If we use a fair-use image, a commercial organization can at least take
> whole Wikipedia pages and re-use them. On the contrary, non-commercial
> images must be removed if they don't meet fair-use criteria.

Fair use images have to be removed as well if you reuse the contents in places where the concept of fair use does not exist.

>
> The key here is that we're producing a free-content *encyclopedia* on
> Wikipedia, not a free library of the media used to create the content.
> (Wikimedia Commons *is* a project creating a free library of media.)
> This means the final goal is free-content articles. Non-commercial
> images undermine that goal.

Fair use undermine that goal as well. Fair use is not a license, is "an excuse to use copyrighted material". As such,  it does not protect you from a legal action and in the end a judge will decide if an image is used "fairly" or not.

Beside that, please understand that you can't force a community to abandon NC's, when they consider fair use as being worse than NC. No way. As long as fair use will be allowed on en.wiki, NC's will be allowed on it.wiki. I wish both will not be accepted, but NC is a licence, fair use is a trick, so for what concerns me, if the latter stays, the former will stay as well.

Roberto (Snowdog)

------------------------------------------------------
Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom
http://click.libero.it/infostrada14gen07


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] editorial oversight, re: afd, fac, etc.

body:
Matthew Brown wrote:
> On 1/13/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
>> Matthew Brown schreef:
>>> That proposal seems to lack consensus.
>> How can you tell? The discussion is over 600 kB long...
>
> Because it's that long yet there seems to be no more agreement at the
> bottom than at the top - plus my gut feeling that there's no way the
> consensus of active en.wp contributors will agree on it.

This proposal seems to me an example of letting the perfect be the enemy
of the good. An article that doesn't meet any other criteria for speedy
deletion (it's not patent nonsense, it's about a "notable" subject, it
isn't a copyvio, etc.) but which lacks references is still better to
have than a blank void in its place. It's raw material that can be
further refined by adding references or by removing unreferenced facts
that turn out to be unsupported after the attempt is made.

Has there been any word recently on how soon version-flagging might be
implemented? Perhaps if there's some way to flag versions as
"publication quality" or whatever to allow for automated filtering there
won't be such an urgent desire to eliminate the less-than-perfect works
in progress scattered throughout Wikipedia in the meantime.


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
rfrangi at libero.it schreef:
>> So, I'm against using non-commercial images unless we're using them
>> under fair use because we don't have a substitute.
>>
>> If we use a fair-use image, a commercial organization can at least take
>> whole Wikipedia pages and re-use them. On the contrary, non-commercial
>> images must be removed if they don't meet fair-use criteria.
>>
>
> Fair use images have to be removed as well if you reuse the contents in places where the concept of fair use does not exist.
>
>
>> The key here is that we're producing a free-content *encyclopedia* on
>> Wikipedia, not a free library of the media used to create the content.
>> (Wikimedia Commons *is* a project creating a free library of media.)
>> This means the final goal is free-content articles. Non-commercial
>> images undermine that goal.
>>
>
> Fair use undermine that goal as well. Fair use is not a license, is "an excuse to use copyrighted material". As such,  it does not protect you from a legal action and in the end a judge will decide if an image is used "fairly" or not.
>
> Beside that, please understand that you can't force a community to abandon NC's, when they consider fair use as being worse than NC. No way. As long as fair use will be allowed on en.wiki, NC's will be allowed on it.wiki. I wish both will not be accepted, but NC is a licence, fair use is a trick, so for what concerns me, if the latter stays, the former will stay as well.
>
> Roberto (Snowdog)
Hoi,
It is true that people are not forced to do much at all. It is however
plain that it is the users themselves who are liable under their law for
what they do. It is also quite plain that it is exactly the people who
include non free material that will prevent the material to be used in
other formats like print. This last reason is why it is so harmful to
our aim when people only think Internet.

NC is not a license. Non commercial is an option that you can pick as
part of a Creative Commons license. Saying that "fair use" is just a
trick is a misrepresentation as well, it is legal under some laws and
not under others. When the Italian law does not allow "fair use" and you
upload a picture and mark it as "fair use", it is you who can be
successfully sued.

Thanks,
     GerardM


from_name: Eugene van der Pijll

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
Ruud Koot schreef:
> Actually, it used to be called the HomePage  in the good old days.
> <http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/> I'd prefer the name Frontpage over
> Main Page or HomePage, though. --Ruud

----------------------
:''This is the Wikipedia Frontpage. For the Microsoft web site authoring
software, see [[Microsoft FrontPage]].''

Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
1,580,773 articles in English

...
----------------------

Maybe not.

Eugene


from_name: Ruud Koot

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
Actually, it used to be called the HomePage  in the good old days.
<http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/> I'd prefer the name Frontpage over
Main Page or HomePage, though. --Ruud

MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> Of course, must be. It's only logical for the main page to violate policy
> since day one.
> </sarcasm>
>
>
> On 1/13/07, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Someone's got into their head that having it in mainspace is a
>> "violation of Wikipedia policy", and suggests it be moved into the
>> comparatively new Portal namespace, like [[Current events]] was.
>>
>> On 1/13/07, Dan Collins <en.wp.st47 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Gary Kirk wrote:
>>>> There is once again a proposal to move the Main Page out of mainspace.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Requested_move
>>>>
>>> in the name of Jimbo, WHY?
>>>
>>> --
>>> GnuPG key ID is 0x84189146 on subkeys.pgp.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Gary Kirk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Gurch

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-01-13

body:
Nick Jenkins wrote:

> Passed 503 of 503 tests (100.00%)... Summary: ALL TESTS PASSED!

If it ever says that, is MediaWiki finished and everyone can go home? :)

-Gurch


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
On 1/13/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:26:50 +0100, "Oskar Sigvardsson"
> <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Actually, I'd really like it if it was moved from "Main Page" to "Main
> >page". That capital p annoys the bejesus out me.
>
> [[WP:BOLD]]...
>
> If the servers go tits-up in the next half hour we'll know why I
> guess.
>
> Guy (JzG)

I don't know what crazy world of fairies and pixel-dust you live in,
but where I come from not every user is an admin.

(also, I'm not insane =)


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 14/01/07, Gurch <matthew.britton at btinternet.com> wrote:
> If it ever says that, is MediaWiki finished and everyone can go home? :)

No. It means that the parser has, in fact, escaped our control, and we
should all be very very worried about the future...

Rob Church


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Holding deletion discussion in WikiProject space

body:
I had blanket votes as much as the next guy, but I don't like visiting
project deletion boards for each of the topics I'm interested in. I don't
have that much time. When they're centralized, I can see what is being
discussed at one single glance. Visiting 15 different pages is going to
cause time problems. We should force people to stay away from subjects they
don't know about unless they want to do the research.

Mgm

On 1/14/07, Keitei <nihthraefn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_for_de-
> centralization_of_debates
>
> Proposed. Comments?
>
> --Keitei
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
geni wrote:

>On 1/14/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Why shouldn't both sides need to stay on topic.
>>
>>
>Ah you miss the point. The wikiproject sort to exclude those who did
>not believe in alt med.
>
Fair enough, but  those interested in alt med are still in a better
position to review what is notable in the field.  If they choose to
delete something, I'm sure that even you will agree that article is
pretty far from reality.  If they choose to keep, the opportunities to
debate the subject will remain.

>>Admittedly I chose not
>>to participate in that debate because I was not ready to do the research
>>needed to properly defend the closed-minded attacks from the opponents
>>of alternative medicine.
>>
>>
>So you admit that you like to take positions on the basis of belief
>rather than evidence and logic?
>
Choosing not to participate is far removed from taking a position in an
article.

>>Who said anything about a monopoly?  Or that they have any new
>>"powers"?  Or that outsiders would not be able to participate?
>>
>>
>You did.
>
>"You can establish your expertise through your participation in the
>relevant WikiProject"
>
>Giving WikiProjects an effective monopoly.
>
There is nothing about a monopoly in that quote.  Building credibility
does not imply monopoly.

Ec


from_name: Domas Mituzas

subject: [Wikitech-l] Falcon

body:
Hi!

> Isn't it lacking replication too, which is rather important.

