body:
Timwi wrote:

> Daniel P.B.Smith wrote:
>
>> Just what part of "edit this page" doesn't he understand? :-)
>
> It is not obvious to people who are unfamiliar with the system that
> they can actually edit the page. When they see the "Edit this link"
> page, the message it brings across goes contrary to what they firmly
> believe in (namely, that nobody can edit the page just like that) and
> so they subconsciously filter it out. Even if they consciously think
> about it, they probably come to the conclusion that clicking on the
> link will definitely bring up a password prompt or similar.

Other possible expectations include: 1) being required to disclose
personal information before editing, and 2) being subjected to
advertising before reaching the screen on which you can edit.

Another expectation they may have is that editing is more complex than
it really is. I would guess that many people who know they can edit, but
never actually try, have a mistaken impression that editing would
require technical knowledge which they lack. For example, the average
internet user probably "knows" that web pages are written in HTML, but
doesn't know HTML personally. Naturally enough, this person assumes that
editing our pages requires knowledge of HTML, and considers themselves
unable to edit without ever trying. Or if they do try, they're
intimidated by the sight of any markup at all. As a generally
computer-savvy crowd, we may forget that even our relatively simple
system can look challenging to someone who never leaves the familiar
confines of their word-processing program.

--Michael Snow


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: <span>

body:
But we want to get *away* from HTML towards wiki markup. It is better to
write a few dozen lines of code and have some nice (and
XHTML-unbreakable!) wiki markup, than have <span> all over the 'pedia -
we'll never get it out again! Just look at the table markup - we have a
working wikitable markup, and yet <table>s are still all over the place.

Magnus

David Friedland wrote:
> I wish you the best of luck in your campaign. I've asked for <span> tags
>  TWICE before and got shot down twice with the explanation that <span>
> tags make the wikitext harder to read (as though <div> tags were somehow
> better) and that there should be some universal styles for styling
> particular things, with wikiformatting tags to go along with them. I
> hope you can be more convincing than I was. Of course, said universal
> styles never got made and we go on, unable to make <span> tags, and with
> no real substitute other than the long-deprecated <font> tag and its
> friends. Enabling them requires changing exactly one line of code.
>
> Sigh.
>
> - David
>
> Peter Gervai wrote:
>
>> hello,
>>
>> from time to time I would like to use <span> tag for inline element
>> styling, but it's not supported, so I have to use <div> and dirty
>> tricks to
>> get it done, but it's not the same: since DIV is not an inherent inline
>> element, it's very hard to use it for blending something into the normal
>> text flow (like math for example, see my hack on meta/mediawiki user
>> guide/math using div instead of span).
>>
>> maybe i'm wrong and there shouldn't be such styling on wikipedia pages
>> (people against tags would say "it makes wikitext harder to read for
>> nontech
>> people"), so please share your opinion. I would like to use span, and
>> would
>> like to have it enabled in mediawiki pages. As far as I know it does not
>> present cross-scripting or other vulnerabilities (I didn't explore
>> this topic
>> too deep though).
>>
>> if nobody objects or convinces me that I'm on the road to hell I'll
>> try to
>> convince brion (which is probably the hardest part :)).
>>
>> thanks,
>> peter
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikitech-l] sysop on test

body:
Hello there.

The little steward and stewardess community (don't you try to convince
me that steward is a neutral qualifier...) is wondering which rules to
follow regarding making sysops on test.

A proposition was to make sysop anyone asking...or at least anyone sysop
on one wikipedia and asking to be sysop on test.

This was the previous policy on meta and many are aware it is
potentially a small security hole, as sysops are made quite liberally on
the starting wikipedias.

Now, I think that is mostly the business of those active on test to
decide which policy they want there, in particular since they know which
pages are more likely to be sensible. In short, mostly the developers,
the testers and potentially the steward-es-s (ah !).

What is your opinion ?

Fantasy suggested

* Every admin of any Wikipedia "can" have admin-status on test

* The developers decide who is admin on test (it is their server ;-)

* No one except developers need admin-rights on test.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Foundation-l] Registering Wikimedia trademarks

body:
On wikipedia-l, Ed Poor raised the question of PhatNav (one of the many
sites that copy us) calling itself "a Wikipedia". As Jimbo indicated,
this is something we need to guard against, otherwise we risk losing
trademark protection for the Wikipedia name.

This brings up again the issue of whether we should start registering
trademarks belonging to the Wikimedia Foundation. Without necessarily
resorting to threats of legal action, I think it would be far more
effective if we can tell people "Wikipedia is a registered trademark of
the Wikimedia Foundation" instead of just "Please do not use the name
Wikipedia on your website as if it was the name of your encyclopedia".
Trademark registration is something people will recognize and respect.
They will generally respond more quickly, and they will be more likely
to comply, even if the person notifying them is not in an "official"
capacity.

The filing fee for a trademark application is US $335 (I'm assuming we
would start by registering in the US). We should at least consider
registering trademarks for Wikimedia, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikiquote,
Wikisource, and Wikibooks. Granted, with our current financial resources
it may not be practical to try and register all of our trademarks in
every country we reach. But US registration is an important start, and
would facilitate international registrations later. Given the exposure
we're getting, I think registering Wikipedia as a trademark is
particularly critical.

--Michael Snow


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikien-l

from_name: Timwi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Being needled vs. being banned

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

> I propose we throttle down this dispute with Paul Vogel.

You know, for some reason, I'm actually finding it rather amusing and
entertaining.

Maybe this will enable me to have people classify me as a troll?

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: PhatNav: "A Wikipedia"

body:
Since the trademark issue has come up, I thought I would raise the
question of whether we should register our trademarks. Because I'm
talking about all potential trademarks belonging to the Wikimedia
Foundation, not just Wikipedia, I have placed that discussion on
foundation-l.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-April/000011.html

--Michael Snow


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: sysop on test

body:
Anthere wrote:
> Hello there.
>
> This was the previous policy on meta and many are aware it is
> potentially a small security hole

I don't see how being sysop on test is a security hole at all. There is
nothing there that you could destroy.

> * No one except developers need admin-rights on test.

I seriously hope nobody really thinks that. Especially the developers
need non-developers to test their work. And often changes are made to
features that are sysop-only.

Timwi


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia in the news: An interview with Martin Harper
	in "Salon"

body:
Rick-
(CC to Sam Williams, the author)

> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/04/27/wikipedia/index_np.html

Generally a well-written, accurate article. It would have been nice to
discuss some example articles.

A few nits:

        "Every few days somebody comes in and vandalizes the site," he
        says. "So many people are watching the page, though, that it
        doesn't take long before some admin comes in to fix the page."

1) It's not the "site" that is vandalized, but a particular page.
2) Every user can fix vandalism, not just admins.

        Because of its encyclopedic ambitions, Wikipedia has had to adopt
        new levels of management and security -- log-in names, I.P.
        address blocks, arbitration and deletion committees -- that most
        wikis never have to worry about.

There is no deletion committee. Pages are deleted based on discussions on
the [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] page, where consensus has to be
reached by interested participants. An administrator evaluates the state
of opinion after 5 days and decides whether or not to delete the page
based on that. There is a separate [[Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion]] page
to question admin decisions, but it is rarely used as the admin moves
within a narrow, well-defined framework.

        Wales says he is already talking with some of the larger search
        engine players about licensing specific portions of the Wikipedia
        knowledge base

This must be a misunderstanding. Jimbo or the Wikimedia Foundation do not
have particular rights to the content, it is freely licensed to the
general public under the GNU Free Documentation License by the authors.
These agreements are more on the technological level -- converting our
database into a format Yahoo! can use, adding a Yahoo! search link to our
search form etc.

Our content is free - that is indeed one of the most important aspects of
Wikipedia. Sam could have used any of our articles in his text, had he
been willing to copyleft his own article (the main condition of the GNU
FDL -- share and share alike). That will eventually allow us to bring
Wikipedia content into schools and universities all across the planet,
even into regions without Internet access.

Another side effect is that if, for some reason, Jimbo would lose interest
in Wikipedia, or try to do something with it that the community does not
support, we could just take the content somewhere else and continue
working on it there. The project can, by virtue of its license, never die;
it will always reincarnate.

