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

references:
<71cd4dd90701140534l1a963b66ua0b41d4b8ccc15b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<9rdkq2p0cojb39nffar0sjg920p85i8017@4ax.com>
	<45AA3CBD.50805@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<l9hkq2t5oiahd5pl0b5q546o2otre0dekc@4ax.com>
	<45AA46B9.4020000@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<qb4lq2p661e37tnqo3cj0ea8mjh6vv2245@4ax.com>
	<45AADD4C.80209@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<32enq2dkj890968ti5tvap0ho9qejv88nn@4ax.com>

body:
On 1/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:47:56 -0500, Jeff Raymond
> <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm with you.  But process AND policy and whatever else don't let you
> >just junk an article based on sourcing alone, as sourcing could be
> >found.  Part of that five day thing, etc.
>
> It all comes back to the firehose of crap.  Mistakes get made in both
> directions, but this article was never deleted anyway.
>
This thread was never supposed to be about that article.  I brought it
up as an example, because you asked for one, but my purpose was to see
if there was some sort of consensus as to the meaning of CSD A7.
Apparently, there really isn't.  At least one person said that
software categorically does not fall under A7, someone said it can,
but only if the article is "blatantly non-notable", and others seemed
to suggest that any article which doesn't claim to have two
respectable independent published sources is a CSD under A7.

This particular article wound up staying, at least for now, most
likely in part because I spent the 41 minutes I spent making sure that
it didn't qualify under even the harshest of interpretations of A7.
But it's still not clear whether or not that was necessary.

Anthony


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Exposure of magic on Wikipedia

body:
And while they're probably not exact copies of the method used in the book
or manual provided with the effect. The summary written in the article is in
such detail that it may constitute a copyright violation of the manual the
same way excessively long plot summaries are. (see for example the template
atop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_%28season_3%29 )

Mgm

On 1/15/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But it's still making material freely available that should be paid for to
> start with.
>
> On 1/15/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In a previous discussion it was determined that most magic tricks
> > aren't
> > > patented (for fear of revealing the method) or copyrighted (only the
> > way
> > > it's written down in a book or recorded on a DVD or video is
> > copyrighted).
> > > However, isn't exposure of commercially available effects considered
> > > [[piracy]] then?
> >
> > I don't see how. It's possible that stealing someone else's trick for
> > your magic show might be piracy, but describing a trick in an
> > encyclopedia article shouldn't be. We're not reproducing the trick,
> > just describing it.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>


list: foundation-l

from_name: rfrangi at libero.it

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

body:
> The argument that "NC" is the freest that you can get makes no
> difference really. It puts a restriction to the distribution to our
> content. Distribution of our content is what we aim to do.

Outside USA fair use images put a restriction to the distribution of our content! Is it so hard to understand?

Roberto (Snowdog)

------------------------------------------------------
Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom
http://click.libero.it/infostrada15gen07


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Rocky7 Peter

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

body:
Frankly speaking, "Main Page" sounds very foolish.

Apparently "Today's Top Page" or "Today's Page" is better than "Main Page".

"Main Page" is, therefore, very harmful to the reliability of all admins
(except Mgm and someone) and all Wikimedia Projects.

So, I think, "Change it, however difficult, as soon as you can".

Sincerly

Peter Rocky7

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:53:51 -0500, Pilotguy <pilotguy.wikipedia at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>Indeed. Keep it the way it is now. There's no harm being done anyway.
>
>On 1/15/07, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, we can always create these articles as [[Main Page (book)]],
> > [[Main Page (film)]] and so on. It really is a non-issue - there's no
> > definite reason to move our Main Page.
> >
> > Jm2p...
> >
> > On 1/15/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It might be just me, but I don't think a movie or book titled "Main
> > Page"
> > > would actually get sold to a editor or studio representative. Titles
are
> > key
> > > to drawing in an audience, and when someone came to me with that as a
> > title,
> > > I'd ask them to change it.
> > >
> > > Mgm
> > >
> > >
> > > On 1/14/07, PeruvianLlama <peruvianllama at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Luna wrote:
> > > > > 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...?
> > > > >
> > > > The idea would be that such a redirect would be temporary. The
problem
> > > > of having Main_Page in the namespace wouldn't be solved overnight,
or
> > > > even in a matter of days. But at least it would be solved a year
(or 6
> > > > months, or whatever) down the road. That's a long time, but like I
> > said,
> > > > I haven't seen anyone claiming that this is really any kind of an
> > > > immediate worry. It's just a good idea for the sake of long-term
> > > > consistency.
> > > >
> > > > If we wait until the movie/book/etc. called "Main Page" is made and
> > > > suddenly wants to be in that article page, then we no longer have
the
> > > > luxury of doing things at a reasonable pace. Then it really will be
a
> > > > big issue to update all of our internal links, and to hope that
> > external
> > > > links update quickly enough. If we're proactive about this, we
might
> > be
> > > > saving ourselves a headache. At worst, like I said, we're at least
> > being
> > > > consistent.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> > > > > And it still doesn't open up the page for any potential films,
books
> > or
> > > > > articles on anything else, because leaving a redirect is what we
> > need to
> > > > not
> > > > > kill incoming links from outside of Wikipedia.
> > > > > Mgm
> > > > Not immediately no, but it opens up the possibility of doing so in
the
> > > > future. After a year we can drop the redirect, since most/all of
the
> > > > external links will have updated. Those that haven't, well, a
broken
> > > > link or three isn't going to bring either Wikipedia or the internet
at
> > > > large to its knees. The reason I posted this idea was because the
main
> > > > three objections to moving appeared to be:
> > > > 1) It will be too big a strain on the servers to move such a big
page
> > > > 2) It will be too much of a hassle to update internal links
> > > > 3) It will be too much of a hassle to update external links
> > > >
> > > > I think that if it came to it, we could enlist the help of devs or
> > other
> > > > technical wizardry to eliminate the hurdles of objection #1.
Objection
> > > > #2 has already been rebutted. I was taking aim at objection #3.
> > > >
> > > > There isn't any wildly important reason to move Main_Page somewhere
> > > > else, and I say again, it certainly isn't a terribly time-sensitive
> > > > issue. But on the other hand, there don't seem to be any wildly
> > > > important reasons to _not_ move Main_Page, other than things being
too
> > > > much of a hassle.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > - PeruvianLlama
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
>--
>Pilotguy
>pilotguy.wikipedia at gmail.com
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pilotguy
>
>http://pilotguy.wordpress.com
>_______________________________________________
>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

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail ????????MSN ????????? http://jp.msn.com/


from_name: Ray Saintonge

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

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>It might be just me, but I don't think a movie or book titled "Main Page"
>would actually get sold to a editor or studio representative. Titles are key
>to drawing in an audience, and when someone came to me with that as a title,
>I'd ask them to change it.
>
It is just you.  There have been very famous bands called "The Who", and
"The Band".  There have been both a movie and a song called "The
Thing".  "Main" has already appeared in numerous movie titles like "Main
Street" and "Main Event", and even more often as a word in another
language.  "Page" has a higher proportion of English names in movies.
There's "Front Page", "Page 3", "Home Page", "Last Page", "Runt Page",
"Back Page", "Blank Page", "Blotted Page", "Page Me", "Paging Page Two",
"Picture Page", "Page Turners",  "Entertainment Page", and of course
"Betty Page: Bondage Queen" and many others.

Changing the title is one option.  An effective marketting campaign is
another. :-)

Ec


from_name: Christopher Thieme

subject: [WikiEN-l] spoiler warnings

body:
Can we get rid of spoiler warnings for plots in novels, movies, etc.?

I doubt anyone cares (and doubt that they don't know) that King Kong falls
off the Empire State Building, or that Darth Vader is Luke's father.

Another reason...the infinitely wiser Germans have sensibly gotten rid of
them and for good reasons.

Regards,
Christopher D. Thieme


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 15/01/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> Excessively long plot summaries of films and books can constitute a
> copyright violation because while they're not an exact copy, they damage
> intellectual rights of the copyrighted material.

per case law.

> Can't the same apply to
> summarizing a magic trick manual to the point while the text is not a copy
> it still violates the copyright of the text?

Case law please? It sounds a bit of a stretch and in the class of
things where it would be ridiculous for us to attempt to assuage the
sense of entitlement you allege for magicians.

- d.


body:
On 15/01/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> Case law please? It sounds a bit of a stretch and in the class of
> things where it would be ridiculous for us to attempt to assuage the
> sense of entitlement you allege for magicians.

I probably mean "imply" rather than "allege".

- d.


from_name: teun spaans

body:
ND=No Derivatives. (and not: no deviations)

This means no derivative is allowed. For example, you can not combine
the image with another.