Replication isn't handled at the storage engine layer - it is at the SQL
server layer (just re-runs statements).

BR,
Domas


body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>I had blanket votes as much as the next guy, but I don't like visiting
>project deletion boards for each of the topics I'm interested in. I don't
>have that much time. When they're centralized, I can see what is being
>discussed at one single glance. Visiting 15 different pages is going to
>cause time problems. We should force people to stay away from subjects they
>don't know about unless they want to do the research.
>
That would be fine as long as the rule also applies to those making the
nominations.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
On 1/14/07, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/13/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:26:50 +0100, "Oskar Sigvardsson"
> > <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Actually, I'd really like it if it was moved from "Main Page" to "Main
> > >page". That capital p annoys the bejesus out me.

If you move from "Main Page" to "Main page", that's when you get problems
with website entry words like "Main page" redirecting to "index.html" or
"homepage". The capitalization ensures it doesn't get mixed up with actual
articles.

Mgm


body:
rfrangi at libero.it wrote:

>>senpai wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's the only way to have some images in the italian articles. We have a lot
>>>of restrictive legislations and we can't use the fair use. For example, we
>>>can go in a museum and take some pictures of a painting but, we can't
>>>publish into wikipedia without the permission of the "sovraintendenza ai
>>>beni culturali"; some days ago the "sovraintendenza ai beni culturali" of
>>>florance have threated us for the photos of some painting and ohter kind of
>>>arts taked into the florence's museums; perhaps will be a problem also for
>>>commons.
>>>
>>>
>>I would suggest that you investigate the "sovraintendenza ai beni
>>culturali"'s right to do this.  If I, as a foreign tourist, chose to go
>>to the museum, take pictures of old masters' works, and upload them into
>>commons when I got home, I don't think there's much they can do about it.
>>
>>
>Two years ago I went to Bruxelles (Belgium) and took a lot of pictures of the city. I uploaded them on Commons (as PD images) but the pictures of the Atomium where removed because of Belgian law. Apparently, being a foreign tourist is not enough.
>
Maybe I'm just spoiled by Canadian law which specifically allows
photographs of buildings and permanent statues with violating anybody's
copyrights.  The Atomium was built in 1958, and that would make it
different enough from paintings produced a few centuries ago.

Ec


from_name: willi boy

subject: [Foundation-l] Please comment on Yiddish wikipedia sysop abuse


from_name: Luna

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page (sic)

body:
On 1/13/07, PeruvianLlama <peruvianllama at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Its more an issue of the external links
> Just a thought on this, but assuming that the move were
> community-approved then would it be possible to do a sort of
> "hard-redirect" where http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page (or
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?Main_Page if you like) would
> automatically shunt any incoming traffic to the new page? Isn't there
> something in Apache, a 500-level code maybe that a server gives to
> clients to indicate a permanent redirect so that the incoming link can
> be updated? If this was the case, and since everyone agrees that moving
> Main_Page is not an immediate concern but rather a long-term issue (or
> not an issue at all), then Main_Page could exist for the next six months
> or year as an un-editable "hard-redirect", to give the world's links
> time to be updated. Then after that, once the epic novel "Main Page" has
> been written and achieved verifiable notability, we can un-hard-link the
> Main_Page article and editing could begin.

Right. But since we're obviously going to need such a redirect, what do we
gain from moving Main Page? It's a lot of work for...?

-Luna


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Cascading protection

body:
Ohh, I just tested this a bit. Works pretty much the way I was hoping for.
Thanks!

Only thing I might bug ye about -- what are the relevant MediaWiki messages?
The main one, I think, would be whatever indicates the page has been
affected by cascading protection.

Hm, I also see that it shows up, when using &action=protect -- are there any
other circumstances in which the cascading effect will be apparent? I'm
mainly thinking of non-admins, here. Unless we're planning on using this
infrequently enough that this isn't a major issue.

-Luna


references:
<NABBJGECPILFNLFEAPIKIEIBJMAA.nickpj@gmail.com>
	<45A99682.20802@btinternet.com>
	<e92136380701131844h7ace0652i65e6b397b031a0a8@mail.gmail.com>
	<eoc7s0$hd4$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 14/01/07, Edward Z. Yang <edwardzyang at thewritingpot.com> wrote:
> Or it could mean that the Parser has had it's architecture rewritten to
> be clean, extensible, backwards-compatible, intuitive,
> standards-compliant and fast.

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Rob Church


body:
> senpai wrote:
>
> >It's the only way to have some images in the italian articles. We have a lot
> >of restrictive legislations and we can't use the fair use. For example, we
> >can go in a museum and take some pictures of a painting but, we can't
> >publish into wikipedia without the permission of the "sovraintendenza ai
> >beni culturali"; some days ago the "sovraintendenza ai beni culturali" of
> >florance have threated us for the photos of some painting and ohter kind of
> >arts taked into the florence's museums; perhaps will be a problem also for
> >commons.
> >
> I would suggest that you investigate the "sovraintendenza ai beni
> culturali"'s right to do this.  If I, as a foreign tourist, chose to go
> to the museum, take pictures of old masters' works, and upload them into
> commons when I got home, I don't think there's much they can do about it.
>
> Ec

Two years ago I went to Bruxelles (Belgium) and took a lot of pictures of the city. I uploaded them on Commons (as PD images) but the pictures of the Atomium where removed because of Belgian law. Apparently, being a foreign tourist is not enough.

Roberto (Snowdog)

------------------------------------------------------
Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom
http://click.libero.it/infostrada14gen07


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Marathi

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

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> I cannot edit in English on the Marathi wikipedia any more.. The system
> only allows me to add the script that is associated with Marathi.

What does that mean?

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFqhilwRnhpk1wk44RAnvEAKCGdcxp72X7NXNnfI7v19oQC5ZaxgCdH+CJ
hbKOUh6qVv73rnDeTQKe3dQ=
=lMxJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
Gerard, I will not only think Internet. I hope others will not think only USA. If the point is "If we use a fair-use image, a commercial organization can at least take whole Wikipedia pages and re-use them." Well, this is not necessarlily true outside the USA. So fair use images should be banned for the same reason that applies to NC's.

Roberto (Snowdog)

------------------------------------------------------
Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom
http://click.libero.it/infostrada14gen07


from_name: David Strauss

body:
You're arguing from the ridiculous premise that Wikipedia must be legal
in every country. Even the topics of some articles aren't legal in some
countries.

rfrangi at libero.it wrote:
> Gerard, I will not only think Internet. I hope others will not think only USA. If the point is "If we use a fair-use image, a commercial organization can at least take whole Wikipedia pages and re-use them." Well, this is not necessarlily true outside the USA. So fair use images should be banned for the same reason that applies to NC's.
>
> Roberto (Snowdog)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom
> http://click.libero.it/infostrada14gen07
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070114/71a0d335/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
You're arguing from the ridiculous premise that Wikipedia must be legal
in every country. Even the topics of some articles aren't legal in some
countries.

rfrangi at libero.it wrote:
> Gerard, I will not only think Internet. I hope others will not think only USA. If the point is "If we use a fair-use image, a commercial organization can at least take whole Wikipedia pages and re-use them." Well, this is not necessarlily true outside the USA. So fair use images should be banned for the same reason that applies to NC's.
>
> Roberto (Snowdog)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom
> http://click.libero.it/infostrada14gen07
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070114/71a0d335/attachment.pgp>


body:
You're arguing from the ridiculous premise that Wikipedia must be legal
in every country. Even the topics of some articles aren't legal in some
countries.

rfrangi at libero.it wrote:
> Gerard, I will not only think Internet. I hope others will not think only USA. If the point is "If we use a fair-use image, a commercial organization can at least take whole Wikipedia pages and re-use them." Well, this is not necessarlily true outside the USA. So fair use images should be banned for the same reason that applies to NC's.
>
> Roberto (Snowdog)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom
> http://click.libero.it/infostrada14gen07
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070114/71a0d335/attachment-0001.pgp>


body:
I would hate to see Wikipedia bend its content to the laws of countries
with dubious jurisdiction.

I'm also saddened to see certain language Wikipedias (like Italian)
adopt policies that cater to the laws of countries where the language is
predominant. If a citizen can't publish or view something because of
local laws, it's the citizen's responsibility not to do so, not
Wikipedia's. Fair use is no exception in my mind.