        Readers hoping to catch up on the history of World War I might
        stumble onto a porn star biography or vice versa.

While not impossible, that is very unlikely. This type of vandalism -
conspicuous edits on a popular page - is almost always immediately
detected and reverted. More problematic are factual mistakes,
intentionally inserted or not, especially on relatively obscure subjects.

A basic peer review process already exists, namely the
[[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates]] page, which works similarly to
[[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] -- a consensus has to be reached that an
article is good enough to be "featured" (i.e. listed on
[[Wikipedia:Featured articles]] and, at some point, become featured on the
Main Page). A more sophisticated peer review process, which will also make
it possible to link to the current "stable" version of an article, will
develop naturally within the wiki framework.

Our next milestone will not be in the total number of articles or words --
in that department we have already beaten all other encyclopedias -- but
in the number of peer reviewed ones.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: sysop on test

body:
Tim Starling a ?crit:
> I wrote:
>
>> I'm happy with giving sysop access to anyone. I don't see any reason
>> to limit it to trusted users. If someone screws it up, we can always
>> reinitialise the database.
>
>
> Just to clarify, I consider test to be the domain of developers, and any
> sysops who are appointed there are guests. If any sysop (or indeed, any
> user at all) gets in the way of development, testing and debugging, I
> reserve the right to desysop them and block their country of origin.
>
> -- Tim Starling.

Perhaps just desysoping them is enough and you don't really need to
block their country entirely ?

Anthere (hoping no french would get in semi-god Tim on test, otherwise
she could not stewardise anymore)...:-)


from_name: Hunter Peress

subject: [Wikitech-l] for jimbo  re browne troubles

body:
Since the machine is solely accessible physically. Please:  run memtest86 to determine if there is
bad memory. If not, then its possible that like coronelli the machine will resume normal
operations with removal of RAM.

Please try to save all logs possible during the troubleshooting process so that just in case a fix
is not found, we can bring lkml to our aid.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: sysop on test

body:
Timwi a ?crit:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>> Hello there.
>>
>> This was the previous policy on meta and many are aware it is
>> potentially a small security hole
>
>
> I don't see how being sysop on test is a security hole at all. There is
> nothing there that you could destroy.

Well, I personaly had no idea if anything sensible was there or not. If
there is not, and you are ready to revert errors, there is no issue :-)


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: sysop on test

body:
Anthere wrote:
> What is your opinion ?
>
> Fantasy suggested
>
> * Every admin of any Wikipedia "can" have admin-status on test
>
> * The developers decide who is admin on test (it is their server ;-)
>
> * No one except developers need admin-rights on test.

A while ago there was an open developer account, called Dev, with
password "dev". However, people were using it in ways which annoyed me,
so I killed it. Hence, we no longer have an open account on test.

It later occurred to me that allowing developer or sysop access on test
is potentially insecure, because people can use Special:Asksql with a
database specifier to query the databases of the live wikis.

Special:Asksql is currently disabled for unrelated reasons, so there is
no risk that I know of to giving people sysop access. I'm happy with
giving sysop access to anyone. I don't see any reason to limit it to
trusted users. If someone screws it up, we can always reinitialise the
database.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: sysop on test

body:
I wrote:
> I'm happy with
> giving sysop access to anyone. I don't see any reason to limit it to
> trusted users. If someone screws it up, we can always reinitialise the
> database.

Just to clarify, I consider test to be the domain of developers, and any
sysops who are appointed there are guests. If any sysop (or indeed, any
user at all) gets in the way of development, testing and debugging, I
reserve the right to desysop them and block their country of origin.

-- Tim Starling.


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikitech-l] Servers of wikimedia -> Jimbo

body:
Yes, I agree with all of this, and new servers have already been
ordered.  :-)

Camille Constans wrote:

> Hello
>
> It's time to realize that we haven't enough servers in our cluster. One goes down, and we have problems.... And wikpedia is slow !
>
> It would be really a good idea to get 2-3 more servers to be used as apache or squid.
>
> Another thing, zwinger our nfs server needs fast access in reading, cause each time a user requests a page, it hits at least one file on zwinger...
> A nfs server with a raid1 ide drive, would be fine I think and it would improve reliability(big disks of course, we begin to be short of space on zwinger too. 4G left with only 2 backups).
> The actual squid server could be used as an apache server then.
>
> And of course DB SERVER !!!!
> We have compressed old table on Suda to keep saving some space, but we're really short in space. And we can't migrate other wikipedias as de, nl, ... to UTF-8 before getting more space and speed. There is only 3G left on Suda, and we need space for logs. So we copy often logs to another server...
> If space is full, we'll have to use Curly as DB server, with only one ide drive, back in time in december when wikipedia was so slow (yeah, I know it's slow now, but it was worse in december)
>
> Wikimedia must get new servers to improve speed. At least for those who has given money !
>
> Shaihulud
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Toby Bartels

body:
>This brings up again the issue of whether we should start registering
>trademarks belonging to the Wikimedia Foundation. Without necessarily
>resorting to threats of legal action, I think it would be far more
>effective if we can tell people "Wikipedia is a registered trademark of
>the Wikimedia Foundation" instead of just "Please do not use the name
>Wikipedia on your website as if it was the name of your encyclopedia".
>Trademark registration is something people will recognize and respect.
>They will generally respond more quickly, and they will be more likely
>to comply, even if the person notifying them is not in an "official"
>capacity.

Have we tried telling them "Wikipedia is a trademark
of the Wikimedia Foundation" yet?  How did it work?
Why do we think that adding the adjective "registered"
will make it work better?

-- Toby


body:
Peter Jaros wrote:

>Toby Bartels wrote:

>>Have we tried telling them "Wikipedia is a trademark
>>of the Wikimedia Foundation" yet?

>Is that true?  IA-very-much-NAL.

There are 2 issues here:

# If we say that Wikipedia is a trademark without registering it,
  then are we telling the truth?
# If we don't register it, then are we in a safe legal position?

Since the OP was talking about shifting from "Please don't use this."
to "This is a registered trademark.", question 2 is less relevant.
If somebody responds, "Sure it's a trademark, but it's not /registered/,
so I defy you to stop me.", then we need to look at registration.
But if we just want to beef up our complaints, then question 1 is enough.

IANALE, but the answer to question 1 is Yes.  Axel456 (WIAL) has said so
on other mailing lists, and here are some quotations from Wikipedia:

[[Trademark]]: "Though registration is available in most
   "countries, showing conclusive right to use the registered mark, many
   "jurisdictions (in [[common law]] countries, at least) will still
   "protect unregistered marks as long as the owner claiming infringement
   "can prove ownership through earliest and consistent use.
(Common law is the English tradition, found also in the US.)

[[Trademark]]: "in many jurisidictions reputations or
       "'goodwill' are afforded some protection as unregistered trade
       "marks. These rights would be common, for example, where a small
       "business had been trading for many years without registering a
       "trade mark. An attempt by a rival business to use the same name
       "would still be prevented by the courts, despite the lack of a
       "trade mark registration.
(Spacing and quotation marks here suggest a UK/Commonwealth writer.)

[[United States trademark law]]:
   "A person or business entity acquires rights in a trademark either by
   "using it in the normal course of business (for example on a tag or
   "label for merchandise being sold to the public) or by filing an
   "application for registration of the mark in the USPTO.
(Note "or", not "and".)

So "Wikipedia" /is/ a trademark, right now, under US law at least.
This means that we can say as much to people when we demand (not ask)
that they stop using the name to refer to their own site.

Now, the answer to question 2 is No.  So if we get into a legal situation,
where somebody refuses to comply and we're considering legal action,
/then/ we will need to register the trademark in a relevant juridsdiction.
Doubtless this will happen eventually, so eventually we must register.
And there's no reason that we shouldn't look into that now.

But we don't need to wait for registration to strengthen our language!
We can start telling people /today/ that "Wikipedia" is a trademark,
and I believe that we should indeed tell them just that.