Most press photos are ND: they can be freely distributed, but not
altered. What you suggest is to accept a large category of images
which can be used as the illustration of an article, and which
seemingly can be distributed freely, but for which the copyright
holder keep the claim to full copyright, and which can not be
combined, modified at the borders to suit to a particular layout,
where it is not allowed to take a cut of it and use that, and so on.
Freedom will be much more restricted than you at first imagine.

teun

On 1/15/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> "Fair use" is a construct that exists under the US-American law. It does
> not exist in exactly the same way under another law. In the Netherlands
> for instance there is the more restrictive "citaatrecht". When you
> compare "fair use" with "non commercial", you are comparing two things
> things that cannot be compared as they are so different.
>
> The argument that "NC" is the freest that you can get makes no
> difference really. It puts a restriction to the distribution to our
> content. Distribution of our content is what we aim to do.
>
> To me the argument would be different for "ND" or no deviations. This is
> a restriction that does not prevent distribution of our content. The
> purists will argue that it restricts what you can do with it. That is
> true, however what they ignore is that there is content where it is not
> possible to have it made to us available. Trademarked logos for instance
> cannot be made available under anything but a ND restriction and
> probably some other restrictions as well, doing otherwise would destroy
> the rights of the trademark holder. At this moment logos are published
> under "fair use" or something like this.
>
> Personally I do think that the dogmatic way in which this issue is
> ignored is ridiculous. I know of several organisations including the WMF
> itself that would be helped with a license that would recognise this and
> that would be acceptable on Commons.
>
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
>
> Marco Chiesa schreef:
> > David Strauss wrote:
> >
> >
> >> While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's
> >> content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we
> >> allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.
> >>
> >> Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute*
> >> for fair-use media?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > To be honest, I agree only to a certain point. Fair use means using a
> > copyrighted media without asking the permission to the owner, with the
> > justification that there's not much else you can do. Now, what is the
> > problem if, in order to illustrate the same thing, you use a NC media
> > because that's the freest you can get. You're using a NC material that
> > you think it qualifies as fair use. You put a fair use tag, I put a NC
> > tag because fair use is helpless to me.
> >
> > I agree that if you can have a free media for something, then you
> > shouldn't use a non-free one. And I can understand the idea that if  you
> > need to illustrate something for which no free media is available, you
> > may consider using a non-free one using a fair use justification. What
> > is the problem if THAT media for which you claim fair use has a licence
> > which is not free enough (i.e. a NC tag)?
> >
> > Marco
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
Excessively long plot summaries of films and books can constitute a
copyright violation because while they're not an exact copy, they damage
intellectual rights of the copyrighted material. Can't the same apply to
summarizing a magic trick manual to the point while the text is not a copy
it still violates the copyright of the text?

Mgm

On 1/15/07, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > However, isn't exposure of commercially available effects considered
> > [[piracy]] then?
>
> and
>
> > But it's still making material freely available that should be paid for
> to
> > start with.
>
> What did you mean by "should"? Making information freely available is part
> of
> why Wikipedia exists and why Wikipedia is a good thing. Sharing
> information is
> not normally termed "piracy" when it does not transgress IP law.[1]
>
> As far as I'm aware, the only general argument against exposure on
> Wikipedia is
> an ethical one (presuming we otherwise have reliable sources, don't copy
> and
> paste text etc.) But Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of
> magicians.
>
> -- Matt
>
> [1] And you might not wish to term it "piracy" even when it does
> transgress IP
> law, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy
>
> Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
> Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Inbox full of unwanted email? Get leading protection and 1GB storage with
> All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


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

body:
PeruvianLlama wrote:

>The reason I posted this idea was because the main
>three objections to moving appeared to be:
>1) It will be too big a strain on the servers to move such a big page
>2) It will be too much of a hassle to update internal links
>3) It will be too much of a hassle to update external links
>
>I think that if it came to it, we could enlist the help of devs or other
>technical wizardry to eliminate the hurdles of objection #1. Objection
>#2 has already been rebutted. I was taking aim at objection #3.
>
Your response opens up
4) It will be too big a strain on the devs to develop the technical
wizardry; they may already have higher priority tasks.

>There isn't any wildly important reason to move Main_Page somewhere
>else
>
That's the stronges argument you give.

Ec


body:
and that's only one of the reasons why fair use should be abolished....

On 1/15/07, rfrangi at libero.it <rfrangi at libero.it> wrote:
> > The argument that "NC" is the freest that you can get makes no
> > difference really. It puts a restriction to the distribution to our
> > content. Distribution of our content is what we aim to do.
>
> Outside USA fair use images put a restriction to the distribution of our content! Is it so hard to understand?
>
> Roberto (Snowdog)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom
> http://click.libero.it/infostrada15gen07
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Steve Block

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

body:
K P wrote:
> 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."

It's a shame we don't have as many people manning the firehose of
salvage as we do manning the firehose of crap.  I'm with Jeff and Eugene
on this one in spirit.  Let's not colour this as a process dispute
please, because it isn't.  It's about the best ways to fix articles,
either through deletion or sourcing.  These articles should go through
afd, and it's not a notability csd, it's an importance one.  Nobody
should be speedy deleting because an article fails any notability
guideline, that's not and never has been policy.  The policy is to
speedy delete articles on a certain topic which fail to assert and claim
of importance or significance.  I usually interpret that as being a
credible one, since otherwise we can't technically speedy articles on
Gary Barnes who is the biggest gay in the world, and in actuality, I
don't believe much harm comes to Wikipedia through stretching csd
criteria, because I believe most of our admins act in good faith and
will restore an article if a strong case is made.  I have openly stated,
and will openly restate, anyone who can write a sourced article on a
deleted subject, I will quite happily restore the deleted article and
merge histories.  I admit there will be quibbling over the sources, I'm
not keen to see article built only on primary sources, but I'm happy to
use afd in such instances.

Steve block

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.12/628 - Release Date: 15/01/07 11:04


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Domas Mituzas

subject: [Wikitech-l] Falcon

body:
Hi!

Interesting, if what you say is true. I assumed that limits and indexes were
> done by the primary mysql engine, not at the data container level.

Container provides different access methods to the data in it, so you can
have different kinds of indexes, access methods, optimizations inside.

Say if container can allow efficient returning of ordered rows based on
index (like InnoDB does), MySQL doesn't have to do sorting afterwards.
Falcon, on the other hand, in some cases may provide better performance for
unordered rows, but the way it reads data does not make covering index
reads, or ordered index reads possible.

 This
> would leave the DB primarily as an index.

This is what we use core DBs now for. Though articles are stored in external
instances, it is still MySQL (it is easier to handle replication that way
;-)

> Something that occured to me that might be a good idea (TM) is to link up
> to
> subversion for the file repositories. This would have big space benefits,
> as
> only deltas would be stored, and give a more powerful view to the data.

Delta storage isn't that much different in terms of efficiency than
compressing concatenated text. Moreover, the "view to the data" wouldn't be
extended that much - we still have own version of wiki diffing, which is
somewhat different from binary deltas.

With replication added (it is trivial of course in the kind of operations
we're doing now), it may be more difficult to maintain Subversion-based
repository (or some other kind of versioning system). Of course, it is
possible.

Link
> this up with file based articles and you have the potential to
> (relatively)
> easily produce a standalone wiki engine that could work remotely, much as
> devs do. I guess the benefits for the wikipedia is slight, so it probably
> wouldn't happen in MW...

MediaWiki isn't just storing articles. It is storing lots of information
about relations between articles, tracking actions, changes, various
metadata, etc.

I guess there're wiki engines with subversion storage, but.. we don't hear
too much about them.

-- Domas
http://dammit.lt/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Incivility, re: psychosis

body:
I just got admonished by "Mark" for being "uncivil" on this list with regard
to a comment I made in my initial message on "Moving the Main Page."

I don't think I was.  At least, from how I read the strict construction of
the policy, I didn't say anything ruled to be incivility by the dictates
of WP:CIVIL.

And going back to my post on what psychosis might be hidden in some of
users, I forgot one of the biggest problems underneath the surface of
Wikipedia...

We have too many humorless people.

Humorless people who enforce WP:CIVIL thinking that something benign
and rhetorical and not even mentioned in WP:CIVIL is "incivility."

And those who don't realize that it's incivility to admonish others
for acting with "incivility."

Here's probably the only circumstance where I'll state that WP:DICK
and WP:FUCK are not a cop-out.

Regards,
Christopher D. Thieme

P.S. I know I'm not alone in saying that I have considered leaving Wikipedia
on several occasions not because of incivility or personal attacks, but
because there are people who can't and refuse to take an obvious joke.  The
humorless people will ruin Wikipedia before those who aren't prim, proper
and civil.


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Is this valid on an userpage? is this other on
	articles?

body:
On 1/15/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Bryan Derksen wrote:
>
> >Pedro Sanchez wrote:
> >
> >
> >>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mondrian_CompRYB.jpg
> >>is it fair use?
> >>
> >>
> >Fair use depends on what specific use it is being put to, so there's no
> >one universal "yes" or "no" answer.
> >
> This is exactly why fair use presents us with such difficulties.  There
> are many instances where uses that would likely be recognized as fair
> use by the courts, are not acceptable as fair use in Wikipedia.  This is
> a matter risk tolerance, and how much of a safety margin some of us feel
> comfortable with.  Naturally, that varies with the individual.
>
> >>it's used on a bazillion userpages
> >>
> >>
> >Fair use of images on user pages is never permitted, in accordance with
> >item number 9 at
> >[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy]. This image
> >appears to be so widespread in userspace because it was in a userbox at
> >[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:1ne/Userboxes/User_abstractions] so
> >I've removed it from there.
> >
> They are never permitted on the English Wikipedia.  The rule could be
> different in the Portuguese Wikipedia.