This wouldn't even be an argument here if the issue were nudity. Having
 nudity on Wikipedia represents a big problem for redistribution in
certain countries, but no one is posting to foundation-l that Wikipedia
should disallow such content when useful and necessary.

Regarding internationalism, one country that inarguably has legal
authority over Wikipedia is the United States, simply because of where
Wikipedia is hosted and where the Foundation has its offices. It's not
anti-international to recognize this fact.

Gatto Nero wrote:
>>> , fair use is a trick,
>> No it is an affirmative defense under US law.
>
> That's the matter.
> We *don't* live all in USA.
> And Wikipedia is not an USA products.
> We should think internationally.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070114/38e70b1c/attachment.pgp


body:
I would hate to see Wikipedia bend its content to the laws of countries
with dubious jurisdiction.

I'm also saddened to see certain language Wikipedias (like Italian)
adopt policies that cater to the laws of countries where the language is
predominant. If a citizen can't publish or view something because of
local laws, it's the citizen's responsibility not to do so, not
Wikipedia's. Fair use is no exception in my mind.

This wouldn't even be an argument here if the issue were nudity. Having
 nudity on Wikipedia represents a big problem for redistribution in
certain countries, but no one is posting to foundation-l that Wikipedia
should disallow such content when useful and necessary.

Regarding internationalism, one country that inarguably has legal
authority over Wikipedia is the United States, simply because of where
Wikipedia is hosted and where the Foundation has its offices. It's not
anti-international to recognize this fact.

Gatto Nero wrote:
>>> , fair use is a trick,
>> No it is an affirmative defense under US law.
>
> That's the matter.
> We *don't* live all in USA.
> And Wikipedia is not an USA products.
> We should think internationally.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070114/38e70b1c/attachment.pgp>


body:
I would hate to see Wikipedia bend its content to the laws of countries
with dubious jurisdiction.

I'm also saddened to see certain language Wikipedias (like Italian)
adopt policies that cater to the laws of countries where the language is
predominant. If a citizen can't publish or view something because of
local laws, it's the citizen's responsibility not to do so, not
Wikipedia's. Fair use is no exception in my mind.

This wouldn't even be an argument here if the issue were nudity. Having
 nudity on Wikipedia represents a big problem for redistribution in
certain countries, but no one is posting to foundation-l that Wikipedia
should disallow such content when useful and necessary.

Regarding internationalism, one country that inarguably has legal
authority over Wikipedia is the United States, simply because of where
Wikipedia is hosted and where the Foundation has its offices. It's not
anti-international to recognize this fact.

Gatto Nero wrote:
>>> , fair use is a trick,
>> No it is an affirmative defense under US law.
>
> That's the matter.
> We *don't* live all in USA.
> And Wikipedia is not an USA products.
> We should think internationally.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070114/38e70b1c/attachment-0001.pgp>


references:
<JBU80V$E75C9A22C78ADC5B6BB617B6F3CB1554@libero.it>	<45A9FDAB.5050000@fourkitchens.com>
	<45A9FF24.4000600@gmail.com>


from_name: Ivan Krstić

body:
Edward Z. Yang wrote:
> Or it could mean that the Parser has had it's architecture rewritten to
> be clean, extensible, backwards-compatible, intuitive,
> standards-compliant and fast.

I count two and a half more months 'til April 1st, but maybe you're on
the same calendar as Brion's release notice :)

--
Ivan Krsti? <krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> | GPG: 0x147C722D


from_name: Bernd vdB

subject: [Wikitech-l] Web accessability and commonprint.css - rvsd

body:
Simetrical wrote:
..
> Okay, okay.  I forgot about it, you didn't need an essay.  :)  I
> removed the font-size declaration entirely, revision 19221.

Sure, every few years or so I need an occasion to write an essay :)
Thanks.


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] Diversity and NC images - Board meet

body:
--- luke brandt <shojokid at gmail.com> wrote:
> err... to say that "Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia" begs the
> question "What do we mean by 'free'?" The GFDL is not the most 'free'
> license, many say. And many also say it isn't the most suitable license
> for a wiki either. Isn't it also true that NC is primarily about
> rejecting commercial exploitation, a point particularly relevant, one
> would have thought, where people are giving their time and expertise
> (such as it is) pro bono publico? - Thanks, luke

Free means free to do just about anything you want with the material so long as proper credit is
given and those modifications are given the same freedoms. Even though images can be considered
separate works on the web, having non-free/NC ones in an article would prevent that article's use
in a commercial product.

And the freedom granted in the GFDL *specifically* mentions the freedom to use GFDLd material
commercially. So the use of NC images goes against the spirit if not the letter of the FDL. Also,
there is also at least some doubt as to whether images can, in a legal sense (again, IANAL), in
fact be considered separate works in all circumstances from text.

So even though our non-profit status may allow us to use NC image, others who use our content for
commercial purposes would need to constantly remove non-free images. And *that* makes it
needlessly difficult for others to use and enjoy our work.

That is why the foundation has a strict policy against using any image or other media that has
non-free aspects.

I'm sorry, but this policy is set in stone and will not change; there is a constant open season on
NC and other non-free images. No one wiki community can decide otherwise and any wheel war that
results will invariably favor the admins who are following this policy and sanction those that are
actively using their admin powers to fight against it.

-- mav

____________________________________________________________________________________
Now that's room service!  Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097


from_name: luke brandt

references:
<eoa8nj$ncb$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<45A8CF34.2050707@gmail.com>	<eoapfs$u2o$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<45A94D9C.5010305@gmail.com>

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> luke brandt schreef:
>> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> luke brandt schreef:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It seems to me that the opposition to NC is based on a most curious and
>>>> imperfect interpretation of the word 'free,' one that seeks to encompass
>>>> the freedom to make a profit from other people's efforts. I therefore
>>>> hope that the Foundation won't have any truck with the idea of diluting
>>>> its previous attitude to autonomy - luke
>>>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> Your POV is not what the Foundation has expressed from the start. I
>>> think you are completely wrong in this.
>>> Thanks,
>>>      GerardM
>>>
>> Hi Gerard,
>> I shouldn't have interjected the word 'therefore' as I think there are
>> other good reasons for autonomy as well, as I earlier surmised you do
>> too. But I'd be interested to know why you disagree on NC. I already
>> read Eric's arguments:
>>
>> http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC
>>
>> as well as this reply:
>>
>> http://cites.boisestate.edu/v6i3e.htm
>>
>> and I'd be interested to know your view.
>>
>> Thanks
>> luke
> Hoi,
> It is simple. Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia. It is licensed under
> the GFDL, the GFDL allows for commercial use. Allowing for NC material
> in Wikipedia would make the whole of Wikipedia not available under the
> GFDL. Elementary.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM

err... to say that "Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia" begs the
question "What do we mean by 'free'?" The GFDL is not the most 'free'
license, many say. And many also say it isn't the most suitable license
for a wiki either. Isn't it also true that NC is primarily about
rejecting commercial exploitation, a point particularly relevant, one
would have thought, where people are giving their time and expertise
(such as it is) pro bono publico? - Thanks, luke


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Little Napoleans

body:
On 1/14/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
> No, the answer is that some phrases are not meant to express universal
> statements just because the literal words of the phrase don't include any
> qualifiers.  "The sky is blue" doesn't mean "the sky is always blue, every
> single place".  If I tell you that caviar is expensive, are you *really*
> going to claim that I'm therefore denying the possibility that some store
> could be going out of business and holding a 90% off sale on caviar?
>

I think people would object if it could be shown that caviar was cheap
50+% of the time.

--
geni


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
Are software programs potential candidates for speedy deletion under
CSD A7?  The criterion states that potential candidates are a "real
person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content", which
doesn't explicitly include software programs.

What must an article about a software program do to "assert the
importance or significance of its subject"?

Anthony


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [Wikitech-l] Cascading protection

body:
Andrew Garrett wrote:
> Brion's just enabled a feature of mine called "Cascading Protection".
> Simply put, this automagically applies temporary full protection to any page
> included on a page protected or semi-protected with the "cascading bit".