This is a good thing, because registration, while useful, isn't free.
Besides the fees for the US, the EU, and many other potential countries,
I read something else in Wikipedia, rather disturbing:

[[United States trademark law]]:
   "An individual may represent himself before the USPTO in attempting to
   "register a trademark. However, there are many pitfalls that can trap
   "someone who is not experienced in trademark prosecution matters. An
   "experienced attorney who specializes in trademark registrations
   "typically will charge $800.00 to $1500.00 for preparing and filing an
   "application for trademark registration.

I don't know how dangerous these "many pitfalls" really are,
but if this paragraph is accurate, then registration may cost
a lot more than the fees!

Anyway, short answer:  By all means, look into registration.
But if the cost is prohibitive, then don't worry about it now;
hopefully, we'll have more money by the time that we need it.
In the meantime, however, start /claiming/ that it's a trademark,
because it is.

-- Toby


from_name: Angela

body:
There are problems with posting to this list from
gmane, so I'm sending this on behalf of Anthere and
Jamesday.

Anthere supports what Michael is saying about the need
to register trademarks, and would like to know if
anyone has made any estimates of the cost of doing
this in each country. Basically, has any overall
amount been calculated?

Jamesday has suggested that registering the trademarks
are probably not really needed for protection as the
name is quite well known now. For domain names, the
uniform domain name dispute policy requires that the
name be registered and used in good faith. Stealing a
Wikipedia name is bad faith and makes any site likely
to lose.

Angela.

____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html


from_name: Peter Jaros

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The proliferation of article series boxes

body:
On Apr 27, 2004, at 10:16 AM, Timwi wrote:

> David Friedland wrote:
>
>> There have recently been a proliferation with the article series
>> boxes.
>> This is a sign that we are in dire need of the category system.
>
> Hm. I totally didn't realise that the categorisation system would make
> these series boxes obsolete. That's a real shame! With the
> categorisation system, the editors lose control over the appearance of
> things. But then again, things should probably look the same
> everywhere, as I'm glad the TOC does.

I hadn't thought about that either.  Does this mean we won't be able to
have ordered series boxes?

Peter

                               -- ---<>--- --
                     A house without walls cannot fall.
        Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
                               -- ---<>--- --


body:
On Apr 28, 2004, at 4:23 PM, Toby Bartels wrote:

> Have we tried telling them "Wikipedia is a trademark
> of the Wikimedia Foundation" yet?

Is that true?  IA-very-much-NAL.

Peter

                               -- ---<>--- --
                     A house without walls cannot fall.
        Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
                               -- ---<>--- --


body:
Dan Carlson wrote:

>Toby Bartels wrote:

>>Have we tried telling them "Wikipedia is a trademark
>>of the Wikimedia Foundation" yet?

>Like so many others, IANAL, but I've seen statements to the following
>effect: "(term one) is a trademark, and (term two) is a registered
>trademark, of (company name)."  So there's definitely a difference.

For example, according to a bottle on my colleague's desk here,
"diet PEPSI" is a registered trademark of PepsiCo ("?"),
while "LIGHT ? CRISP ? REFRESHING" is merely a trademark ("TM").

But try marketing /your/ soft drink as "light, crisp, and refreshing".
If you don't respond to their inevitable order to cease and desist,
then they'll register their original phrase, sue you, and win!
(OK, so IANAL, but I'll still bet that they'd win.)

>I'd just like to point out that, since Wikipedia /is/ the biggest wiki
>out there (probably, anyway), then it could just be an innocent
>misunderstanding.  A statement that Wikipedia is a trademark would go a
>long way towards fixing that problem.

I'd hope so; in your case, just saying ?"Wikipedia" is our name only;
the generic term is "wiki", so please use that word instead.? worked.
But ?"Wikipedia" is our trademark.? just says ?"Wikipedia" is our name.?
in stronger language.  We should use that language immediately,
regardless of the results of research into the feasibility of registration.

-- Toby


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: <span>

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> asking for something to be *added* and asking for something
> to be *removed* are different types of requests.

Actually, they're the same: both don't get done ;-)


from_name: David Friedland

references:
<c6hjo9$3jr$1@sea.gmane.org> <c6lq0m$u3i$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<BA7860BA-9952-11D8-B797-000A27B3913C@shaysnet.com>

body:
Peter Jaros wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2004, at 10:16 AM, Timwi wrote:
>
>> David Friedland wrote:
>>
>>> There have recently been a proliferation with the article series boxes.
>>> This is a sign that we are in dire need of the category system.
>>
>>
>> Hm. I totally didn't realise that the categorisation system would make
>> these series boxes obsolete. That's a real shame! With the
>> categorisation system, the editors lose control over the appearance of
>> things. But then again, things should probably look the same
>> everywhere, as I'm glad the TOC does.
>
>
> I hadn't thought about that either.  Does this mean we won't be able to
> have ordered series boxes?

I think series boxes are fine for articles that are in a _series_, but
for groups of related articles, I think categories are the best
solution. Perhaps we should implement a way to display all the articles
in a category inline on a page, similarly to series boxes, but
automatically, consistently, and _optionally_.

- David


from_name: Camille Constans

body:
Hello

It's time to realize that we haven't enough servers in our cluster. One goes down, and we have problems.... And wikpedia is slow !

It would be really a good idea to get 2-3 more servers to be used as apache or squid.

Another thing, zwinger our nfs server needs fast access in reading, cause each time a user requests a page, it hits at least one file on zwinger...
A nfs server with a raid1 ide drive, would be fine I think and it would improve reliability(big disks of course, we begin to be short of space on zwinger too. 4G left with only 2 backups).
The actual squid server could be used as an apache server then.

And of course DB SERVER !!!!
We have compressed old table on Suda to keep saving some space, but we're really short in space. And we can't migrate other wikipedias as de, nl, ... to UTF-8 before getting more space and speed. There is only 3G left on Suda, and we need space for logs. So we copy often logs to another server...
If space is full, we'll have to use Curly as DB server, with only one ide drive, back in time in december when wikipedia was so slow (yeah, I know it's slow now, but it was worse in december)

Wikimedia must get new servers to improve speed. At least for those who has given money !

Shaihulud


from_name: Dan Carlson

body:
> Have we tried telling them "Wikipedia is a trademark
> of the Wikimedia Foundation" yet?

Like so many others, IANAL, but I've seen statements to the following
effect: "(term one) is a trademark, and (term two) is a registered
trademark, of (company name)."  So there's definitely a difference.

I would strongly suggest placing some kind of statement in the
copyright notice of the board, stating that "Wikipedia" is a trademark
of the Wikimedia Foundation.  When I first became aware of the project,
I was confused about the definitions of the terms "wikiwiki" and
"Wikipedia" -- for whatever reason, I innocently thought that they were
synonymous.  (Kinda like xeroxing is now a common verb, even if you're
not using a Xerox machine.)  I even started referring to my own new
Star Trek wiki as "a Star Trek wikipedia".  (I of course quickly
changed all uses of that term when the error was pointed out to me!)

I'd just like to point out that, since Wikipedia /is/ the biggest wiki
out there (probably, anyway), then it could just be an innocent
misunderstanding.  A statement that Wikipedia is a trademark would go a
long way towards fixing that problem.

Just my 2?, of course. :-)

Dan Carlson


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Registering Wikimedia trademarks

body:
Angela wrote:

>There are problems with posting to this list from
>gmane, so I'm sending this on behalf of Anthere and
>Jamesday.
>
Is it a general problem, or specific to this list? I at least didn't
have any trouble reading it there. It's hard enough getting people to
use the right mailing list around here without there being technical
obstacles.

>Anthere supports what Michael is saying about the need
>to register trademarks, and would like to know if
>anyone has made any estimates of the cost of doing
>this in each country. Basically, has any overall
>amount been calculated?
>
The last time this came up, somebody indicated that the fee in Germany
was 300 euros. I haven't confirmed this, but it was also stated that
registration would be valid for the entire EU. If so, presumably the fee
would be the same whether we registered in Germany, France, or someplace
else? I would still register in the US first, because the foundation is
based in the US.

The 335 US dollars is a filing fee to apply for registration of a single
trademark, and I'm guessing 300 euros is the same thing. The more
trademarks we want to register, the more it might cost us. Of all our
possible trademarks, I think Wikipedia is the most critical, so we
should probably start there and then consider the others.