Well, not on portuguese.. since pt doesnt' have local uploads and
commonswon't take "fair use", so not in that case

>
> >>how about using them in galleries?
> >>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abstract_art&diff=100274330&oldid=99549887
> >>
> >>
> >To be valid fair use the article should be about that specific image in
> >some significant way. If there was a paragraph or section of the article
> >addressing it, perhaps - though in that case it would make more sense to
> >have the image presented individually in that paragraph or section. I'd
> >say it's best to assume not when the case is in doubt.
> >
> This, of course, reflects the English Wikipedia subset of fair use rules.
>
> >Some editors are hypersensitive about this sort of thing. I still can't
> >figure out why the original image of the O RLY? owl isn't fair use in
> >the article [[O RLY?]], but endless battle isn't worth it.
> >
> This photo may be in the public domain by abandonment.  This would
> happen when an otherwise copyright item has been widely re-distributed
> for a long time, and the copyright owner does nothing about it.  This
> photo was taken by a professional wildlife photographer who should have
> a basic understanding of the rules.  He uploaded the photo himself.  Is
> there any record of his complaining about its general use?
>
> This is an argument that I would use with extreme caution.  I would
> define "long time" in this to be at least three years, that being the
> U.S. statutory limitation period for launching copyright infringement
> complaints in the courts.
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Use binary to represent varchar rather than UTF8

references:
<b66ddc900701090914k309b6844r9dc0fe7ce0bcef61@mail.gmail.com>
	<eo0nsu$c90$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<b66ddc900701091847p1cd536a4pdffd6fe51ca34c5c@mail.gmail.com>
	<45A4A414.4060203@pobox.com> <eoh0hg$9d7$1@sea.gmane.org>

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

Edward Z. Yang wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>> If MySQL supported UTF-8, we'd be happy to make use of it. Using proper
>> character sets gives us warm, fuzzy feelings and makes it easier to work
>> in terminals and other direct-database tools, as well as potentially
>> making it easier to use built-in database support for case-insensitive
>> lookups and proper sorting. [snip]
>
> On a related tack, why isn't MediaWiki using MySQL 5 yet? (I remember
> there was a very good reason, but I can't find it now)

1) The biggest reason we'd want to upgrade would be to make use of
native unicode support, but it doesn't work ;)

There are a few other niceties in 5, but not a lot of incentive to
upgrade considering that...

2) To upgrade cleanly without using the (broken) unicode support, we'll
want to finish working out and testing a proper binary schema and a
migration to it.

The good news is that we've more or less got the hang of doing clean
schema upgrades using replication and switching masters around. So once
we get the schema details worked out, we *should* be able to do the
upgrade with minimal downtime.

In theory. :)

- -- 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

iD8DBQFFrA/PwRnhpk1wk44RAnBFAKCloQv6n8PvHebk3vbnhd5gJKnBVgCg0drL
x56ggVGtQA49T0GvFST0s2M=
=iDVS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Hoi,
Yes indeed, no derivatives. My intention is to allow logos of
organisations.

What I suggest is not necessarily to accept ND photos, but maybe also
accept ND photos. The point of ND is that it does not allow to change
material in such a way that they do not accurately reflect what was
originally there. When for editorial reasons a picture is changed,
typically there does not need to be a problem. One reason why I would
insist on ND is to prevent the barbarism of people changing the colours
in art.

Any way, for me this is a different discussion. Consequently, the
criticism does not necessarily apply.

Thanks,
    GerardM

teun spaans schreef:
> ND=No Derivatives. (and not: no deviations)
>
> This means no derivative is allowed. For example, you can not combine
> the image with another.
>
> Most press photos are ND: they can be freely distributed, but not
> altered. What you suggest is to accept a large category of images
> which can be used as the illustration of an article, and which
> seemingly can be distributed freely, but for which the copyright
> holder keep the claim to full copyright, and which can not be
> combined, modified at the borders to suit to a particular layout,
> where it is not allowed to take a cut of it and use that, and so on.
> Freedom will be much more restricted than you at first imagine.
>
> teun
>
> On 1/15/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> "Fair use" is a construct that exists under the US-American law. It does
>> not exist in exactly the same way under another law. In the Netherlands
>> for instance there is the more restrictive "citaatrecht". When you
>> compare "fair use" with "non commercial", you are comparing two things
>> things that cannot be compared as they are so different.
>>
>> The argument that "NC" is the freest that you can get makes no
>> difference really. It puts a restriction to the distribution to our
>> content. Distribution of our content is what we aim to do.
>>
>> To me the argument would be different for "ND" or no deviations. This is
>> a restriction that does not prevent distribution of our content. The
>> purists will argue that it restricts what you can do with it. That is
>> true, however what they ignore is that there is content where it is not
>> possible to have it made to us available. Trademarked logos for instance
>> cannot be made available under anything but a ND restriction and
>> probably some other restrictions as well, doing otherwise would destroy
>> the rights of the trademark holder. At this moment logos are published
>> under "fair use" or something like this.
>>
>> Personally I do think that the dogmatic way in which this issue is
>> ignored is ridiculous. I know of several organisations including the WMF
>> itself that would be helped with a license that would recognise this and
>> that would be acceptable on Commons.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>      GerardM
>>
>>
>> Marco Chiesa schreef:
>>
>>> David Strauss wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's
>>>> content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we
>>>> allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.
>>>>
>>>> Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute*
>>>> for fair-use media?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> To be honest, I agree only to a certain point. Fair use means using a
>>> copyrighted media without asking the permission to the owner, with the
>>> justification that there's not much else you can do. Now, what is the
>>> problem if, in order to illustrate the same thing, you use a NC media
>>> because that's the freest you can get. You're using a NC material that
>>> you think it qualifies as fair use. You put a fair use tag, I put a NC
>>> tag because fair use is helpless to me.
>>>
>>> I agree that if you can have a free media for something, then you
>>> shouldn't use a non-free one. And I can understand the idea that if  you
>>> need to illustrate something for which no free media is available, you
>>> may consider using a non-free one using a fair use justification. What
>>> is the problem if THAT media for which you claim fair use has a licence
>>> which is not free enough (i.e. a NC tag)?
>>>
>>> Marco


subject: [Foundation-l] NEH grant

body:
Hoi,
I do not know if OmegaWiki has already registered on your radar screen
for this. What it allows you to do is to include attributes to in
essence relational records. It means that if you have coordinates or
other attributes, they could go with cities, rivers, countries etc. The
translations of many of the subject is something that comes with the
package .. :)

The advantage of using OmegaWiki is that you only need to define the
information once and it can be available for any project. This is
already demonstrated; you can have a look at the same data and change
the user interface and see much of the data in the other language.

Thanks,
    GerardM

Aude schreef:
> Getting wiki to be able to handle geographic areas/features would begin to
> make mapping Wikipedia content more useful and increase the potential for
> integrating it with other geographic information - such as old historic maps
> and materials held by map libraries, government data, and gps data .  The
> historic maps would be available in a more accessible form for the public,
> and allow us to perhaps use certain historic maps from one map library,
> others from other archives/libraries, and combined with other geographic
> information and wikicontent.  People could find material more easily to use
> for articles.
>
> We could possibly develop a "map generator" that adds value, extract, and
> synthesizes information from the historic maps and other data.  People could
> make maps and use them with articles, and/or add "atlas" type pages
> somewhere (on commons, on wikipedia, somewhere) to augment articles, and the
> wiki format would allow people to add descriptive information and
> collaborate.  That, in turn, would allow us to develop "atlas" type material
> about particular places.
>
> Maybe as a pilot project effort, we could (1) pick one or two places (2) see
> what historic maps and other material would be useful for that place, and
> find basic base map data (3) develop a way for mediawiki to handle
> area/polygon geospatial data (gml files?) (4) make a set of historic maps
> for those particular places more available as an article supplement (5) make
> some thematic maps for the place, using information derived from the
> historic maps and other sources.
>
> Another thing the libraries likely have is historic census data, which can
> often be mapped out in thematic maps.  So, not just their map holdings but
> other records and material they have could be useful.  I think that Penn
> State would be willing to work with us - I know folks there and they have
> done innovative things with GIS.
>
> The benefit to the library/archive would be that their materials are
> available to the public in a more accessible way.  Wikipedia tends to
> "summarize" things, and as always there would be links to the references and
> sources used for people that want more details beyond our summaries.
>
> -Aude
>
> On 1/13/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Aude, I will look a bit at your GIS links, but remember that they
>> specifically won't fund projects that are only digitising existing
>> collections. Quote: "We encourage projects that explore new ways to
>> share, examine, and interpret humanities collections in a digital
>> environment and to develop new uses and audiences for existing digital
>> resources." Hm... actually some kind of GIS project might work well,
>> especially if it making them more accessible. OK, two things to think
>> about: What will the benefit to a potential partner be? Anything
>> besides a credit acknowledgement? Secondly how would such a project
>> exploit the benefits of using a wiki? Or would it not at all?
>>
>> cheers,
>> Brianna
>>
>> On 13/01/07, Aude <audevivere at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> One of the greatest shortcomings I see with Wikipedia and Wikimedia
>>>
>> projects
>>
>>> is with our use of maps and geospatial data.  I have seen ideas here and
>>> there on this mailing list and other places, but it's a big issue to
>>>
>> work
>>
>>> through.


subject: [Foundation-l] NEH grant


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Reliability" and "usefulness"

body:
"Daniel P. B. Smith" wrote

> The "law of recycling" states that the value per pound of a mixture
> of recycled material is equal to the value per pound of the least
> valuable material in the mixture. To at least a first approximation,
> the value of Wikipedia is set by the value of the least accurate
> material in Wikipedia.