Excellent!  Well done.

However, there's been a debate brewing over whether a certain
bot could be given admin status, so that it could explicitly
apply protection to any page included by a given page.  I believe
this bot was intended to address the same problem (i.e. main page
vandalism).  Presumably that debate can now be called off,
as the bot is no longer needed?


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
[[WP:BEANS]] imo.

On 14/01/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Eugene, that would be a great reason to move it, but as of right now, no
> such thing has happened.
> Let's not act on things that might happen, but on things that actually
> have
> happened.
>
> Mgm
>
>
> On 1/13/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
> >
> > MacGyverMagic/Mgm schreef:
> > > I can't possibly see the advantage.
> >
> > As soon as someone makes a movie called "Main Page", the Main Page will
> > have to be moved. It's in article space, so a real article would have
> > priority.
> >
> > Or maybe our Main Page is notable and encyclopedic in itself -- after
> > all, it has more page views than most web pages -- and if someone writes
> > an article about it, it should be located at [[Main Page]].
> >
> > "The '''Main Page''' of [[Wikipedia]] is the front page of the
> > encyclopedia. It was located at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page]
> > until 2007, when it was moved to [[Wikipedia Portal Space]] because of
> > reaching the encyclopedic notability threshold{{fact}}."
> >
> > Eugene
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Tom Tolnam

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Navigation popups (was: Re: Wikipedia with
	geo-browsing and AJAX)

body:
On 14/01/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/15/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups
>
> Oh wow, just tried this, it's brilliant. Could we please seriously
> consider making this the default for all users? It makes navigating
> Wikipedia so much more pleasant.
>
>
Personally, I would rather not have (to deal with) this while browsing.
Some users, I think, would rather just use the normal display.


from_name: Nina Stratton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2006

body:
I know squat diddly but the English language and Wikipedia policy. What can
I do to help? What's your user name on Commons (if I can ask that). I love
the pictures of the day and use them often.

On 1/14/07, Joaquim Alves Gaspar <alvesgaspar at netcabo.pt> wrote:
>
> Dear User,
>
>
>
> The election of the best Commons Featured Picture of 2006 - POTY 2006 - is
> to take place soon in Commons.
>
>
>
> We need your opinion and help to organize and implement the event. There
> are
> still a lot of things to do: deciding the dates and election model, tuning
> up the rules, preparing the project page, making the announcements, etc.
>
>
>
> To participate, please check Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2006.
>
>
>
> Joaquim Gaspar (User:Alvesgaspar)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Sincerely,

Nina
"Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us and
conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul Kalam


subject: [WikiEN-l] IAWTC

body:
What's a hotlinker? The first one was tres funny.

On 1/14/07, Dan Collins <en.wp.st47 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> David Gerard wrote:
> >   http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l214/Ymdar/Motivator/webmunchkin.jpg
> >
> > And Wikipedia critic Jason Scott wins the Nobel Prize for dealng
> > conclusively and terminally with hotlinkers:
> >
> >   http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/000278.html
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> I will have to send this person cookies
>
> --
> GnuPG key ID is 0x84189146 on subkeys.pgp.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>

--
Sincerely,

Nina
"Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us and
conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul Kalam


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:34:54 -0500, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Are software programs potential candidates for speedy deletion under
>> CSD A7?  The criterion states that potential candidates are a "real
>> person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content", which
>> doesn't explicitly include software programs.
>
> Depends if you're Wikilawyering or not.  A blatantly non-notable
> SourceForge project may well be speedied under A7 (or G11) rather than
> waste everybody's time with a longer process.

It has nothing to do with "Wikilawyering."  CSD A7 does not allow for
speedying of software, and to do so is abusing the CSD criteria.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
	Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
	- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


references:
<eoa8nj$ncb$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A8CF34.2050707@gmail.com>	<eoapfs$u2o$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A94D9C.5010305@gmail.com>	<eocm2g$au7$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<45A9EBE6.7030503@gmail.com>

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> luke brandt schreef:
>> .. .......
>> err... to say that "Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia" begs the
>> question "What do we mean by 'free'?" The GFDL is not the most 'free'
>> license, many say. And many also say it isn't the most suitable license
>> for a wiki either. Isn't it also true that NC is primarily about
>> rejecting commercial exploitation, a point particularly relevant, one
>> would have thought, where people are giving their time and expertise
>> (such as it is) pro bono publico? - Thanks, luke
> Hoi,
> Let us accept that the license of the Wikipedia projects is the GFDL.
> The GFDL, therefore the FSF has a definition for what is meant by free.
> You deny the project and the users of its content this freedom by
> restricting things further than this.
>
> Rejecting commercial exploitation of our content is detrimental to our
> cause. Our cause is to bring knowledge to the people. If a commercial
> party makes this happen, they are a boon to our cause. Your point has,
> in an environment where a license has been chosen to allow for, this no
> merit. In an other project, you may be absolutely right, however the
> notion of NC sabotages the intentions of GFDL, CC-by, CC-by-sa
> environments (maybe some other environments as well).
> Thanks,
>      GerardM

Hi again,

My reply is that I asked (on 8 November 2006) whether the Wikimedia
Foundation has a preferred license for its projects. The answer then
appeared to be 'no.' I'm not sure if there have been any changes since
that time, but your response to my question read as follows:

"The GFDL is the license that was available at the beginning unlike some
of what would now be the more obvious. I am sure the GFDL would not be
chosen when we were to chose a license for Wikipedia at this moment. The
GFDL is imho not really suited for much of the data that we have. It was
designed to license manuals to go with software."

So we need to think these things through most carefully, and not rely on
what the FSF says, or anyone else. I guess there are many contradictions
in how each of the projects is run, but the best people to deal with
them are surely those most familiar with all the circumstances i.e.
those closest to the project concerned. The Foundation should only
become involved in the case of mismanagement (for whatever reason,
certainly) which may put the project in jeopardy. We have a template,
that is all. But it's a wish to make knowledge freely available to all,
and that is a most empowering ideal. - Thanks, luke


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
rfrangi at libero.it schreef:
> Gerard, I will not only think Internet. I hope others will not think only USA. If the point is "If we use a fair-use image, a commercial organization can at least take whole Wikipedia pages and re-use them." Well, this is not necessarlily true outside the USA. So fair use images should be banned for the same reason that applies to NC's.
>
> Roberto (Snowdog)
Hoi,
The way I understand the current official position is; NC pictures are
not allowed. Fair use is only permitted on a language project. The idea
here is that this allows to have some local law kick in. This is a
nonsense because people edit on every project from more countries that
the "local" country. For some of the minority languages, we have a
situation that often people abroad to the "local" country are more active.

I do agree with you that having "fair use" pictures should be banned as
well. I also think that we should have a narrow band license where there
is a specific good reason why you want to use pictures and where it can
not be allowed to make derivations (for instance logos of organisations).

Thanks,
     GerardM


from_name: Caroline Shurrab

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
I'm sorry, did I miss something? What on earth are you talking about?  Is this in response to something I wrote or what? Also, would you mind using layman's English because I have never heard of "wonk"...thanks so much. If this is in response to someone else's email, then disregard this email.....

Ashani

Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote: On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:07:00 -0500, "Sean Black"
wrote:

>> >uniquely vulnerable to AFD-wonks predation
>> Assuming bad faith, at all?
>Expressing one's viewpoint qualifies as an assumption of bad faith
>when that opinion is contrary to your's? Good to know.

In what way are the terms "wonk" and "predation" evidence of anything
other than bad faith?