Additionally, Toby mentions (based on our own content) that attorney
fees for filing the application could be $800 to $1500. But I think
Jimbo might decide to see if somebody will do it pro bono, since
Wikimedia is a nonprofit.

>Jamesday has suggested that registering the trademarks
>are probably not really needed for protection as the
>name is quite well known now. For domain names, the
>uniform domain name dispute policy requires that the
>name be registered and used in good faith. Stealing a
>Wikipedia name is bad faith and makes any site likely
>to lose.
>
I'm not sure that I agree with Jamesday as to how well known we are yet.
In certain circles, yes, but we're only starting to really get
mainstream media coverage, and Wikipedia is hardly a household name
offline. I may be misunderstanding his point here, since it's filtered
through Angela, but the purpose of trademark registration would be more
than just to keep somebody from using, say, wikipedia.fr as a domain name.

--Michael Snow


body:
Toby Bartels wrote:

>>This brings up again the issue of whether we should start registering
>>trademarks belonging to the Wikimedia Foundation. Without necessarily
>>resorting to threats of legal action, I think it would be far more
>>effective if we can tell people "Wikipedia is a registered trademark of
>>the Wikimedia Foundation" instead of just "Please do not use the name
>>Wikipedia on your website as if it was the name of your encyclopedia".
>>Trademark registration is something people will recognize and respect.
>>They will generally respond more quickly, and they will be more likely
>>to comply, even if the person notifying them is not in an "official"
>>capacity.
>>
>>
>Have we tried telling them "Wikipedia is a trademark
>of the Wikimedia Foundation" yet?  How did it work?
>Why do we think that adding the adjective "registered"
>will make it work better?
>
I don't know what we've tried telling them. The case on wikien-l that
precipitated this discussion was PhatNav.com, and Timwi contacted them
in an unofficial capacity, but I don't know what exactly he said. Also,
PhatNav is perhaps the worst of our forks in terms of complying with the
GFDL. For people like that, the fewer excuses we leave them, the better.

Simply asserting that something is a trademark can be an effective
approach with many people. But  just claiming a trademark does not
necessarily make it one. Being able to say that it's registered means
that it's recognized by the Patent and Trademark Office. In a sense, it
makes the trademark "official", although the courts and not the PTO have
the final say on what is a trademark.

--Michael Snow


body:
Toby Bartels wrote:

> Dan Carlson wrote:
>
>>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Have we tried telling them "Wikipedia is a trademark
>>>of the Wikimedia Foundation" yet?
>>>
>>>
>>Like so many others, IANAL, but I've seen statements to the following
>>effect: "(term one) is a trademark, and (term two) is a registered
>>trademark, of (company name)."  So there's definitely a difference.
>>
>>
>For example, according to a bottle on my colleague's desk here,
>"diet PEPSI" is a registered trademark of PepsiCo ("?"),
>while "LIGHT ? CRISP ? REFRESHING" is merely a trademark ("TM").
>
>But try marketing /your/ soft drink as "light, crisp, and refreshing".
>If you don't respond to their inevitable order to cease and desist,
>then they'll register their original phrase, sue you, and win!
>(OK, so IANAL, but I'll still bet that they'd win.)
>
Pepsi would probably try all kinds of things to make you stop, but I'm
much more skeptical about whether they could win a lawsuit. Trademark
protection is normally denied for terms that are merely descriptive of
the goods or services involved. I'm not a trademark examiner, but my
conclusion would be that "light, crisp, and refreshing" are simply
descriptive terms, so they can't be a trademark.

"TM" is a symbol anybody can use to claim something is a trademark. No
registration, or even application to register the trademark, is
required. So this is a classic example of the difference between
registered and unregistered marks.

Pepsi has plenty of money, and could certainly file a trademark
application for "light, crisp, and refreshing." So why isn't it
registered, when "Diet Pepsi" is? Probably because Pepsi hasn't filed an
application, and doesn't want to, since their lawyers realize there's a
good chance the Patent and Trademark Office will refuse to register it.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040428/e08c9e41/attachment.htm


body:
Toby Bartels wrote:

> Dan Carlson wrote:
>
>>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Have we tried telling them "Wikipedia is a trademark
>>>of the Wikimedia Foundation" yet?
>>>
>>>
>>Like so many others, IANAL, but I've seen statements to the following
>>effect: "(term one) is a trademark, and (term two) is a registered
>>trademark, of (company name)."  So there's definitely a difference.
>>
>>
>For example, according to a bottle on my colleague's desk here,
>"diet PEPSI" is a registered trademark of PepsiCo ("?"),
>while "LIGHT ? CRISP ? REFRESHING" is merely a trademark ("TM").
>
>But try marketing /your/ soft drink as "light, crisp, and refreshing".
>If you don't respond to their inevitable order to cease and desist,
>then they'll register their original phrase, sue you, and win!
>(OK, so IANAL, but I'll still bet that they'd win.)
>
Pepsi would probably try all kinds of things to make you stop, but I'm
much more skeptical about whether they could win a lawsuit. Trademark
protection is normally denied for terms that are merely descriptive of
the goods or services involved. I'm not a trademark examiner, but my
conclusion would be that "light, crisp, and refreshing" are simply
descriptive terms, so they can't be a trademark.

"TM" is a symbol anybody can use to claim something is a trademark. No
registration, or even application to register the trademark, is
required. So this is a classic example of the difference between
registered and unregistered marks.

Pepsi has plenty of money, and could certainly file a trademark
application for "light, crisp, and refreshing." So why isn't it
registered, when "Diet Pepsi" is? Probably because Pepsi hasn't filed an
application, and doesn't want to, since their lawyers realize there's a
good chance the Patent and Trademark Office will refuse to register it.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040428/e08c9e41/attachment-0001.htm


body:
Toby Bartels wrote:

> Dan Carlson wrote:
>
>>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Have we tried telling them "Wikipedia is a trademark
>>>of the Wikimedia Foundation" yet?
>>>
>>>
>>Like so many others, IANAL, but I've seen statements to the following
>>effect: "(term one) is a trademark, and (term two) is a registered
>>trademark, of (company name)."  So there's definitely a difference.
>>
>>
>For example, according to a bottle on my colleague's desk here,
>"diet PEPSI" is a registered trademark of PepsiCo ("?"),
>while "LIGHT ? CRISP ? REFRESHING" is merely a trademark ("TM").
>
>But try marketing /your/ soft drink as "light, crisp, and refreshing".
>If you don't respond to their inevitable order to cease and desist,
>then they'll register their original phrase, sue you, and win!
>(OK, so IANAL, but I'll still bet that they'd win.)
>
Pepsi would probably try all kinds of things to make you stop, but I'm
much more skeptical about whether they could win a lawsuit. Trademark
protection is normally denied for terms that are merely descriptive of
the goods or services involved. I'm not a trademark examiner, but my
conclusion would be that "light, crisp, and refreshing" are simply
descriptive terms, so they can't be a trademark.

"TM" is a symbol anybody can use to claim something is a trademark. No
registration, or even application to register the trademark, is
required. So this is a classic example of the difference between
registered and unregistered marks.

Pepsi has plenty of money, and could certainly file a trademark
application for "light, crisp, and refreshing." So why isn't it
registered, when "Diet Pepsi" is? Probably because Pepsi hasn't filed an
application, and doesn't want to, since their lawyers realize there's a
good chance the Patent and Trademark Office will refuse to register it.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040428/e08c9e41/attachment-0002.htm


body:
Toby Bartels wrote:

> Dan Carlson wrote:
>
>>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Have we tried telling them "Wikipedia is a trademark
>>>of the Wikimedia Foundation" yet?
>>>
>>>
>>Like so many others, IANAL, but I've seen statements to the following
>>effect: "(term one) is a trademark, and (term two) is a registered
>>trademark, of (company name)."  So there's definitely a difference.
>>
>>
>For example, according to a bottle on my colleague's desk here,
>"diet PEPSI" is a registered trademark of PepsiCo ("?"),
>while "LIGHT ? CRISP ? REFRESHING" is merely a trademark ("TM").
>
>But try marketing /your/ soft drink as "light, crisp, and refreshing".
>If you don't respond to their inevitable order to cease and desist,
>then they'll register their original phrase, sue you, and win!
>(OK, so IANAL, but I'll still bet that they'd win.)
>
Pepsi would probably try all kinds of things to make you stop, but I'm
much more skeptical about whether they could win a lawsuit. Trademark
protection is normally denied for terms that are merely descriptive of
the goods or services involved. I'm not a trademark examiner, but my
conclusion would be that "light, crisp, and refreshing" are simply
descriptive terms, so they can't be a trademark.