Really? That might mean the value oscillates wildly, or on the other hand is steady at zero. Some problem with this: in fact the value has gradually increased, month-on-month. Naturally "value" here hides some issues. Pragmatically speaking, the criterion doesn't work, for reference material.

Charles

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


body:
You intention of allowing logos is one, but the means you suggest open
a far wider array of possibilities.

And what you suggest about editorial reasons is not covered by the license text:
""Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work
and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical
arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version,
sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted,
except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be
considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License"

So an assembly with some other works is allowed (contrary what i
assumed in my previous post), but adaptions for editorial reasons are
not.

So I do keep my reservations on your suggestion.

kind regards,
teun

On 1/15/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> Yes indeed, no derivatives. My intention is to allow logos of
> organisations.
>
> What I suggest is not necessarily to accept ND photos, but maybe also
> accept ND photos. The point of ND is that it does not allow to change
> material in such a way that they do not accurately reflect what was
> originally there. When for editorial reasons a picture is changed,
> typically there does not need to be a problem. One reason why I would
> insist on ND is to prevent the barbarism of people changing the colours
> in art.
>
> Any way, for me this is a different discussion. Consequently, the
> criticism does not necessarily apply.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> teun spaans schreef:
> > ND=No Derivatives. (and not: no deviations)
> >
> > This means no derivative is allowed. For example, you can not combine
> > the image with another.
> >
> > Most press photos are ND: they can be freely distributed, but not
> > altered. What you suggest is to accept a large category of images
> > which can be used as the illustration of an article, and which
> > seemingly can be distributed freely, but for which the copyright
> > holder keep the claim to full copyright, and which can not be
> > combined, modified at the borders to suit to a particular layout,
> > where it is not allowed to take a cut of it and use that, and so on.
> > Freedom will be much more restricted than you at first imagine.
> >
> > teun
> >
> > On 1/15/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hoi,
> >> "Fair use" is a construct that exists under the US-American law. It does
> >> not exist in exactly the same way under another law. In the Netherlands
> >> for instance there is the more restrictive "citaatrecht". When you
> >> compare "fair use" with "non commercial", you are comparing two things
> >> things that cannot be compared as they are so different.
> >>
> >> The argument that "NC" is the freest that you can get makes no
> >> difference really. It puts a restriction to the distribution to our
> >> content. Distribution of our content is what we aim to do.
> >>
> >> To me the argument would be different for "ND" or no deviations. This is
> >> a restriction that does not prevent distribution of our content. The
> >> purists will argue that it restricts what you can do with it. That is
> >> true, however what they ignore is that there is content where it is not
> >> possible to have it made to us available. Trademarked logos for instance
> >> cannot be made available under anything but a ND restriction and
> >> probably some other restrictions as well, doing otherwise would destroy
> >> the rights of the trademark holder. At this moment logos are published
> >> under "fair use" or something like this.
> >>
> >> Personally I do think that the dogmatic way in which this issue is
> >> ignored is ridiculous. I know of several organisations including the WMF
> >> itself that would be helped with a license that would recognise this and
> >> that would be acceptable on Commons.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>      GerardM
> >>
> >>
> >> Marco Chiesa schreef:
> >>
> >>> David Strauss wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's
> >>>> content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we
> >>>> allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute*
> >>>> for fair-use media?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> To be honest, I agree only to a certain point. Fair use means using a
> >>> copyrighted media without asking the permission to the owner, with the
> >>> justification that there's not much else you can do. Now, what is the
> >>> problem if, in order to illustrate the same thing, you use a NC media
> >>> because that's the freest you can get. You're using a NC material that
> >>> you think it qualifies as fair use. You put a fair use tag, I put a NC
> >>> tag because fair use is helpless to me.
> >>>
> >>> I agree that if you can have a free media for something, then you
> >>> shouldn't use a non-free one. And I can understand the idea that if  you
> >>> need to illustrate something for which no free media is available, you
> >>> may consider using a non-free one using a fair use justification. What
> >>> is the problem if THAT media for which you claim fair use has a licence
> >>> which is not free enough (i.e. a NC tag)?
> >>>
> >>> Marco
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: geni

body:
On 1/15/07, Nina Stratton <ninaeliza at gmail.com> wrote:
> People don't pay for the "magic" per se, they pay for the showmanship. In my
> opinion, revealing the mechanics of a magic act in no way detracts from that
> particular act's commercial viability. Struggling magicians, on the other
> hand, might be of another opinion.
>

You forget that there have been people who make their living comeing
up with new tricks. You've also got the problem of the poor guy
faceing a bunck of kids who know how the trick is done (kids are hard
enough to deal with in any case).

--
geni


from_name: Jon Harald Søby

subject: [Foundation-l] $1,000,000

body:
Congrats, everybody! The fundraiser has made it over the $1,000,000
mark! And that happened (AFAIK) on the Wikipedia Day, even! Fantastic
news! Again, congrats to all, especially those who've been involved in
the work with the fundraiser and translations, etc.

--
Best regards,
Jon Harald S?by

Website - http://www.alqualonde.com/
Wikipedia - http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Jhs
MSN messenger - jhsoby at gmail.com
Skype - jon.harald.soby


subject: [Foundation-l] $1,000,000


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
2007/1/15, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com>:
>
> While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's
> content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we
> allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.
>
> Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute*
> for fair-use media?
>

It's not a substitute, but I don't think it's worse. Fair use means that the
picture can be used by Wikipedia on a specific page in a specific way
because we don't need permission. Non-commercial means that Wikipedia can
use it, as well as anyone using Wikipedia non-commercially, however they
please because we have permission. I'm not happy with the second, but it
surely is closer to what we want than the first.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
On 1/14/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
> As to other links in print sources.  Whoever wrote up marketing materials
> with " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page " on it should be dragged into
> the street and shot, or at least fired because anyone in ad copy will tell
> you to state shorter URLs on such materials, or your target audience won't
> find it or (worse) they'll ignore it.  Heck, I type en.wikipedia.org each
> time I get to Wikipedia, but I'm not most people.  Most people don't think
> when looking at or responding to ads, written materials, etc.  Any smart
> marketing/adcopy person would have told you to get put together materials
> saying " www.wikipedia.com "
>
> Jimbo, if that's the case, fire the marketing department.

What marketing? When did wikipedia ever do marketing? Never! Marketing
has never ever been a priority in any way since page hits are fairly
irrelevant to the development of wikipedia since we're an ad-free
non-profit (well, atleast not pagehits beyond a certain point needed
to get contributors).

And by the way, are you seriously arguing that having the main page
where it is has hurt wikipedias popularity? Are you freaking kidding
me? We're in the top 10 most visited websites! Popularity is the least
of our concerns.

If you think about decisions about wikipedia in terms of marketing,
you're really not getting what wikipedia is.

--Oskar


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [WikiEN-l] spoiler warnings

body:
Christopher D. Thieme wrote:
> Can we get rid of spoiler warnings for plots in novels, movies, etc.?

In a word: no.  This comes up every six months or so.

A few people don't like them (we can ad you to the list),
but most people do.

I wonder if we should have a "frequently discussed-to-death
issues" list somewhere, with answers, (sort of like [[WP:VPE]])
so that we don't have to keep rehashing them?

(Although, I suppose the people who don't like spoilers do have
an argument in favor of bringing it up again and again -- after
all, it worked for the people who didn't like GNAA...)


from_name: Sean Barrett

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

David Gerard stated for the record:
> On 16/01/07, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> Indeed. "As a Freemason, I am honour-bound to remove these secrets
> from your pages!" "What a coincidence - as an admin, I am honour-bound
> to block you, and your eternal sockpuppets returning to make the
> precise same edit. Idiot." The hand is quicker than the eye - your
> editing access vanished! Just like that (tm).
>
>
> - d.