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

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
 Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.


references:
<eoa8nj$ncb$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A8CF34.2050707@gmail.com>	<eoapfs$u2o$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A94D9C.5010305@gmail.com>
	<eocm2g$au7$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
luke brandt schreef:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> luke brandt schreef:
>>
>>> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> luke brandt schreef:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that the opposition to NC is based on a most curious and
>>>>> imperfect interpretation of the word 'free,' one that seeks to encompass
>>>>> the freedom to make a profit from other people's efforts. I therefore
>>>>> hope that the Foundation won't have any truck with the idea of diluting
>>>>> its previous attitude to autonomy - luke
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> Your POV is not what the Foundation has expressed from the start. I
>>>> think you are completely wrong in this.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>      GerardM
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hi Gerard,
>>> I shouldn't have interjected the word 'therefore' as I think there are
>>> other good reasons for autonomy as well, as I earlier surmised you do
>>> too. But I'd be interested to know why you disagree on NC. I already
>>> read Eric's arguments:
>>>
>>> http://intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC
>>>
>>> as well as this reply:
>>>
>>> http://cites.boisestate.edu/v6i3e.htm
>>>
>>> and I'd be interested to know your view.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> luke
>>>
>> Hoi,
>> It is simple. Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia. It is licensed under
>> the GFDL, the GFDL allows for commercial use. Allowing for NC material
>> in Wikipedia would make the whole of Wikipedia not available under the
>> GFDL. Elementary.
>> Thanks,
>>     GerardM
>>
>
> err... to say that "Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia" begs the
> question "What do we mean by 'free'?" The GFDL is not the most 'free'
> license, many say. And many also say it isn't the most suitable license
> for a wiki either. Isn't it also true that NC is primarily about
> rejecting commercial exploitation, a point particularly relevant, one
> would have thought, where people are giving their time and expertise
> (such as it is) pro bono publico? - Thanks, luke
Hoi,
Let us accept that the license of the Wikipedia projects is the GFDL.
The GFDL, therefore the FSF has a definition for what is meant by free.
You deny the project and the users of its content this freedom by
restricting things further than this.

Rejecting commercial exploitation of our content is detrimental to our
cause. Our cause is to bring knowledge to the people. If a commercial
party makes this happen, they are a boon to our cause. Your point has,
in an environment where a license has been chosen to allow for, this no
merit. In an other project, you may be absolutely right, however the
notion of NC sabotages the intentions of GFDL, CC-by, CC-by-sa
environments (maybe some other environments as well).
Thanks,
     GerardM


subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
Caroline Shurrab <isisandankh at yahoo.com> wrote: I'm sorry, did I miss something? What on earth are you talking about?  Is this in response to something I wrote or what? Also, would you mind using layman's English because I have never heard of "wonk"...thanks so much. If this is in response to someone else's email, then disregard this email.....

Ashani

Guy Chapman aka JzG  wrote: On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:07:00 -0500, "Sean Black"
wrote:

>> >uniquely vulnerable to AFD-wonks predation
>> Assuming bad faith, at all?
>Expressing one's viewpoint qualifies as an assumption of bad faith
>when that opinion is contrary to your's? Good to know.

In what way are the terms "wonk" and "predation" evidence of anything
other than bad faith?

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

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
 Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:22:53 -0500, Jeff Raymond
> <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
>> It has nothing to do with "Wikilawyering."  CSD A7 does not allow for
>> speedying of software, and to do so is abusing the CSD criteria.
>
> Like I said, a blatantly non-notable SourceForge project may well be
> speedied under A7 or G11.  You can Wikilawyer about it, but in the end
> most of us don't actually think it's worth spending five days to get
> three !votes on AfD, all of which endorse the blindingly obvious.

Most of you are wrong, then.  This is a great example of why A7 is an
abject failure.  And yes, I've done the newpage thing.

> Your favourite guideline, [[WP:SNOW]], applies.

This is also untrue.

-Jeff

--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
	Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
	- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


from_name: Jem Stone

subject: [WikiEN-l] Matthew Taylor entry mentioned in Daily Telegraph feature

body:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/01/13/smtaylor113.xml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Taylor_%28Labour_politician%29

from the magazine yesterday...

"One little charge he has found hard to shrug off is that of writing
his own entry on Wikipedia, the online encylopaedia to which anyone
can contribute. The accusation is even appended to the entry, in the
form of a quote from Kevin Maguire, associate editor of the Daily
Mirror.

'The Downing Street thinking,' Maguire writes, 'is that this item is
so congratulatory, presenting Taylor as a master of the universe
famous for amusing anecdotes and witty one-liners, that no one else
could be responsible.'

The problem is that, by the time I visit Wikipedia, the entry is
rather subdued. It records youthful stroppiness, possibly a response
to lack of paternal nurturing: he was expelled from school in south
London, and 'failed to get his O-levels first time around because he
had eloped (to exotic Maida Vale) with a girl called Pandora'. Later,
there was a fight with the Southampton University Labour Group which
led to his setting up his own Socialist Society. But there's nothing
about witty one-liners.

Has Taylor deleted his own boasting? As a Labour spin-doctor during
the 1990s, he was, after all, responsible for developing the party's
rapid-rebuttal unit. Absolutely not, he insists. When I produce a
printout of the Wikipedia page, he says he's never seen it before, and
chuckles at the quote from Maguire. ('I like Kevin, but he really
doesn't like me.') Then he blinks in surprise at a blurred snapshot of
him with his arms around two girls in a snow-covered Southampton
street in 1982.

'That's my old girlfriend. I haven't seen her for 20 years. God, how
weird. I wonder how she feels about being on that website. Isn't it
amazing that we live in a world where this sort of stuff?' and he
pauses. 'I mean, what will it do to us?'

Clearly, Taylor has already spent a lot of time worrying about the
explosion of consumer choice, the deluge of information bearing down
on us, the menace and promise of new technology. But that Wikipedia
photo has touched a raw nerve.

'I'm gobsmacked,' he says. 'What will this do to relationships ? the
knowledge that dumping a girlfriend, throwing up at a party, anything
at all can be on our internet profile for ever? We'll either end up
being more tolerant of the fact that we're all flawed, or we'll have
to be led by people who have kept their noses clean since the age of
three.'"


references:
<eoa8nj$ncb$1@sea.gmane.org> <45A8CF34.2050707@gmail.com>
	<eoapfs$u2o$1@sea.gmane.org> <45A94D9C.5010305@gmail.com>
	<eocm2g$au7$1@sea.gmane.org> <45A9EBE6.7030503@gmail.com>
	<eocsq7$nj8$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 1/14/07, luke brandt <shojokid at gmail.com> wrote:
> My reply is that I asked (on 8 November 2006) whether the Wikimedia
> Foundation has a preferred license for its projects. The answer then
> appeared to be 'no.'

Not exactly:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html

> So we need to think these things through most carefully, and not rely on
> what the FSF says, or anyone else.

I suspect the FSF has more lawyers and a longer history oof dealing
with these issues than we do.

>I guess there are many contradictions
> in how each of the projects is run, but the best people to deal with
> them are surely those most familiar with all the circumstances i.e.
> those closest to the project concerned.

Um no. The people best able to deal with them would have an impressive
knowlage of international and national copyright law and an
understanding of the philosophy of the free content movement.

> The Foundation should only
> become involved in the case of mismanagement (for whatever reason,
> certainly) which may put the project in jeopardy.

The foundation has historicaly rejected this position.

> We have a template,
> that is all. But it's a wish to make knowledge freely available to all,
> and that is a most empowering ideal.

NC fails in that respect .As does  DN and ND. Dito founder's copyright
and at least some of CC's sampling licenses.

--
geni


body:
On 1/14/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> You're arguing from the ridiculous premise that Wikipedia must be legal
> in every country. Even the topics of some articles aren't legal in some
> countries.
>

However there certian common factors that appear in copyright world
wide. US far use law is very non standard. If wikipedia were in the UK
I doubt we would be makeing use of the provision that audio works
enter the public domain after 50 years since it is so non standard
that the files would be useless outside the uk. The same is true with
regards to a lot of fair use stuff.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
On 1/14/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:34:54 -0500, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org>
> wrote:
>
> >Are software programs potential candidates for speedy deletion under
> >CSD A7?  The criterion states that potential candidates are a "real
> >person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content", which
> >doesn't explicitly include software programs.
>
> Depends if you're Wikilawyering or not.  A blatantly non-notable
> SourceForge project may well be speedied under A7 (or G11) rather than
> waste everybody's time with a longer process.
>
What makes a software program "blatantly non-notable"?  The one I have
in mind is not a SourceForge project.  To give an example, what about
[[RoboGEO]]?