"TM" is a symbol anybody can use to claim something is a trademark. No
registration, or even application to register the trademark, is
required. So this is a classic example of the difference between
registered and unregistered marks.

Pepsi has plenty of money, and could certainly file a trademark
application for "light, crisp, and refreshing." So why isn't it
registered, when "Diet Pepsi" is? Probably because Pepsi hasn't filed an
application, and doesn't want to, since their lawyers realize there's a
good chance the Patent and Trademark Office will refuse to register it.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040428/e08c9e41/attachment.html>


body:
Toby Bartels wrote:

> Dan Carlson wrote:
>
>>Toby Bartels wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Have we tried telling them "Wikipedia is a trademark
>>>of the Wikimedia Foundation" yet?
>>>
>>>
>>Like so many others, IANAL, but I've seen statements to the following
>>effect: "(term one) is a trademark, and (term two) is a registered
>>trademark, of (company name)."  So there's definitely a difference.
>>
>>
>For example, according to a bottle on my colleague's desk here,
>"diet PEPSI" is a registered trademark of PepsiCo ("?"),
>while "LIGHT ? CRISP ? REFRESHING" is merely a trademark ("TM").
>
>But try marketing /your/ soft drink as "light, crisp, and refreshing".
>If you don't respond to their inevitable order to cease and desist,
>then they'll register their original phrase, sue you, and win!
>(OK, so IANAL, but I'll still bet that they'd win.)
>
Pepsi would probably try all kinds of things to make you stop, but I'm
much more skeptical about whether they could win a lawsuit. Trademark
protection is normally denied for terms that are merely descriptive of
the goods or services involved. I'm not a trademark examiner, but my
conclusion would be that "light, crisp, and refreshing" are simply
descriptive terms, so they can't be a trademark.

"TM" is a symbol anybody can use to claim something is a trademark. No
registration, or even application to register the trademark, is
required. So this is a classic example of the difference between
registered and unregistered marks.

Pepsi has plenty of money, and could certainly file a trademark
application for "light, crisp, and refreshing." So why isn't it
registered, when "Diet Pepsi" is? Probably because Pepsi hasn't filed an
application, and doesn't want to, since their lawyers realize there's a
good chance the Patent and Trademark Office will refuse to register it.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040428/e08c9e41/attachment-0001.html>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Peter Jaros wrote:

> On Apr 27, 2004, at 10:16 AM, Timwi wrote:
>
>> David Friedland wrote:
>>
>>> There have recently been a proliferation with the article series boxes.
>>> This is a sign that we are in dire need of the category system.
>>
>> Hm. I totally didn't realise that the categorisation system would
>> make these series boxes obsolete. That's a real shame! With the
>> categorisation system, the editors lose control over the appearance
>> of things. But then again, things should probably look the same
>> everywhere, as I'm glad the TOC does.
>
> I hadn't thought about that either.  Does this mean we won't be able to
> have ordered series boxes?

I can't see why the two features need to be mutually exclusive.

Ec


references:
<c6hjo9$3jr$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<c6lq0m$u3i$1@sea.gmane.org>	<BA7860BA-9952-11D8-B797-000A27B3913C@shaysnet.com>	<c6pab9$90q$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<p3f090ppnm4vc4f75mp9mmb9hk44224esf@4ax.com>

body:
Alex Regh wrote:

>Hi!
>
>On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:14:01 -0400, David Friedland wrote:
>
>>Perhaps we should implement a way to display all the articles
>>in a category inline on a page, similarly to series boxes, but
>>automatically, consistently, and _optionally_.
>>
>That might be a bit of a problem, too. To stick with [[Heteronormativity]], if
>all links from the [[List of transgender-related topics]] and all the links
>that relate to [[LGBT]] and all the links from Project Critical Theory were
>displayed on that page, there would not be much article left to see.
>
>And this is certeinly not the only candidate for more than one category with
>many links.
>
>And if it were optionally, we would face the very same edit wars we are now
>fighting about whether the box goes in or not over whether all the links are
>shown or not.
>
Maybe I'm just understanding categories differently from others.  I see
categories primarily as a convenient sorting tool.  A Belgian
mathematician wout be categoriized under both Belgians and
matematicians, and he would be found by searching under either term.

All the articles in a category would only need to be displayed
(preferably in point form the way a recent changes or watch list page is
displayed.  The categories to which an article belongs could show up at
the bottom of the page along with the links to other languages..  Why do
edit wars have anything to to with it?

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] user styles, rtl, raw text action

body:
Gabriel-
> The css and js pages are editable only to the user and developers, they
> appear protected to anybody else.

Ah, CSS as user-subpages. Always seemed like the most natural way to
customize this stuff.

IMHO normal sysop rights should apply. Sysops are trusted users, so they
can be expected not to edit other people's stylesheets willy-nilly. (Mmmh
.. forcing users to endure red on black text might be a nice alternative
to banning ;-)

These edits currently do show up in RC. I think they should, so other
users can get inspirations for their own styles. However, we should
probably change the parser so that it doesn't try to render pages with
titles of the pattern

User:.*\.css
User:.*\.js

and instead displays them as raw text (maybe simply by encapsulating the
loaded content in <nowiki> before entering the render stage of the
parser).

Possible future innovations:
* "Preview this style" -> When on a user CSS/JS subpage, set this as my
style for the current session only.
* "Use this style" -> when on a user CSS/JS subpage, make this my own
custom style (i.e. copy the page to the top revision of my own user
subpage for that skin)

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Alex Regh

references:
<c6hjo9$3jr$1@sea.gmane.org> <c6lq0m$u3i$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<BA7860BA-9952-11D8-B797-000A27B3913C@shaysnet.com>
	<c6pab9$90q$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Hi!

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:14:01 -0400, David Friedland wrote:

>Perhaps we should implement a way to display all the articles
>in a category inline on a page, similarly to series boxes, but
>automatically, consistently, and _optionally_.

That might be a bit of a problem, too. To stick with [[Heteronormativity]], if
all links from the [[List of transgender-related topics]] and all the links
that relate to [[LGBT]] and all the links from Project Critical Theory were
displayed on that page, there would not be much article left to see.

And this is certeinly not the only candidate for more than one category with
many links.

And if it were optionally, we would face the very same edit wars we are now
fighting about whether the box goes in or not over whether all the links are
shown or not.

Greetings from Cologne,
Alex
--
If you don't go over the top,
you can't see what's on the other side.
        --- Jim Steinman ---

Alex' Assorted Homepages: www.alexsite.de


from_name: Gabriel Wicke

body:
There's been some progress with the monobook skin recently, new things
are basic rtl support and user styles.

You can tweak styles in the monobook skin by adding a page called
'monobook.css' as a subpage of your user page. My test css is at
http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gwicke/monobook.css for example.

Similar with js, the it's called monobook.js in that case.
Other skins don't have the links in the header currently, but those are
easy to add.

The css and js pages are editable only to the user and developers, they
appear protected to anybody else.

The wiki src is retrived with a new method to get the raw wiki text:
http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gwicke/monobook.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css

Allowed ctypes are text/css, text/javascript, text/x-wiki and
application/x-zope-edit. Any of these return the plain wiki src, just
the content header differs. A charset option is optional, e.g.
&charset=utf-8.

Brion and me have added an RTL stylesheet to monobook, it seems to work
fine in Opera 7.23, Mozilla/Firefox, IE5.5 and mostly IE6. Screenshots
at http://wikidev.net/MonoBook_RTL.