Ah ... Lightbringer, wasn't it?  Wasn't he the one who thought my
username meant I hated the Pope?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Our strength is as the strength of
 sean at epoptic.com | ten because there are fourteen of us.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFrByX/SVOiq2uhHMRAh2SAJ9sEpenwM29qC4oPLL5RI6iVvtEcACeL/iV
1pPYFSYmqQPx4MCEbZ6dUlE=
=YWCa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Rory Stolzenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] spoiler warnings

body:
On 1/15/07, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> Christopher D. Thieme wrote:
> > Can we get rid of spoiler warnings for plots in novels, movies, etc.?
>
> In a word: no.  This comes up every six months or so.
>
> A few people don't like them (we can ad you to the list),
> but most people do.
>
> I wonder if we should have a "frequently discussed-to-death
> issues" list somewhere, with answers, (sort of like [[WP:VPE]])
> so that we don't have to keep rehashing them?
>
> (Although, I suppose the people who don't like spoilers do have
> an argument in favor of bringing it up again and again -- after
> all, it worked for the people who didn't like GNAA...)

Those who dislike spoilers can add "#spoiler {display: none}" to their
monobook.css.


from_name: Matt R

body:
--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> You pay for the secret when you buy a magic effect.
> Revealing it on Wikipedia certainly detracts from the product's commercial
> viability.

Lots of people who sell information will no doubt find Wikipedia detracts from
their commercial viability (Britannica Online?), but that's not our concern.
Our job on Wikipedia is to document topics based on the available reliable
sources. Sorry to sound callous about it, but if that happens to negatively
impact the business of selling secrets, then tough cheese.

> Excessively long plot summaries of films and books can constitute a
> copyright violation because while they're not an exact copy, they damage
> intellectual rights of the copyrighted material. Can't the same apply to
> summarizing a magic trick manual to the point while the text is not a copy
> it still violates the copyright of the text?

Our article on [[copyright]] says:

   `Copyright law covers only the particular form or manner in which ideas or
information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not
designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or
techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work.'

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk


from_name: David Strauss

body:
Such modification does not make it free. It remains a modified work
employing fair use.

senpai wrote:
> Do u think that this kind of modification make free the fair use images ?
>
> Senpai
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 10:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Diversity and NC images - Board meet
>
>> senpai wrote:
>>
>>> No, You can't modify a "fair use" image.
>>>
>> Disagree.  U. S. rulings have allowed for parody.  You may wish to crop
>> an image to zoom into a detail that is important to your article.  You
>> may want to do an overlay to show the similarities between two people.
>> You may want to do colour separations.  I could probably find other
>> legitimate modifications.
>>
>> Modifications have more to do with moral rights than copyrights in the
>> strict sense.  That aspect of the law is not particularly developed in
>> the U. S.
>>
>> Ec
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070115/1b3193a1/attachment.pgp


body:
Such modification does not make it free. It remains a modified work
employing fair use.

senpai wrote:
> Do u think that this kind of modification make free the fair use images ?
>
> Senpai
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 10:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Diversity and NC images - Board meet
>
>> senpai wrote:
>>
>>> No, You can't modify a "fair use" image.
>>>
>> Disagree.  U. S. rulings have allowed for parody.  You may wish to crop
>> an image to zoom into a detail that is important to your article.  You
>> may want to do an overlay to show the similarities between two people.
>> You may want to do colour separations.  I could probably find other
>> legitimate modifications.
>>
>> Modifications have more to do with moral rights than copyrights in the
>> strict sense.  That aspect of the law is not particularly developed in
>> the U. S.
>>
>> Ec
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070115/1b3193a1/attachment.pgp>


body:
Such modification does not make it free. It remains a modified work
employing fair use.

senpai wrote:
> Do u think that this kind of modification make free the fair use images ?
>
> Senpai
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 10:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Diversity and NC images - Board meet
>
>> senpai wrote:
>>
>>> No, You can't modify a "fair use" image.
>>>
>> Disagree.  U. S. rulings have allowed for parody.  You may wish to crop
>> an image to zoom into a detail that is important to your article.  You
>> may want to do an overlay to show the similarities between two people.
>> You may want to do colour separations.  I could probably find other
>> legitimate modifications.
>>
>> Modifications have more to do with moral rights than copyrights in the
>> strict sense.  That aspect of the law is not particularly developed in
>> the U. S.
>>
>> Ec
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070115/1b3193a1/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 1/15/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Bryan Derksen wrote:
> >Some editors are hypersensitive about this sort of thing. I still can't
> >figure out why the original image of the O RLY? owl isn't fair use in
> >the article [[O RLY?]], but endless battle isn't worth it.
> >
The funny thing is, the O RLY? owl *is* in the article [[O RLY?]].
It's in the newspaper article clipping.


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

David Gerard stated for the record:
> On 16/01/07, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
>> David Gerard stated for the record:
>
>>> Indeed. "As a Freemason, I am honour-bound to remove these secrets
>>> from your pages!" "What a coincidence - as an admin, I am honour-bound
>>> to block you, and your eternal sockpuppets returning to make the
>>> precise same edit. Idiot." The hand is quicker than the eye - your
>>> editing access vanished! Just like that (tm).
>
>> Ah ... Lightbringer, wasn't it?  Wasn't he the one who thought my
>> username meant I hated the Pope?
>
>
> No, no. He was an *anti*-Mason. There are plenty of nutters attacking
> [[Freemasonry]] from both sides. Here's to the core of reasonably sane
> editors trying to keep it useful and readable.
>
>
> - d.

See, this is why I make such a bad cabalist.  I can never keep my
conspiracies straight.

(Of course, all good cabalists say things like that.  Claiming to
confuse conspiracies confuses the conspiracy cultists.  TINC.
Shemhamforash.  Cthulhu ftagn.  Fnord.  Yee-haw!)

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Our strength is as the strength of
 sean at epoptic.com | ten because there are fourteen of us.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFrCVm/SVOiq2uhHMRAl4OAJ4vVIM74JI4T1UQswtar/Xknr7qpQCfaqio
1XnYvHyvMqHcEPOsmQBOCP4=
=JkeR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
You pay for the secret when you buy a magic effect.
Revealing it on Wikipedia certainly detracts from the product's commercial
viability .

Mgm

On 1/15/07, Nina Stratton <ninaeliza at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> People don't pay for the "magic" per se, they pay for the showmanship. In
> my
> opinion, revealing the mechanics of a magic act in no way detracts from
> that
> particular act's commercial viability. Struggling magicians, on the other
> hand, might be of another opinion.
>
> On 1/15/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In a previous discussion it was determined that most magic tricks aren't
> > patented (for fear of revealing the method) or copyrighted (only the way
> > it's written down in a book or recorded on a DVD or video is
> copyrighted).
> > However, isn't exposure of commercially available effects considered
> > [[piracy]] then?
> >
> > Mgm
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


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

Steve Summit stated for the record:
>>> Indeed. "As a Freemason, I am honour-bound to remove these secrets
>>> from your pages!"
>> Ah ... Lightbringer, wasn't it?  Wasn't he the one who thought my
>> username meant I hated the Pope?
>
> I gather there have also been edit wars at [[Phi Gamma Delta]]
> over the use of that fraternity's greek letters.

"The fraternity's letters are, thus, considered sacred and are never to
be displayed on an object that can be easily destroyed."

I fear that any attempt by a ??? member to edit that article will cause
the universe to implode into a starkly actinic singularity of ravening
logic!

And by the way, since I wrote ??? in this e-mail message, no member of
that frat is allowed to delete it, right?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | While you are still sane I shall take your
 sean at epoptic.com | total knowledge. --Worsel of Velantia
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFrCjk/SVOiq2uhHMRAoVLAJ9pWtxgSiESOsbK66DuFDvkDol+RACcDKAz
wmUYetNpDUcPaOGEO06MWvU=
=y+De
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

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

body:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:47:56 -0500, Jeff Raymond
<jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

>I'm with you.  But process AND policy and whatever else don't let you
>just junk an article based on sourcing alone, as sourcing could be
>found.  Part of that five day thing, etc.

It all comes back to the firehose of crap.  Mistakes get made in both
directions, but this article was never deleted anyway.

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


from_name: SonOfYoungwood at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] spoiler warnings

body:
Spoiler warnings are usually implemented in a case by case basis. For
instance, the Final Fantasy WikiProject does not use them for the most part,
especially in sections labeled "plot" (it's redundant and silly). On the other
hand, other projects prefer to use them for every article, despite redundancies.
It all depends on the project, which is fine by me, since the projects I
participate in generally dislike spoiler tags, just like me :)

| Tyler | Zorin Deckiller |
| Wikipedia Administrator |  Former SWU member |
| _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deckiller_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deckiller)   |
| _http://www.myspace.com/redsectora_ (http://www.myspace.com/redsectora)   |


subject: [WikiEN-l] Rampant deletionism

body:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:13:05 -0800, "George Herbert"
<george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

>Correction, I misremembered relative sizes, there are larger ships in
>service now.  I keep mixing up "gross registered tons" and
>"displacement".

Ah, right.  So it's a speculative article about a thing that might
when it's built be what people remember the details as being, if they
remembered the details correctly.  And the name hasn't been decided.

What's the hurry?

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Rampant deletionism

body:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 23:43:42 -0800, "George Herbert"
<george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

>Carnival and the builder certainly have more detailed plans than that;
>having the passenger count and the tonnage indicate that they know
>what they're building very precisely (as an actual ship build "order"
>would imply... one doesn't order "about like this"...).