> >What must an article about a software program do to "assert the
> >importance or significance of its subject"?
>
> See [[WP:SOFTWARE]]
>
Are you saying you agree with that proposed guideline?  It doesn't
seem like many software programs fall under it.  If I pick a random
software program from download.com, should it probably be in, or
probably be out?

Anthony


references:
<eoa8nj$ncb$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A8CF34.2050707@gmail.com>	<eoapfs$u2o$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A94D9C.5010305@gmail.com>	<eocm2g$au7$1@sea.gmane.org>	<45A9EBE6.7030503@gmail.com>
	<eocsq7$nj8$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
luke brandt schreef:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>
>> luke brandt schreef:
>>
>>> .. .......
>>> err... to say that "Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia" begs the
>>> question "What do we mean by 'free'?" The GFDL is not the most 'free'
>>> license, many say. And many also say it isn't the most suitable license
>>> for a wiki either. Isn't it also true that NC is primarily about
>>> rejecting commercial exploitation, a point particularly relevant, one
>>> would have thought, where people are giving their time and expertise
>>> (such as it is) pro bono publico? - Thanks, luke
>>>
>> Hoi,
>> Let us accept that the license of the Wikipedia projects is the GFDL.
>> The GFDL, therefore the FSF has a definition for what is meant by free.
>> You deny the project and the users of its content this freedom by
>> restricting things further than this.
>>
>> Rejecting commercial exploitation of our content is detrimental to our
>> cause. Our cause is to bring knowledge to the people. If a commercial
>> party makes this happen, they are a boon to our cause. Your point has,
>> in an environment where a license has been chosen to allow for, this no
>> merit. In an other project, you may be absolutely right, however the
>> notion of NC sabotages the intentions of GFDL, CC-by, CC-by-sa
>> environments (maybe some other environments as well).
>> Thanks,
>>      GerardM
>>
>
> Hi again,
>
> My reply is that I asked (on 8 November 2006) whether the Wikimedia
> Foundation has a preferred license for its projects. The answer then
> appeared to be 'no.' I'm not sure if there have been any changes since
> that time, but your response to my question read as follows:
>
> "The GFDL is the license that was available at the beginning unlike some
> of what would now be the more obvious. I am sure the GFDL would not be
> chosen when we were to chose a license for Wikipedia at this moment. The
> GFDL is imho not really suited for much of the data that we have. It was
> designed to license manuals to go with software."
>
> So we need to think these things through most carefully, and not rely on
> what the FSF says, or anyone else. I guess there are many contradictions
> in how each of the projects is run, but the best people to deal with
> them are surely those most familiar with all the circumstances i.e.
> those closest to the project concerned. The Foundation should only
> become involved in the case of mismanagement (for whatever reason,
> certainly) which may put the project in jeopardy. We have a template,
> that is all. But it's a wish to make knowledge freely available to all,
> and that is a most empowering ideal. - Thanks, luke
Hoi,
Given the title of this thread I would welcome it when the Wikimedia
Foundation board is more expressive about the ND not being permitted. My
understanding of there being no explicit preferred license is that as
long as the license permits what is essential to being able to take the
whole of the project and do things with it is not endangered, any
license if fine. A license with NC is therefore not acceptable.
Thanks,
    GerardM


body:
On 1/14/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
> I would hate to see Wikipedia bend its content to the laws of countries
> with dubious jurisdiction.
>
> I'm also saddened to see certain language Wikipedias (like Italian)
> adopt policies that cater to the laws of countries where the language is
> predominant. If a citizen can't publish or view something because of
> local laws, it's the citizen's responsibility not to do so, not
> Wikipedia's.

Er takeing this position to it's logical conclusion there are rather a
lot of people around who whom it would be legal to call for the
assination of the US president. Throw in the various countries with ah
slightly non standard age of consent laws and you have a problem

> Fair use is no exception in my mind.

Do you want to try this line of argument on the RIAA when they come
asking why wikipedia is hosting all this 50 year old music?

> This wouldn't even be an argument here if the issue were nudity. Having
>  nudity on Wikipedia represents a big problem for redistribution in
> certain countries, but no one is posting to foundation-l that Wikipedia
> should disallow such content when useful and necessary.
>

In the context wikipedia uses it is generaly isn't a problem.

> Regarding internationalism, one country that inarguably has legal
> authority over Wikipedia is the United States, simply because of where
> Wikipedia is hosted and where the Foundation has its offices. It's not
> anti-international to recognize this fact.
>

No but it is anti-international to use large amounts of non free
content. About 300K items last I looked.

--
geni


from_name: Ligulem

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page (sic)

body:
On 14.01.2007 05:54, PeruvianLlama wrote:
>> Its more an issue of the external links
> Just a thought on this, but assuming that the move were
> community-approved then would it be possible to do a sort of
> "hard-redirect" .... [snip]

It has already been noted that such a system seems already to be in
place and there is no need to redirect anything on-wiki. Last one was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28proposals%29&diff=99604228&oldid=99592851

These links all work (also with on-wiki internal linking):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Main_page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Main_page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Main_Page

Pick the one you like. :-)

For comparison, the Swedes have the aliases:

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Huvudsida
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huvudsida

Their
http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Mainpage&action=edit
is "Portal:Huvudsida" so they have "Portal" on the first tab on the top
of the page.


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
On 1/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> RoboGeo: the sources include two articles that are not written by its
> creators.
> One of those is even a book.

Well, the originally CSDed article didn't contain those sources.  The
current article does.

However, this seems to suggest that any article which doesn't contain
two sources (or at least claim that two sources exist) is a CSD.  In
that respect it seems too easy to remove any article (speedily, at
that) by wikilawyering about lack of sources.

> I don't like how there's little content there
> and how it has a big "download here" sign, but I'd give it a chance due to
> the fact it has independant sources.
>
> The software guidelines probably need to be stricter and more specific so
> for example random flash games without a lot of visitors and/or a widespead
> cult status are excluded.
>
They also need to be a lot less strict for software which does
something useful, in my opinion.  [[RoboGEO]] doesn't seem like it
would pass [[WP:SOFTWARE]] by any stretch of the imagination (it most
likely isn't the subject of any published works aside from some
websites, and it's Windows software so it has no prayer of being
included in a major operating system distribution).

Of course, maybe there is a consensus that only the most famous
software programs belong in Wikipedia.  If that's true, then
WP:SOFTWARE should just be made a policy, as opposed to a proposed
guideline, and people who wish to write wiki articles about non-famous
software can move somewhere else.  Incidentally, does anyone know of
some good wikis that definitely do allow this sort of thing?

Anthony


from_name: Gatto Nero

body:
> >, fair use is a trick,
>
> No it is an affirmative defense under US law.

That's the matter.
We *don't* live all in USA.
And Wikipedia is not an USA products.
We should think internationally.


from_name: Dan Collins

subject: [WikiEN-l] IAWTC

body:
David Gerard wrote:
>   http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l214/Ymdar/Motivator/webmunchkin.jpg
>
> And Wikipedia critic Jason Scott wins the Nobel Prize for dealng
> conclusively and terminally with hotlinkers:
>
>   http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/000278.html
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
I will have to send this person cookies

--
GnuPG key ID is 0x84189146 on subkeys.pgp.net

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 888 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070114/d2bc2b95/attachment.pgp


body:
Hoi,
When Wikipedia is not legal in a country, it brings the people who are
living in that country and edit in danger. When Wikipedia is not legal
in that country, it means that we are hampered in our aim; bringing
information to all people. It is not at all ridiculous at all to want to
be legal in all countries. When some content is problematic, the office
has the right and the might to remove such an article from a project.
Particularly on the English language Wikipedia this happens with some
regularity. It does happen on other language projects as well.
Thanks,
     GerardM

David Strauss schreef:
> You're arguing from the ridiculous premise that Wikipedia must be legal
> in every country. Even the topics of some articles aren't legal in some
> countries.
>
> rfrangi at libero.it wrote:
>
>> Gerard, I will not only think Internet. I hope others will not think only USA. If the point is "If we use a fair-use image, a commercial organization can at least take whole Wikipedia pages and re-use them." Well, this is not necessarlily true outside the USA. So fair use images should be banned for the same reason that applies to NC's.
>>
>> Roberto (Snowdog)
>


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
I thought this was a joke, but I guess it's not.