--
Gabriel Wicke


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: user styles, rtl, raw text action

body:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:55:28 +0200, Gabriel Wicke wrote:

> There's been some progress with the monobook skin recently, new things
> are basic rtl support and user styles.
>
> You can tweak styles in the monobook skin by adding a page called
> 'monobook.css' as a subpage of your user page. My test css is at
> http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gwicke/monobook.css for example.
>
> Similar with js, the it's called monobook.js in that case.
> Other skins don't have the links in the header currently, but those are
> easy to add.
>
> The css and js pages are editable only to the user and developers, they
> appear protected to anybody else.
>
> The wiki src is retrived with a new method to get the raw wiki text:
> http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gwicke/monobook.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css
>
> Allowed ctypes are text/css, text/javascript, text/x-wiki and
> application/x-zope-edit. Any of these return the plain wiki src, just
> the content header differs. A charset option is optional, e.g.
> &charset=utf-8.
>
> Brion and me have added an RTL stylesheet to monobook, it seems to work
> fine in Opera 7.23, Mozilla/Firefox, IE5.5 and mostly IE6. Screenshots
> at http://wikidev.net/MonoBook_RTL.

Thanks for all your hard work Gabriel ! :)

--
Ashar Voultoiz
http://fr.wikipedia.org/Utilisateur:Hashar
My french blog: http://twenkill.dyndns.org/plog/


from_name: Karl Juhnke

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Can "outsiders" build their encyclopedia on
	Wikipedia?

body:
--- Karl Juhnke <yangfuli at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have a hypothetical question, and wikipedia-l seems the best place
> to ask it, so I have temporarily subscribed.

Thank you all for the many and varied answers.  My curiosity has been
amply satisfied.  Peace,
-Karl

(unsubscribing)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover


subject: [Wikitech-l] Proxy blocker status?

body:
I have gotten a complaint that 207.142.131.228 is or was attempting to
use a proxy at 212.185.189.154.  How can that be?

It is important that we not probe third parties for open proxies under
most circumstances.  It might be appropriate if we are experiencing
direct abuse ourselves and we're trying to track down why, but as a
matter of routine, it causes us to get complaints which will get us in
big trouble with our isp.

--Jimbo


from_name: Evan Prodromou

body:
>>>>> "GW" == Gabriel Wicke <gw at gabrielwicke.de> writes:

    GW> The wiki src is retrived with a new method to get the raw wiki
    GW> text:
    GW> http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gwicke/monobook.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css

    GW> Allowed ctypes are text/css, text/javascript, text/x-wiki and
    GW> application/x-zope-edit. Any of these return the plain wiki
    GW> src, just the content header differs. A charset option is
    GW> optional, e.g.  &charset=utf-8.

Why the heck would a request for text/css return wiki markup? That
seems really broken.

~ESP

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


from_name: Magnus Manske

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>IMHO normal sysop rights should apply. Sysops are trusted users, so they
>can be expected not to edit other people's stylesheets willy-nilly. (Mmmh
>.. forcing users to endure red on black text might be a nice alternative
>to banning ;-)
>
>
>
1. Become sysop.
2. Bot-create user .js subpages to display commercial popups.
3. Profit!

;-)


body:
Alex Regh wrote:

>Hi!
>
>On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:14:01 -0400, David Friedland wrote:
>
>
>
>>Perhaps we should implement a way to display all the articles
>>in a category inline on a page, similarly to series boxes, but
>>automatically, consistently, and _optionally_.
>>
>>
>
>That might be a bit of a problem, too. To stick with [[Heteronormativity]], if
>all links from the [[List of transgender-related topics]] and all the links
>that relate to [[LGBT]] and all the links from Project Critical Theory were
>displayed on that page, there would not be much article left to see.
>
>
How about this:
* [[category:Stuff]] shows the link to Category:Stuff like it does on
test.wikipedia.org
* {{category:Stuff}} shows links to all pages *within* Category:Stuff in
some floating box
Then we could see where it makes sense to add the {{}} variant, for each
case.

>Greetings from Cologne,
>
>
Reply from Cologne :-)
Magnus


body:
Michael Snow wrote:

>Toby Bartels wrote:

>>For example, according to a bottle on my colleague's desk here,
>>"diet PEPSI" is a registered trademark of PepsiCo ("?"),
>>while "LIGHT ? CRISP ? REFRESHING" is merely a trademark ("TM").

>>But try marketing /your/ soft drink as "light, crisp, and refreshing".
>>If you don't respond to their inevitable order to cease and desist,
>>then they'll register their original phrase, sue you, and win!
>>(OK, so IANAL, but I'll still bet that they'd win.)

>Pepsi would probably try all kinds of things to make you stop, but I'm
>much more skeptical about whether they could win a lawsuit. Trademark
>protection is normally denied for terms that are merely descriptive of
>the goods or services involved. I'm not a trademark examiner, but my
>conclusion would be that "light, crisp, and refreshing" are simply
>descriptive terms, so they can't be a trademark.

"light", "crisp", and "refreshing" are simply descriptive terms,
but "light, crsip, refreshing" is a distinctive phrase used by Pepsi.
So that latter may be a trademark even if the former is not.
Still, since NOUIAL (neither of us is a lawyer), we won't get very far
arguing about whether this particular phrase will work or not.

>"TM" is a symbol anybody can use to claim something is a trademark. No
>registration, or even application to register the trademark, is
>required. So this is a classic example of the difference between
>registered and unregistered marks.

Yes, this was intended to be a classic example of that difference.
But note that it's not the "TM" that makes it a trademark;
according to Wikipedia's articles, it's the /usage/
(as well as the associations in the public mind).

>Pepsi has plenty of money, and could certainly file a trademark
>application for "light, crisp, and refreshing." So why isn't it
>registered, when "Diet Pepsi" is? Probably because Pepsi hasn't filed an
>application, and doesn't want to, since their lawyers realize there's a
>good chance the Patent and Trademark Office will refuse to register it.

Another possibility:  Their lawyers don't see a reason to do so.
You seem to be implicitly assuming that an unregistred trademark
doesn't do Pepsi any good.  That is not the case.
(In reality, there is probably a mixture of reasons;
the lawyers don't think that the small benefit of registration
is worth the hassle with the USPTO's scepticism about the phrase.
I suppose that we could write Pepsi and ask them. ^_^)

-- Toby


body:
Michael Snow wrote:

>Toby Bartels wrote:

>>Have we tried telling them "Wikipedia is a trademark
>>of the Wikimedia Foundation" yet?  How did it work?
>>Why do we think that adding the adjective "registered"
>>will make it work better?

>I don't know what we've tried telling them. The case on wikien-l that
>precipitated this discussion was PhatNav.com, and Timwi contacted them
>in an unofficial capacity, but I don't know what exactly he said. Also,
>PhatNav is perhaps the worst of our forks in terms of complying with the
>GFDL. For people like that, the fewer excuses we leave them, the better.

That seems right; so we should indeed look into registration.
With PhatNav, we may need it.  But at the same time, we should also
start telling them that it's a trademark right now, since it is.
If nothing else, a reply from PhatNav that they don't give a darn
about our unregistered trademark will make the need for registration
clear.

>Simply asserting that something is a trademark can be an effective
>approach with many people. But just claiming a trademark does not
>necessarily make it one. Being able to say that it's registered means
>that it's recognized by the Patent and Trademark Office. In a sense, it
>makes the trademark "official", although the courts and not the PTO have
>the final say on what is a trademark.

You give a choice between "just claiming" the trademark and registering it.
But /claiming/ is not what makes anything a trademark in the first place.
According to Wikipedia's articles, it's the /usage/ that does this.
Because the Wikimedia Foundation (and Jimbo Wales, and the Wikipedians)
is the organisation that in fact has used the invented term "Wikipedia"
to distinguish Wikipedia from other encyclopaedias in the world,
that makes the term "Wikipedia" a trademark, currently unregistered.
The purpose of /claiming/ a trademark is to inform people about the facts.
The purpose of registring it is to facilitate legal defence of the mark.

So, "Wikipedia" /is/ a trademark, so we should /claim/ that it is one now.
Meanwhile, we should look into registration as well, and assess the likely
costs and benefits, to make a decision as to whether registration is worth it,
and if so when and in what jurisdictions.

IANAL, and my opinions are based on the Wikipedia articles that I cited before.
As with all Wikipedia articles, YAMV (your accuracy may vary ^_^).