These are not independent sources.

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


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Exposure of magic on Wikipedia (MacGyverMagic/Mgm)

body:
> From: "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" <macgyvermagic at gmail.com>
>
> In a previous discussion it was determined that most magic tricks
> aren't
> patented (for fear of revealing the method) or copyrighted (only
> the way
> it's written down in a book or recorded on a DVD or video is
> copyrighted).
> However, isn't exposure of commercially available effects considered
> [[piracy]] then?

I am not a lawyer.

If they're not protected by patents or copyrights, how could it be
"piracy?" I'd have thought that if there were no patents or
copyrights, there'd be no "intellectual property" and hence nothing
to "steal."

I don't see how it can be a trade secret, either. If the trick were
kept secret from the purchaser there'd be no value to it. I suppose
it's ''possible'' to imagine selling a piece of stage magic equipment
that could be used by a performer who did not know or understand how
it worked, but that must be rare.

Finally, if exposure of magic tricks constituted "piracy" then you'd
think this would have long since been established in court, and that
the cases involved would be well-known within magicians' circles. Are
there any such cases?


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] pda extension ?

body:
> Howdy folks with weird devices:
>
> If you want this stuff to work right on your device, donate one and any
> necessary subscriptions to the Foundation and we'll test and tweak until
> we figure it out.

Within the last month, people have donated over a million dollars. If
you can't get a decent Pocket PC from that, I don't know what else you need.

Timwi


subject: [Wikitech-l] pda extension ?

body:
Plyd wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is there a project for a pda extension of mediawiki? or for small sized screens?

On your PDA, switch the Skin (in your Preferences) to "Chick".

I am disappointed that no-one else in this thread mentioned this. :(

Timwi


body:
On 1/15/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Why does Wikipedia have an obligation to support the people who make
> their living coming up with new tricks?

It doesn't. you are makeing a strawman argument. I was simply pointing
out something the intital commenter had missed. Of course depending on
how they sell their tricks wikipedia could increase thier market (if
they sell each trick to a very small number or even just one person).

--
geni


body:
--- Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> Do we have a WP: page discussing this issue?  Wikipedia's policy is
> clear, but the question still comes up periodically, and it would be
> nice to be able to point people to a concise explanation.
> If there isn't one, I may try to pull something together.

Please do. For reference, there was the historical [[Wikipedia:Proposed policy
for magic methods]].

[[King levitation]] is an article where people have fought to remove the
explanation of the effect -- "Consider the magicians' livelihoods that you are
harming by posting this unnecessary junk. It is unethical!" etc.

[[King levitation]] also completely lacks references. We might want to mention
the need for reliable sources, which is an especially important issue when it
comes to "secret" information of any kind. The issue of sourcing is related to
the exposure question, because magicians have little right to be upset when
Wikipedia is acting only as a tertiary source, pulling together information
from sources already in the public domain.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk


body:
> From: "Nina Stratton" <ninaeliza at gmail.com>
>
> People don't pay for the "magic" per se, they pay for the
> showmanship. In my
> opinion, revealing the mechanics of a magic act in no way detracts
> from that
> particular act's commercial viability. Struggling magicians, on the
> other
> hand, might be of another opinion.

Good point. This is a view from the outside, and I don't know what
really happened in the movie industry, but up to perhaps the 1970s
Hollywood tried to avoid publicizing how special effects were done,
in the mistaken idea that it would kill peoples' pleasure in watching
the film. Disney pretended his artists worked freehand when animating
Snow White and Prince Charming, without mentioning rotoscoping.

As recently as 1974, the movie "That's Entertainment" showed the
sequence from ''The Royal Wedding'' where Fred Astaire appears to
dance on the walls and ceiling with some coy statement to the effect
that "They're still arguing about how it was done." How it was done
is obvious, and I expect audience would have been quite interested in
hearing how Fred Astaire met the challenge of dancing on a set that
was rotating in a vertical plane, would probably have enjoyed seeing
pictures of the machinery, but, no, they thought that would "spoil" it.

I'm not sure just how or when that changed. I seem to recall that
Lucas published a lot of material for Star Wars fans explaining how
motion control worked; perhaps that was the breakthrough. The
magazine Cinefex, entirely devoted to exposing the technical secrets
of special effects first came out in 1980 and is still going strong.

I see no evidence at all that widespread diffusion of special effects
"secrets" has done anything but ''increase'' peoples' interest in the
films that feature them.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Meta Chr2syl Cherokee Unicode Extensions

body:
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> I need this extension:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chr2syl
>
> installed on the Cherokee Wikipedia.

Maybe you should first fix the broken HTML output. You're missing all
the semicolons after "&#5024" etc.

Timwi


from_name: Edward Z. Yang

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

Brion Vibber wrote:
> If MySQL supported UTF-8, we'd be happy to make use of it. Using proper
> character sets gives us warm, fuzzy feelings and makes it easier to work
> in terminals and other direct-database tools, as well as potentially
> making it easier to use built-in database support for case-insensitive
> lookups and proper sorting. [snip]

On a related tack, why isn't MediaWiki using MySQL 5 yet? (I remember
there was a very good reason, but I can't find it now)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFrAVuqTO+fYacSNoRAsUjAJ93w5o3rBzH1+P76Uw0QQlt2OU78wCgiQYq
wfMDBZbrp52Dz7Nz4mTOu0Q=
=4q0c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Gary Kirk

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

body:
Anyway, we can always create these articles as [[Main Page (book)]],
[[Main Page (film)]] and so on. It really is a non-issue - there's no
definite reason to move our Main Page.

Jm2p...

On 1/15/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> It might be just me, but I don't think a movie or book titled "Main Page"
> would actually get sold to a editor or studio representative. Titles are key
> to drawing in an audience, and when someone came to me with that as a title,
> I'd ask them to change it.
>
> Mgm
>
>
> On 1/14/07, PeruvianLlama <peruvianllama at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Luna wrote:
> > > 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...?
> > >
> > The idea would be that such a redirect would be temporary. The problem
> > of having Main_Page in the namespace wouldn't be solved overnight, or
> > even in a matter of days. But at least it would be solved a year (or 6
> > months, or whatever) down the road. That's a long time, but like I said,
> > I haven't seen anyone claiming that this is really any kind of an
> > immediate worry. It's just a good idea for the sake of long-term
> > consistency.
> >
> > If we wait until the movie/book/etc. called "Main Page" is made and
> > suddenly wants to be in that article page, then we no longer have the
> > luxury of doing things at a reasonable pace. Then it really will be a
> > big issue to update all of our internal links, and to hope that external
> > links update quickly enough. If we're proactive about this, we might be
> > saving ourselves a headache. At worst, like I said, we're at least being
> > consistent.
> >
> >
> > MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> > > And it still doesn't open up the page for any potential films, books or
> > > articles on anything else, because leaving a redirect is what we need to
> > not
> > > kill incoming links from outside of Wikipedia.
> > > Mgm
> > Not immediately no, but it opens up the possibility of doing so in the
> > future. After a year we can drop the redirect, since most/all of the
> > external links will have updated. Those that haven't, well, a broken
> > link or three isn't going to bring either Wikipedia or the internet at
> > large to its knees. The reason I posted this idea was because the main
> > three objections to moving appeared to be:
> > 1) It will be too big a strain on the servers to move such a big page
> > 2) It will be too much of a hassle to update internal links
> > 3) It will be too much of a hassle to update external links
> >
> > I think that if it came to it, we could enlist the help of devs or other
> > technical wizardry to eliminate the hurdles of objection #1. Objection
> > #2 has already been rebutted. I was taking aim at objection #3.
> >
> > There isn't any wildly important reason to move Main_Page somewhere
> > else, and I say again, it certainly isn't a terribly time-sensitive
> > issue. But on the other hand, there don't seem to be any wildly
> > important reasons to _not_ move Main_Page, other than things being too
> > much of a hassle.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > - PeruvianLlama
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

--
Gary Kirk


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] African maps

body:
geni wrote:
> On 1/14/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>> geni wrote:
>> IOW you support indiscriminate inclusio.
>
> Not exactly. I don't support say radom party photos. However scans of
> historic documents are worth includeing.
>

Agreed. For a better explanation, see
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope

>> The action of The Borg is
>> justifiec because it is gentler than that of The Daleks.
>>
>
> Daleks don't appear in star treck.
>

The better comparison would be between the Daleks and the Cybermen...

--
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/20070115/908b83e8/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
Gwern wrote:
> Isn't the correct paradigm here not copyright law but rather [[Trade
> secret]]s <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret>?

Actually, I think it's even closer to guild lore.

> If it is appearing on Wikipedia, it seems to me that the third party
> has manifestly discovered it; if they are complaining about it
> appearing on Wikipedia, then they are crying over spilt milk/trying to
> put the genie back into the bottle/cat into the bag, etc.

Agreed.