Jeez Louise, even scholarly books have a title page and other "front
matter." Just make an exception to the rule and say that the Main
Page is part of Wikipedia's front matter.


subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
On 1/14/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Choosing not to participate is far removed from taking a position in an
> article.
>

You took a position on a subject while at the same time admitting you
did not know how to counter the arguments against that position. Thus
you chose belief over logic

> There is nothing about a monopoly in that quote.  Building credibility
> does not imply monopoly.

It does if there is only one way to do it.

--
geni


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] psychosis and wikipedia.

body:
Christopher Thieme wrote:
> I'd love to see some psychology-oriented individual do a case study on what
> kind of people are attracted to editing on Wikipedia.  What psychological
> defects lurk behind the computer screens and the keyboards.
>

We had a conversation on IRC about this once (which has been preserved
for antiquity at [[m:Bash]]) which went downhill rather quickly...
search for "how many Wikipedians have Asperger's syndrome" :)

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070114/79b769f4/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
On 1/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> It appears to be more of an article about the demo than the actual
> program...
>
Good point, though I don't see the relevance of that.  A demo of a
program is, in itself, a program.

Anthony


subject: [Foundation-l] free access to the sum of all human knowledge

body:
Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to
the sum of all human knowledge.  Seriously, don't just read the words,
imagine it.  Forget about rules-lawyering and what Wikipedia is not
and think about what it would take to achieve something of that
magnitude.

I imagine a collaborative tool that allows me to upload and download
information in a seamless fashion, and one which allows me to search
through that information to find what it is that interests me.
Getting a bit more detailed and realistic, I imagine a website that
allows its visitors to find information about virtually anything, one
which allows its visitors to *easily* add knowledge that isn't yet
assimilated, and one which allows its visitors to index that knowledge
in a way which will help others find what they are looking for.

Am I way off, or are there others out there on this list who would
like to create something like that?  If so, how can we do it without
ruffling the feathers of those who have a different preconceived
notion of what it is the foundation is doing?  Does this need to be a
separate project?

I have a feeling that some people are going to respond by saying that
Wikipedia is already pretty much doing this.  Before you say that
please at least note the part about it being *easy* to add knowledge.

Anthony


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Cascading protection

body:
On 1/14/07, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/01/07, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> > However, there's been a debate brewing over whether a certain
> > bot could be given admin status, so that it could explicitly
> > apply protection to any page included by a given page.  I believe
> > this bot was intended to address the same problem (i.e. main page
> > vandalism).  Presumably that debate can now be called off,
> > as the bot is no longer needed?
>
> Heh, the bit he's not commenting on....Werdna disliked the bot on
> principle, I think, and this partly boosted his work on the
> functionality in question. So yes, the bot is more or less redundant.

It's a bit unfortunate.. the feature is too blunt. Now LOTS of
templates pages are protected because one of their many including
pages are protected. Since a lot of protections are there to dampen
content disputes and simplistic vandalism, this is unnecessary.

Should we instead just protect the entire template namespace?


from_name: K P

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
>
> We'll be a step into the right direction if people try to improve some
> articles before nominating them for deletion.
> Sure, you CAN speedy an article for failing to claim notability, but if a
> quick google search shows beyond a shadow of a doubt it is notable and you
> can add a few words to prove it, it's really not the most produvtive
> endeavor to delete something.
>
> I see a lot of deletion discussions questioning notability when the
> nominator has no real idea about the subject. Perhaps when can have a
> separate page for notability discussions to avoid having them nominated
> for
> deletion ebefore we have all the facts.
>
>
> Mgm
>

Glad to know someone else sees this.  I can't figure out how I would know an
article should be deleted without knowing enough about the subject to
discuss it even.   I'm an old school gamer--how could I possibly tell which
gaming articles should be deleted?  If "nonsense to me" were a reason, they
should all be deleted, except, of course, for Pong and Tetris.  But this is
the case, AfD nominator asserts it should be deleted because they never
heard of it--someone asked for examples, I've found it in a number of votes,
but I'll find it a current article and post it soon.  It's common enough.

KP


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7 and software programs

body:
On 1/14/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
>
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm schreef:
> > How is someone else to know your information is reliable when you don't
> cite
> > your sources?
>
> Yes, that is a good example of the emphasis on reliability at the cost
> of usefulness.
>
> > Really, citing sources is better for the reliability of the
> > article.
>
> Yes. Citing sources is better. That in no way contradicts my main point:
>
> > > Adding unsourced information to Wikipedia is a good thing.
>
> Eugene

"This is part of a wider trend towards
"reliability" at the cost of "usefulness". By deleting uncontroversial
but unsourced statements and articles, of course we increase Wikipedia's
reliability, because a part of this unsourced information is not true.
But most of that deleted material is true, and useful for the reader of
that article."

At some point, though, Wikipedia has to decide what it is, a reliable source
of information on the Internet, or a place for its editors.  At one of the
top 10 sites, it should be leaning towards the former, with, eventually, all
information reliable and sourced.

Right now there is a place for some unsourced information, namely in
articles tagged that they're unsourced, or "let the reader beware."

A lot of the obvious solutions (all information has to be sourced) detract
from what I see as the primary Wikipedia force that will eventually make it
THE most useful site on the Internet: anyone can edit.

KP


references:
<JBU80V$E75C9A22C78ADC5B6BB617B6F3CB1554@libero.it>	<45A9FDAB.5050000@fourkitchens.com>	<45A9FF24.4000600@gmail.com>
	<45AA03AE.9060101@fourkitchens.com>

body:
Hoi,
You are trying to make it overly simple. You will agree that we are
being hampered in our aim when our content is blocked. I did not say
that we should abandon our NPOV. The subject of this thread was NC and
fair use. In that light both are problematic from a legal point of view.
Given that both are controversial in the first place because they do
harm our cause it is not that difficult to come to the conclusion that
we are better off without NC and fair use.
Thanks,
    GerardM

David Strauss schreef:
> From that perspective, we should censor Wikipedia to gain more
> accessibility in China. I think that would be unacceptable.
>
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> When Wikipedia is not legal in a country, it brings the people who are
>> living in that country and edit in danger. When Wikipedia is not legal
>> in that country, it means that we are hampered in our aim; bringing
>> information to all people. It is not at all ridiculous at all to want to
>> be legal in all countries. When some content is problematic, the office
>> has the right and the might to remove such an article from a project.
>> Particularly on the English language Wikipedia this happens with some
>> regularity. It does happen on other language projects as well.
>> Thanks,
>>      GerardM
>>
>> David Strauss schreef:
>>
>>> You're arguing from the ridiculous premise that Wikipedia must be legal
>>> in every country. Even the topics of some articles aren't legal in some
>>> countries.
>>>
>>> rfrangi at libero.it wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Gerard, I will not only think Internet. I hope others will not think only USA. If the point is "If we use a fair-use image, a commercial organization can at least take whole Wikipedia pages and re-use them." Well, this is not necessarlily true outside the USA. So fair use images should be banned for the same reason that applies to NC's.
>>>>
>>>> Roberto (Snowdog)


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] African maps

body:
geni wrote:

>On 1/13/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Absolutely, there's lots of reasons, but the reasons should be there on
>>an item by item basis.  Do we need to indiscriminately host their entire
>>corpus of maps when we only have use for a few?
>>
>>
>There are very few things we need to do. In this case the reason is why not?
>
IOW you support indiscriminate inclusio.  The action of The Borg is
justifiec because it is gentler than that of The Daleks.

>>We all love to hate M*******t,
>>
>>partly because it dominates its
>>industry.
>>
>>
>Plently of other industries have been dominated to the same degree
>without the same level of disslike.
>
Perhaps I should be asking for examples.  Then I can probably find
evidence that contradicts those examples.  Such a process would be of
little value because that would be _other_ industries.  Ethics cannot be
guided by weighing the actions of others to see haw many are roght and
how many are wrong.

>>We need to be conscious of not becoming resentfully referred
>>to as W*******a because of our dominance.
>>
>>
>Nah people will find plently of other reasons to disslike us. They already do.
>
You want them to have more?