-- Toby


body:
Michael Snow wrote:

>Angela wrote:

>The last time this came up, somebody indicated that the fee in Germany
>was 300 euros. I haven't confirmed this, but it was also stated that
>registration would be valid for the entire EU. If so, presumably the fee
>would be the same whether we registered in Germany, France, or someplace
>else? I would still register in the US first, because the foundation is
>based in the US.

If we register in the EU, then that's 25 countries come Saturday.
But watch out for the Turks in northern Cyprus; they might infringe!
(Just a little topical geopolitical humour. ^_^)

>The 335 US dollars is a filing fee to apply for registration of a single
>trademark, and I'm guessing 300 euros is the same thing. The more
>trademarks we want to register, the more it might cost us. Of all our
>possible trademarks, I think Wikipedia is the most critical, so we
>should probably start there and then consider the others.

With both names and jurisdictions, our determination of what is critical
should be based on the specific legal needs that present themselves to us.
For example, if PhatNav refuses to respect our trademark without legal action,
then we'll need to register the terms that PhatNav is infriniging upon
in whatever jurisdiction will have the greatest effect upon PhatNav.
And if PhatNav is the first immediate problem, then that would determine
what and where we register first.

I agree that in all probability, this will be "Wikipedia" and the US.
So my point is not to criticise your prediction of what's most effective;
just to say that the decision shouldn't be ruled by theoretical estimates
but by the practical facts on the ground.

>Additionally, Toby mentions (based on our own content) that attorney
>fees for filing the application could be $800 to $1500. But I think
>Jimbo might decide to see if somebody will do it pro bono, since
>Wikimedia is a nonprofit.

That's a good point.  These numbers should not scare us away
from looking into registration and finding a way to do it.
They should only make us realise that registration is a big deal,
so we should not wait for registration to start asserting our rights
to our trademarks.

>>Jamesday has suggested that registering the trademarks
>>are probably not really needed for protection as the
>>name is quite well known now. For domain names, the
>>uniform domain name dispute policy requires that the
>>name be registered and used in good faith. Stealing a
>>Wikipedia name is bad faith and makes any site likely
>>to lose.

>I'm not sure that I agree with Jamesday as to how well known we are yet.
>In certain circles, yes, but we're only starting to really get
>mainstream media coverage, and Wikipedia is hardly a household name
>offline. I may be misunderstanding his point here, since it's filtered
>through Angela, but the purpose of trademark registration would be more
>than just to keep somebody from using, say, wikipedia.fr as a domain name.

Domain names are well protected and not likely to be any problem.
But besides that, protection still may not need registration.
If Jamesday is suggesting that we don't need to look into registration,
then I disagree; the more we know about what registration would take,
the better our position is to decide if and when and how we want it.
But if Jamesday is suggesting that we should use the protection
that we have now, then I agree.  We should start by asserting our claims.

Now if we really want to spark controversy: Add a little "TM" to our logo! ^_^

-- Toby


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] List of contributors and GFDL

body:
I was just made aware of this thread, and I realise
that potentially a legal issue is discussed on
wikitech. I would like the opinion of our lawyers on
this specific point.

So, tel me if I understand well, to comply with the
gfdl the best we can  (and we already know it is
problematic), what you suggest is to list first the
real name contributors, followed by pseudonymes, then
by ips. Of course, the number of names is limited. We
can expect that on many articles, the number of names
will be over 50 or more.

I understood the gfdl "normal" requirement is to list
the 5 main contributors. We probably know that we can
define who the 5 main contributors are. Indeed, unless
the number of contributors is below 5, there is no way
to report with honesty the legal requirements.

This said, if we can't report reality, why would we
report a group of contributors more than another ? If
a pseudonyme wrote 95% of an article, and 5%
officially real names corrected typos, is that really
correct to indicate these 5 real names and not the
pseudonyme ?

I would say it is not. Legally, that is incorrect.
>From a community view point, that is setting a case
which I am not sure is really positive.
It think that it would be more correct to make random
choice among pseudo or real names, or to choose among
the last ones.

I will forward this to wikipedia-l and foundation-l,
since I believe this is more than a technical issue.

Evan Prodromou a ?crit:
> So, I'd like to add a little block of attribution
data to each page
> (optional, per-installation; I'm guessing Wikipedia
wouldn't use
> this). Something along the lines of:
>
>        This article last edited on April 21, 2004 by
Evan Prodromou.
>        Based on work by Alice Notaperson, Bob
Alsonotaperson, users
>        Crankshaft, Deckchair and Eggplant, and
anonymous editors.
>
> For each (distinct) person who's listed in the old
table, it'd show
> their real name if it's set, or their user name if
not. All anonymous
> edits would be lumped under "anonymous editors".
Contributors would be
> listed with real-named folks first, then pseudo'd
folks, then
> anonymous. There's no particular reason for that; it
could be any
> other way (although I don't see a big point making
it configurable).
>
> The goal here is to make it easy for redistributors
to comply with
> license provisions that require author attribution
(such as some
> Creative Commons licenses), without having to dig
through a whole
> bunch of history pages.
>
> Anyhoo, the Metadata.php code already does most of
this logic, albeit
> for output in RDF format. I'd like to take that
stuff and put it in
> the Article class, in a method like
"getContributors". The method
> could then be used both from the attribution code
and from the RDF
> metadata code.
>
> getContributors would return an array of arrays,
each of which would
> contain:
>
>         0. User ID
>         1. User account name
>         2. User real name, if set
>
> Another option would be to create User objects for
each entry in the
> returned array, but a) I don't think that most of
the User object
> fields (email, preferences) are needed, and b) I'd
be worried about
> slingin' around incomplete User objects. So, I think
the arrays are
> the best bet.
>
> Does returning an array of arrays seem insane? Would
it be wrong to
> add this method to Article? If so, where else would
it go?
>
> ~ESP
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover


subject: [Wikipedia-l] List of contributors and GFDL


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Contributors list

body:
Of course, typo, I meant "of course, we know we
*can't* define the 5 main contributors" :-)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Contributors list


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Contributors list


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Contributors list


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
On Apr 29, 2004, at 06:10, Evan Prodromou wrote:
>>>>>> "GW" == Gabriel Wicke <gw at gabrielwicke.de> writes:
>
>     GW> The wiki src is retrived with a new method to get the raw wiki
>     GW> text:
>     GW>
> http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gwicke/monobook.css?
> action=raw&ctype=text/css
>
>     GW> Allowed ctypes are text/css, text/javascript, text/x-wiki and
>     GW> application/x-zope-edit. Any of these return the plain wiki
>     GW> src, just the content header differs. A charset option is
>     GW> optional, e.g.  &charset=utf-8.
>
> Why the heck would a request for text/css return wiki markup? That
> seems really broken.

Because you put CSS in that wiki page.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Proxy blocker status?

body:
On Apr 29, 2004, at 07:21, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I have gotten a complaint that 207.142.131.228 is or was attempting to
> use a proxy at 212.185.189.154.  How can that be?

As far as I know it's off. Do you have any more details?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Domain wikipedia.at

body:
On Apr 29, 2004, at 10:41, Christian Dietl wrote:
> the domain "wikipedia.at" redirects to pliny.wikipedia.org
> (130.94.122.197) which is currently down. Can somebody please
> correct this so that the domain points to the German Wikipedia
> (de.wikipedia.org)?

Domain:
   domain:? wikipedia.at
?
Domaininhaber:
   personname:? Elisabeth Bauer

Please contact http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Elian directly.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


body:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:38:32 +0200, Magnus Manske wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>>IMHO normal sysop rights should apply. Sysops are trusted users, so they
>>can be expected not to edit other people's stylesheets willy-nilly. (Mmmh
>>.. forcing users to endure red on black text might be a nice alternative
>>to banning ;-)
> 1. Become sysop.
> 2. Bot-create user .js subpages to display commercial popups.
> 3. Profit!
>
> ;-)

I don't think that user will stay sysop for a long time :)

--
Ashar Voultoiz
http://fr.wikipedia.org/Utilisateur:Hashar
My french blog: http://twenkill.dyndns.org/plog/


body:
On Apr 29, 2004, at 12:58, Evan Prodromou wrote:
>     Me> Why the heck would a request for text/css return wiki markup?
>     Me> That seems really broken.
>
>     BV> Because you put CSS in that wiki page.
>
> Blech. Well, is this going to be enabled by default? Can you disable
> it?