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rampant deletionism

body:
On 1/15/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The right time for an article is when the object reaches notability
> and is no longer a crystal-ball projection.  These ships, on order,
> with plans agreed to between the builder and Carnival, are no longer
> crystal ball projections, and are clearly big enough to be notable.

It's also nice to have enough material to constitute a reasonable
article, in the absence of which it's probably the right time for a
merge and redirect.

> If we take the flip side of this, we have large articles for the
> [[Airbus A380]] and [[Boeing 787]] jets, and the [[Airbus A350]]...

Those three things also have names, which I think is a pretty useful
detail for an article to have. Readers looking for information on this
subject are much more likely to find it if we put it at [[Carnival
Cruise Lines]] than if we put it at [[Un-Named Carnival Ship]].

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


body:
On 1/15/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> > Excessively long plot summaries of films and books can constitute a
> > copyright violation because while they're not an exact copy, they damage
> > intellectual rights of the copyrighted material.
>
> Could you back that up, please? As I understand it, this is way too
> broad an interpretation of copyright law. It's only illegal to actually
> _copy_ something that's copyrighted, not to merely do something that
> reduces its "value."
>
> > Can't the same apply to
> > summarizing a magic trick manual to the point while the text is not a
> copy
> > it still violates the copyright of the text?
>
> I don't see how. Copyright covers a specific tangible expression, not
> the underlying ideas contained within it. One can make a movie out of a
> book and then have the book be in public domain while the movie remains
> copyrighted, for example. I think the sort of IP protection you're
> thinking of is more along the lines of trade secret or patent law, which
> as far as I can tell don't apply here.

That's why I'm mentioning the instructional videos and/or manuals as the
tangible expressed bit of the magic. The written instructions to magic trick
are copyrighted - no doubt.

Mgm


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikitech-l] pda extension ?

body:
Timwi schreef:
>> Howdy folks with weird devices:
>>
>> If you want this stuff to work right on your device, donate one and any
>> necessary subscriptions to the Foundation and we'll test and tweak until
>> we figure it out.
>>
>
> Within the last month, people have donated over a million dollars. If
> you can't get a decent Pocket PC from that, I don't know what else you need.
>
> Timwi
Hoi,
This is not how budgeting work. There is a budget that requires /more
/than a million dollars. Anthere wrote in a recent mail that the WMF is
still very much in need of funding. So yes, you can pay for a decent
pocket PC when you have a million dollars available. It is not
available, the money has been earmarked for other things.
Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Eugene van der Pijll

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

body:
Gary Kirk schreef:
> Anyway, we can always create these articles as [[Main Page (book)]],
> [[Main Page (film)]] and so on. It really is a non-issue - there's no
> definite reason to move our Main Page.

No we can't. Nobody would find those articles, except if we put a dab
notice at the top of our front page. And we do not want that.

As soon as there is something that really should go at [[Main Page]] (as
a proper article), the main page will have to be moved, and the internal
links should be changed.

For those external links that link directly to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, there should be a dab notice at
the top of [[Main Page]], pointing at [[Portal:Main Page]], which is not
ideal, but acceptable.

This is all irrespective of when the page is moved. There is no real
advantage in moving it now, especially when the probability of the need
of a Main Page article is low.

Eugene


from_name: Steve Summit

body:
>> Indeed. "As a Freemason, I am honour-bound to remove these secrets
>> from your pages!"
>
> Ah ... Lightbringer, wasn't it?  Wasn't he the one who thought my
> username meant I hated the Pope?

I gather there have also been edit wars at [[Phi Gamma Delta]]
over the use of that fraternity's greek letters.


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On 1/15/07, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm stated for the record:
> > On 1/15/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> I don't see how. Copyright covers a specific tangible expression, not
> >> the underlying ideas contained within it. One can make a movie out of a
> >> book and then have the book be in public domain while the movie remains
> >> copyrighted, for example. I think the sort of IP protection you're
> >> thinking of is more along the lines of trade secret or patent law, which
> >> as far as I can tell don't apply here.
> >
> >
> > That's why I'm mentioning the instructional videos and/or manuals as the
> > tangible expressed bit of the magic. The written instructions to magic trick
> > are copyrighted - no doubt.
> >
> > Mgm
>
> And as long as we don't copy "the instructional videos and/or manuals,"
> revealing the trick is no more a violation of anything than revealing
> that Zeus gets the girl is a violation of anything.
>
> Oh, by the way: Beowulf kills Grendel.
>
The real difficulty is supplying references. There's nothing wrong
with referring to hard-copy manuals that aren't available online,
though.


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

references:
<71cd4dd90701140534l1a963b66ua0b41d4b8ccc15b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<9rdkq2p0cojb39nffar0sjg920p85i8017@4ax.com>
	<45AA3CBD.50805@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<l9hkq2t5oiahd5pl0b5q546o2otre0dekc@4ax.com>
	<45AA46B9.4020000@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<qb4lq2p661e37tnqo3cj0ea8mjh6vv2245@4ax.com>
	<45AADD4C.80209@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<32enq2dkj890968ti5tvap0ho9qejv88nn@4ax.com>
	<71cd4dd90701151116p3c1b1c0ai8bda7a6905024936@mail.gmail.com>
	<avvnq2d0hgkk5lf5mticgnhfgq5oohq3i4@4ax.com>

body:
On 1/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> This thread is now at least three orders of magnitude bigger than your
> original submission.  Does that not strike you as absurd?
>
Yes, it does.  That's one thing we can agree on.

Anthony


from_name: phoebe ayers

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moving the Main Page

body:
On 1/15/07, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/14/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
> > As to other links in print sources.  Whoever wrote up marketing
> materials
> > with " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page " on it should be dragged
> into
> > the street and shot, or at least fired because anyone in ad copy will
> tell
> > you to state shorter URLs on such materials, or your target audience
> won't
> > find it or (worse) they'll ignore it.  Heck, I type en.wikipedia.orgeach
> > time I get to Wikipedia, but I'm not most people.  Most people don't
> think
> > when looking at or responding to ads, written materials, etc.  Any smart
> > marketing/adcopy person would have told you to get put together
> materials
> > saying " www.wikipedia.com "
> >
> > Jimbo, if that's the case, fire the marketing department.
>
> What marketing? When did wikipedia ever do marketing? Never! Marketing
> has never ever been a priority in any way since page hits are fairly
> irrelevant to the development of wikipedia since we're an ad-free
> non-profit (well, atleast not pagehits beyond a certain point needed
> to get contributors).
>
> And by the way, are you seriously arguing that having the main page
> where it is has hurt wikipedias popularity? Are you freaking kidding
> me? We're in the top 10 most visited websites! Popularity is the least
> of our concerns.

Heh. I'm sure that Wikimedia's marketers all have nice jobs in big fancy
marketing firms by now for being so good at their jobs, so *incredibly*
sneaky, that none of us knew they existed -- and yet they *still* managed to
turn Wikipedia into a top-10 website! Nice work, ladies and gentlemen. And
we got them so cheap, too!

-- phoebe


from_name: PeruvianLlama

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

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> PeruvianLlama wrote:
>
>> There isn't any wildly important reason to move Main_Page somewhere
>> else
>>
>>
> That's the stronges argument you give.
>
> Ec

I'm fine with the Main_Page being moved. I'm fine with the Main_Page
being left where it is. It seemed odd however that the strongest
arguments against moving the page didn't add up to much (to wit, the
counter-arguments were themselves inconsistent), or so it seemed to me.
Consensus on the list and on the Talk: page seems to be well in favour
of maintaining the status-quo though, so all is well.

Cheers,
 - PeruvianLlama


from_name: Pilotguy

subject: [WikiEN-l] Incivility, re: psychosis

body:
Sorry, this is not a place for you to play around Chris. This is a serious
project and we have serious work to do here. We do not have time for all the
nonsense that goes on these days. What one may view as "incivilty" may be
viewed by another as an entirely different thing. The point is simply, to
cool down and keep things serious here. We're not here to entertain people.