>>I think that it's important
>>to view ourselves as a part of a community of websites developing free
>>access to information.  That requires maintaining the respect of other
>>members of that community, and you don't do that by raiding their
>>efforts.
>>
>>
>How many flicker images do we have these days anyway. One of the
>common values of provideing free stuff is seeing it reused.
>
That's true enough, but we aren't copying the entire corpus of flickr
material.  We use it when there is a reason to use it.

>>The survival of a vision depends on sharing that vision, and
>>that cannot happen if our allied co-visionaries are  put in a position
>>where they need to defend their efforts from the superpower on the block.
>>
>>
>Why would they need to do that? What do people lose by haveing their
>material on wikimedia projects?
>
>You see a key part of the vission of free material is that others will
>use it. There are probably near 1000 sites that use large chunks of
>wikimedia material.
>
Some do so ethically, and some don't.  Whether any of them are acting
legally would be a different question.  The loss that the original host
may suffer is an intangible one.  We strip them of their
competitiveness.  When they produce material, and we scoop it all we are
telling them that their effort is not important.  We care only about
their end result.  This strikes me as a powerful disincentive to further
efforts on their part.  A major university is more likely to take that
in stride than an individual who has poured his heart into his efforts.

One common practice that I have observed in the software industry (and
others as well) is the tendency to let the little guy expend the risk
capital needed to bring an idea into reality.  If the idea fails it's
his loss.  If the idea succeeds Big Co. can pay handsomely for the
results to insure that it does not have to deal with this innovator as a
competitor.  This process saves Big Co. the need to fund risky ventures.

We are not offering payouts.  But we need the little collaborator as
much as he needs us.  His survival is an integral part of our mission.
Following a policy of taking just because the law says that we have that
right is not the way to build a collaborative environment.

>>Ethical considerations rest upon forseeing the consequences of one's own
>>actions.  Ethics are not governed by rules and laws, nor are they
>>imposed through fear of arbitrary punishment.  Ethics involves a
>>willingness to be at a disadvantage when it is the right thing to do.
>>
>>
>That would really rather depend on the system of ethics. Calling your
>morality an ethical system does not make it so.
>
You confuse morality and ethics.  Circumscribing ethics into a "system"
imposes an undue restriction on them.

Ec


from_name: Lars Aronsson

references:
<eoa8nj$ncb$1@sea.gmane.org> <45A8CF34.2050707@gmail.com>
	<eoapfs$u2o$1@sea.gmane.org> <45A94D9C.5010305@gmail.com>
	<eocm2g$au7$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
luke brandt wrote:

> err... to say that "Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia" begs the
> question "What do we mean by 'free'?" The GFDL is not the most
> 'free' license, many say. And many also say it isn't the most
> suitable license for a wiki either.

It is quite embarrassing to think that you would be uneducated
about these definitions and the history of Wikipedia.  Surely this
is covered in the FAQs.

You can wish for any license you want, and then all you need is to
invent a time machine to go back to 2001 and implement your ideas.

If you are talking about a completely new project, not Wikipedia,
then you can pick any license you want.

Here is one rationale for the stand on "non-commercial" licenses.
I suppose you know the saying "Give a man a fish; you have fed him
for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a
lifetime".  Free software projects such as Linux and free contents
projects such as Wikipedia are recipies for making your own
fishing rod, aiming to give the fish-catcher the most freedom.
What if you use it to catch some fish?  Are you allowed to sell
that?  Or does your fishing rod come with a limiting clause that
says you can only use this tool for Non-Commercial (NC) purposes?
Which kind of license gives you the most freedom?

> Isn't it also true that NC is primarily about rejecting
> commercial exploitation, a point particularly relevant, one
> would have thought, where people are giving their time and
> expertise (such as it is) pro bono publico?

If I give my time to improve this free recipy for making fishing
rods, why should I want to impose an NC license on it?  Who is
harmed by "exploitation", except for the fish?

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:07:00 -0500, "Sean Black" <smblac at gmail.com>
wrote:

>> >uniquely vulnerable to AFD-wonks predation
>> Assuming bad faith, at all?
>Expressing one's viewpoint qualifies as an assumption of bad faith
>when that opinion is contrary to your's? Good to know.

In what way are the terms "wonk" and "predation" evidence of anything
other than bad faith?

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] Marathi

body:
Hoi,
I cannot edit in English on the Marathi wikipedia any more.. The system
only allows me to add the script that is associated with Marathi. I
understand that the Marathi Wikipedia is reasonably well localised, it
would be certainly much better when Marathi MediaWiki installations
function as they should.

Can someone please help out on this ?

Thanks,
     GerardM


body:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:44:04 -0500, Jeff Raymond
<jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

>> Fortunately, articles without references will soon no longer go to AfD.
>The chance of that gaining consensus are next to nil.

{{prod|Unreferenced.  Do not remove this tag without fixing the
problem.}}

Should fix the problem of unreferenced articles :-)

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


from_name: Kenny Barney

subject: [Wikitech-l] can also read wikitech-l via gmane.org NNTP

body:
You can set it, in preferences, to just send you one email per day
containing all of the messages. It says, though, that some of the faster
lists might send more than one. I haven't tried it yet so I'm not sure if
this would be to be one of those.

On 1/11/07, Dan Jacobson <jidanni at jidanni.org> wrote:
>
> HM> P.S.: I had to unsubscribe and re-subscribe with an other mail
> HM> account because I had underestimated the volume of the list and it
> HM> made overflow my mailbox on the Wikivoyage server.
>
> I read this list on gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical via
> the gmane.org NNTP server. No need for message bodies one doesn't read.
> Posting though is via email.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 02:34:15 +0100, "Oskar Sigvardsson"
<oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:

>I don't know what crazy world of fairies and pixel-dust you live in,
>but where I come from not every user is an admin.

[[WP:RFA]], second on your left down the corridor.  Next, please :-)

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


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [WikiEN-l] IAWTC

body:
Nina Stratton: wrote:
> What's a hotlinker?

In this context: suppose you wanted to create an eye-popping web
page, but you had no artistic skills whatsoever.  Suppose you
decided that nothing could spruce up your web page more than an
image of the smiling, debnair fellow at http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/
images/scs1.jpg.  So you use an <img> tag on your web page
specifying src="http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/images/scs1.jpg".
Now, not only have you violated poor scs's copyright, but you're
asking him (or his ISP, eskimo.com) to pay for the bandwidth for
every one of your web page's visitors to load that image.

What I was wondering is, what's "IAWTC"?  ("I Agree With This
Comment, maybe, but d. usually has much droller observations.)


from_name: senpai

body:
May be they cant' be so much thing in other country... but they can be in
italy. I don't know if u know well or not the basics rules of procedural
penal "civil law" system. In genral... if an italian people upload some
images (like the one that u have take for the example) on commons, and that
images must have an authorization, is not important if the commons servers
are in florida or in italy or in another country, the italian people is
under the italian penal law. Idem if an american people upload that images
on commons and an italian people use this images.... U can't upload somthing
with "PD" or CC-by (for example), on commons if not in all states u can use
that materials. Commons, for that reason, had deleted all images that was
tagged with "PD-Italy"... than... wich is the difference ?

For other thing... i qoute Snowdog, if u want a free wikipedia, REALLY
free... ok  u have to abandon the fair use, and we will abandon all not free
images.

"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your
eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?" Matthew 7:4

Senpai

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge a telus.net>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l a lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 3:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week

> senpai wrote:
>
>>It's the only way to have some images in the italian articles. We have a
>>lot
>>of restrictive legislations and we can't use the fair use. For example, we
>>can go in a museum and take some pictures of a painting but, we can't
>>publish into wikipedia without the permission of the "sovraintendenza ai
>>beni culturali"; some days ago the "sovraintendenza ai beni culturali" of
>>florance have threated us for the photos of some painting and ohter kind
>>of
>>arts taked into the florence's museums; perhaps will be a problem also for
>>commons.
>>
> I would suggest that you investigate the "sovraintendenza ai beni
> culturali"'s right to do this.  If I, as a foreign tourist, chose to go
> to the museum, take pictures of old masters' works, and upload them into
> commons when I got home, I don't think there's much they can do about it.
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l a lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l