You just wouldn't put anything in those pages, the equivalent of not
setting an optional preference.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Jakob

subject: [Wikitech-l] Graph drawing plugin

body:
hi!

In de: we have a lot of articles on graph theory missing example images. Graphs
are also useful in other articles to visualize information. Editing images of
graphs with your favorite program and format is a consumption of time and nobody
can easily alter my images. We do have <math> and <hiero>-section. I'd like
editable graphs with <graph>...</graph>.

We could easily use the DOT-syntax and
[http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/ graphviz]
to create PNG-images or SVG. It's damn powerful and not that complicated!

Greetings,
  Jakob


subject: [Wikipedia-l] <span>

body:
>>>>> "PG" == Peter Gervai <grin at tolna.net> writes:

    PG> maybe i'm wrong and there shouldn't be such styling on
    PG> wikipedia pages (people against tags would say "it makes
    PG> wikitext harder to read for nontech people"), so please share
    PG> your opinion.

My opinion is that they're absolutely right. Wikis aren't supposed to
be about fancy HTML formatting.

The information payload in pixel-twiddling is remarkably low. It might
be worthwhile to concentrate on, say, making an encyclopedia instead.

~ESP

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


from_name: Rich Holton

body:
--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote
(in part):
>
> Now if we really want to spark controversy: Add a
> little "TM" to our logo! ^_^
>

Is there any reason why we should not add such a TM,
if not to the logo, then to some other prominent
location? I have suggested that we add it to the
"Fromwikipedia" MediaWiki namespace message. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Fromwikipedia

Even though (if? -IANIAWESCTAL) this is not required
to claim the Trademark, it seems it would help to send
a clear message to anyone who might otherwise
misunderstand.

I, at least, do not find the little "TM" to be
distracting, especially since once I became a little
familiar with Wikipedia, I stopped noticing that
message altogether. I expect that others do the same.

One benefit of using the TM on the *word* Wikipedia,
as opposed to the Logo: It seems that one might
mistake a TM on the logo to refer only to the logo.
Attaching it to a simple printed word leaves no doubt.

And, of course, changing the MediaWiki message is
quick and easy (for someone who's a sysop).

-Rich Holton

** IANIAWESCTAL = I Am Not In Any Way Even Something
Close To A Lawyer **

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover


body:
>>>>> "A" == Anthere  <anthere9 at yahoo.com> writes:

    A> So, tel me if I understand well, to comply with the gfdl the
    A> best we can (and we already know it is problematic), what you
    A> suggest is to list first the real name contributors, followed
    A> by pseudonymes, then by ips.

OK, so, this feature is on its way with 1.3. I'm less concerned with
the GFDL than with the Creative Commons Attribution-style licenses, by
the way, which is what Wikitravel uses.

I'm not sure if this feature will be enabled on any of the Wikimedia
projects, or how. My main concern is to make it easy for people
redistributing Wikitravel content to conform to the attribution
requirements of our license.

My guess is that it won't be enabled for Wikimedia projects, as it
requires three extra database calls* per page view.

Note that IPs aren't specified per IP, just all balled up as
"Anonymous user(s)". So whether 1 or 1000 anonymous users edited a
page, there's just two words, "Anonymous user(s)".

    A> Of course, the number of names is limited. We can expect that
    A> on many articles, the number of names will be over 50 or more.

Brion suggested setting an upper limit on the names, which is in place
in CVS. So, depending on a configuration variable, just the last N
editors are listed on the page.

The only reason that I group real names, user names, and anons
together is to make the text flow smoother. It's still the last N
editors, regardless of how their user login is set up.

My next step is, if there are more than N editors who've worked on a
page, to have an additional link to show _all_ the editors (without
the article text).

So the attribution would look like this:

    This article last edited 28 April 2004 by Wikipedia user Anthere.
    Based on work by Evan Prodromou and Brion Vibber, Wikipedia users
    Charlie and Diane, anonymous users of Wikipedia, and _others_.

Clicking on _others_ would give the full list of editors (but still
with all anons grouped together).

    A> I understood the gfdl "normal" requirement is to list the 5
    A> main contributors.

It is, in fact, quite difficult to figure out who the "main"
contributors are for a wiki page. Is it the ones who contributed the
most text, or the ones who provided the key points? What about those
who refactor and rearrange an article, but don't leave any text?

    A> This said, if we can't report reality, why would we report a
    A> group of contributors more than another ? If a pseudonyme wrote
    A> 95% of an article, and 5% officially real names corrected
    A> typos, is that really correct to indicate these 5 real names
    A> and not the pseudonyme ?

Of course not. The N contributors are listed in reverse chronological
order. The steps are:

       1. Get the last N contributors (where all anons count as one
          contributor).
       2. Print them out in order by real name, user name, then
          anonymous.

    A> From a community view point, that is setting a case
    A> which I am not sure is really positive.  It think that it would
    A> be more correct to make random choice among pseudo or real
    A> names, or to choose among the last ones.

The last thing I want to do is discredit pseudonymous or anonymous
editors. The only reason they're separated out is to make the
attribution text more readable; otherwise, it'd look like:

    This article last edited 28 April 2004 by Wikipedia user Anthere.
    Based on work by Evan Prodromou, Wikipedia user Charlie, an
    anonymous user, Brion Vibber, Wikipedia user Diane, and _others_.

...which seems kinda wordy.

I'd be willing to work on this a bit to make GFDL conformance easier,
if it was desired.

~ESP

* One to get the last editor's real name, one to get the list of N
  contributors, and one to get the count of all anonymous
  contributors.

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


body:
>>>>> "BV" == Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> writes:

    Me> Why the heck would a request for text/css return wiki markup?
    Me> That seems really broken.

    BV> Because you put CSS in that wiki page.

Blech. Well, is this going to be enabled by default? Can you disable
it?

~ESP

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] The bug is out there...

body:
Several weeks ago, I reported what I thought to be
some sort of bug. At that time, it involved the
Wikipedia:Orphaned articles page becoming
"duplicated", meaning that the text of the page
appeared two and a fraction times.

I heard talk of this sort of thing happening
elsewhere, and now it has happened on Village pump.

In both cases (Orphaned articles and Village pump),
there were three very quick edits by one user --
apparently repeated clicking of the submit button?

Please take a look at the three edits to Village Pump
by User:Calmypal at 19:35, 29 Apr 2004.

It appears that the first one happened normally. The
second one replaced the page with a partial copy of
the page. The third one seemed to have a partial page
followed by a full page.

Note also that the first and third edit summaries
include the "M" for a minor edit, and a header in the
summary. The middle one had no "M" and no summary.

So, the user pressed submit, which worked but the user
didn't see the results. The user pressed submit a
second time, and then a third time sometime in the
middle of the second's processing, interrupting the
second and appending the third. Does that somehow make
sense?

Is it somehow possible that the edit conflict
resolution gets confused when it has a conflict
between the same user (if you know what I mean)?

I know that all the information is preserved in the
history, but fixing it, especially on a heavy use page
like Village pump, is a real pain in the butt.

Just out of curiosity, if I have two open edit
sessions of the same page, and press submit on both in
very short succession, what happens?

-Rich Holton

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Graph drawing plugin

body:
On Apr 29, 2004, at 16:32, Timwi wrote:
> Jakob wrote:
>> We could easily use the DOT-syntax and
>> [http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/ graphviz] to create
>> PNG-images or SVG. It's damn powerful and not that complicated!
>
> I really really hate graphviz. It rarely if ever produces any usable
> output. The graph is *always* either far too big, or the nodes are too
> small to read.

I've never used it before, but the sample graphs on the above-linked
website are mostly illegible.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikitech-l] The bug is out there...

body:
On Apr 29, 2004, at 16:34, Rich Holton wrote:
> Is it somehow possible that the edit conflict
> resolution gets confused when it has a conflict
> between the same user (if you know what I mean)?

There is explicitly no edit conflict resolution between submissions by
the same user.

> Just out of curiosity, if I have two open edit
> sessions of the same page, and press submit on both in
> very short succession, what happens?

They'll both save, unless something Terrible happens.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)