On 1/15/07, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I certainly did not expect this issue to be taken to the mailing list
> itself. Because you took the issue to the mailing list, I shall
> respond to you on the mailing list.
>
> The best reaction would have been to reply with something to the
> effect of 'okay, I won't call people's arguments "b.s." or suggest
> that they be "taken out and shot"'. Not to turn around and claim that
> I am equally uncivil (for violating the "etiquette" which somehow
> demands that people who do the wrong thing not be told they are doing
> so), humourless, suffering from some sort of psychosis, and a dick.
>
> I instituted a rule of civility on this mailing list a couple of years
> ago in response to some extremely abusive posts by someone who
> demanded to know what rule they had broken to get themselves moderated
> on the list. It does not follow [[WP:CIVIL]] to the letter (in fact I
> don't think I've even read that wiki page completely). It follows
> common sense (specifically, the common sense of the list
> administrators).
>
> If you cannot see that calling people's arguments 'specious' and
> 'b.s.', and suggesting that the founder of such arguments should be
> 'taken out and shot' can be interpreted to be personal attacks, then
> I'm not sure anything I say to you is going to do any good.
>
> ~Mark Ryan
> WikiEN-l mailing list admin
>
> P.S. Your emails are breaking mailing list threads in Gmail.
>
>
> On 16/01/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I just got admonished by "Mark" for being "uncivil" on this list with
> regard
> > to a comment I made in my initial message on "Moving the Main Page."
> >
> > I don't think I was.  At least, from how I read the strict construction
> of
> > the policy, I didn't say anything ruled to be incivility by the dictates
> > of WP:CIVIL.
> >
> > And going back to my post on what psychosis might be hidden in some of
> > users, I forgot one of the biggest problems underneath the surface of
> > Wikipedia...
> >
> > We have too many humorless people.
> >
> > Humorless people who enforce WP:CIVIL thinking that something benign
> > and rhetorical and not even mentioned in WP:CIVIL is "incivility."
> >
> > And those who don't realize that it's incivility to admonish others
> > for acting with "incivility."
> >
> > Here's probably the only circumstance where I'll state that WP:DICK
> > and WP:FUCK are not a cop-out.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Christopher D. Thieme
> >
> >
> > P.S. I know I'm not alone in saying that I have considered leaving
> Wikipedia
> > on several occasions not because of incivility or personal attacks, but
> > because there are people who can't and refuse to take an obvious
> joke.  The
> > humorless people will ruin Wikipedia before those who aren't prim,
> proper
> > and civil.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

--
Pilotguy
pilotguy.wikipedia at gmail.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pilotguy

http://pilotguy.wordpress.com


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] spoiler warnings

body:
On 1/15/07, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> Christopher D. Thieme wrote:
> > Can we get rid of spoiler warnings for plots in novels, movies, etc.?
>
> In a word: no.  This comes up every six months or so.
>
> A few people don't like them (we can ad you to the list),
> but most people do.
>
> I wonder if we should have a "frequently discussed-to-death
> issues" list somewhere, with answers, (sort of like [[WP:VPE]])
> so that we don't have to keep rehashing them?
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals

--
geni


body:
On 1/15/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> This photo may be in the public domain by abandonment.  This would
> happen when an otherwise copyright item has been widely re-distributed
> for a long time, and the copyright owner does nothing about it.  This
> photo was taken by a professional wildlife photographer who should have
> a basic understanding of the rules.  He uploaded the photo himself.  Is
> there any record of his complaining about its general use?
>

Yes. To us. Ask the foundation for details.

--
geni


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Incivility, re: psychosis

body:
On 1/15/07, Pilotguy <pilotguy.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, this is not a place for you to play around Chris. This is a serious
> project and we have serious work to do here. We do not have time for all the
> nonsense that goes on these days. What one may view as "incivilty" may be
> viewed by another as an entirely different thing. The point is simply, to
> cool down and keep things serious here. We're not here to entertain people.
>
> On 1/15/07, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I certainly did not expect this issue to be taken to the mailing list
> > itself. Because you took the issue to the mailing list, I shall
> > respond to you on the mailing list.
> >
> > The best reaction would have been to reply with something to the
> > effect of 'okay, I won't call people's arguments "b.s." or suggest
> > that they be "taken out and shot"'. Not to turn around and claim that
> > I am equally uncivil (for violating the "etiquette" which somehow
> > demands that people who do the wrong thing not be told they are doing
> > so), humourless, suffering from some sort of psychosis, and a dick.
> >
> > I instituted a rule of civility on this mailing list a couple of years
> > ago in response to some extremely abusive posts by someone who
> > demanded to know what rule they had broken to get themselves moderated
> > on the list. It does not follow [[WP:CIVIL]] to the letter (in fact I
> > don't think I've even read that wiki page completely). It follows
> > common sense (specifically, the common sense of the list
> > administrators).
> >
> > If you cannot see that calling people's arguments 'specious' and
> > 'b.s.', and suggesting that the founder of such arguments should be
> > 'taken out and shot' can be interpreted to be personal attacks, then
> > I'm not sure anything I say to you is going to do any good.
> >
> > ~Mark Ryan
> > WikiEN-l mailing list admin
> >
> > P.S. Your emails are breaking mailing list threads in Gmail.
> >
> >
> > On 16/01/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I just got admonished by "Mark" for being "uncivil" on this list with
> > regard
> > > to a comment I made in my initial message on "Moving the Main Page."
> > >
> > > I don't think I was.  At least, from how I read the strict construction
> > of
> > > the policy, I didn't say anything ruled to be incivility by the dictates
> > > of WP:CIVIL.
> > >
> > > And going back to my post on what psychosis might be hidden in some of
> > > users, I forgot one of the biggest problems underneath the surface of
> > > Wikipedia...
> > >
> > > We have too many humorless people.
> > >
> > > Humorless people who enforce WP:CIVIL thinking that something benign
> > > and rhetorical and not even mentioned in WP:CIVIL is "incivility."
> > >
> > > And those who don't realize that it's incivility to admonish others
> > > for acting with "incivility."
> > >
> > > Here's probably the only circumstance where I'll state that WP:DICK
> > > and WP:FUCK are not a cop-out.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Christopher D. Thieme
> > >
> > >
> > > P.S. I know I'm not alone in saying that I have considered leaving
> > Wikipedia
> > > on several occasions not because of incivility or personal attacks, but
> > > because there are people who can't and refuse to take an obvious
> > joke.  The
> > > humorless people will ruin Wikipedia before those who aren't prim,
> > proper
> > > and civil.

I would like to both agree and disagree; this should not be so serious
that people cannot lighten up.  Workplaces and projects with low
communal humor do terrible things to their participants.

That said, I don't think that the comments which started this all came
across as funny, I agree that they came across as abusive, and whether
we have a laugh from time to time or not, abusive is a bad idea.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

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

references:
<71cd4dd90701140534l1a963b66ua0b41d4b8ccc15b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<9rdkq2p0cojb39nffar0sjg920p85i8017@4ax.com>
	<45AA3CBD.50805@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<l9hkq2t5oiahd5pl0b5q546o2otre0dekc@4ax.com>
	<45AA46B9.4020000@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<qb4lq2p661e37tnqo3cj0ea8mjh6vv2245@4ax.com>
	<45AADD4C.80209@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<32enq2dkj890968ti5tvap0ho9qejv88nn@4ax.com>
	<71cd4dd90701151116p3c1b1c0ai8bda7a6905024936@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:16:24 -0500, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org>
wrote:

>This thread was never supposed to be about that article.  I brought it
>up as an example, because you asked for one, but my purpose was to see
>if there was some sort of consensus as to the meaning of CSD A7.
>Apparently, there really isn't.  At least one person said that
>software categorically does not fall under A7, someone said it can,
>but only if the article is "blatantly non-notable", and others seemed
>to suggest that any article which doesn't claim to have two
>respectable independent published sources is a CSD under A7.

If it doesn't even claim to be sourceable?  Damn right.  Why would we
want an article that fails to make any allusion to the existence of
potential sources?  Have you any idea how many unsourced
single-sentence articles get created every day?  Visit
[[Special:Newpages]] and you will see why the complete failure to make
any claim to notability is perfectly legitimate grounds for deletion.
Many articles about homebrewed software are made by the programmers
and their friends, we delete them under A7 or G11 or Ignore All Rules
or [[WP:NFT]] or whatever seems appropriate.  And if it turns out that
sources *do* exist but the author could not be bothered to add them,
or was working from memory so did not have them to hand, well that's
no big deal, the author can have another go when he has his references
to hand.  Verifiability, no original research and neutral point of
view are policies, we can't assess neutrality or anything else without
sources.

This has all the appearance of a breaching experiment.  I'm sorry if
it was not, but seriously, did you think your original submission was
actually a valid article?  I do hope not.

>This particular article wound up staying, at least for now, most
>likely in part because I spent the 41 minutes I spent making sure that
>it didn't qualify under even the harshest of interpretations of A7.
>But it's still not clear whether or not that was necessary.

You are kidding, right?  If you, the article's creator, don't care
enough to make at least a decent stab at covering the subject in a way
that justifies its inclusion, why the hell should anyone else care?
Frequently on deletion review we see people who put more effort into
their arguments for undeletion than they ever did into the article. We
had one guy absolutely demanding restoration of the history of an
article which had been speedied, when said history was a sentence of,
if I recall rightly, under a dozen words, and the article had been
re-created with *actual content* - whole paragraphs of it.  It's a
titanic waste of everyone's time.  Wikipedia is a wiki - crap articles
get deleted, people come along and create better ones that don't.  I
have a hard time seeing this as a big problem.  A redlink is probably
*better* than an unreferenced half-sentence stub, after all, because
someone who gives a shit might come along and make an actual article.

This thread is now at least three orders of magnitude bigger than your
original submission.  Does that not strike you as absurd?

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


body:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:39:14 -0500, "Daniel P. B. Smith"
<wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:

>If they're not protected by patents or copyrights, how could it be
>"piracy?" I'd have thought that if there were no patents or
>copyrights, there'd be no "intellectual property" and hence nothing
>to "steal."

WP:RS is your friend.  If the method is described in a reliable and
reasonably authoritative source, they will probably get sued before we
do.  Of course, that might make it copyright....

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