subject: [Wikipedia-l] Minority/majority deadlock (help!)

body:
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
> So what? Wikipedia is not an organization for preserving the rights of a
> minority but an encyclopedia. As such, it should report the mainstream
> view and give adequate space and consideration to minority view points.
>
> If hundred thousand people call a thing X and one thousand call it Y,
> wikipedia should call it X and mention that thousand call it Y. If three
> people call it Z, it's an aspect which need not be mentioned (except
> these three are _very_ important people).

Very very well said, and I agree completely.

Of course, it must be acknowledged that in some cases some decision
has to be made as to where the article will be located, i.e. the
article title itself.  If people are heated up about that, it's hard
to find a resolution.

I see this as very similar to the British/American spelling situation.
Our solution on en.wikipedia.org is mostly to just try to relax and
not get too uptight about it.  (There is more to the policy than that,
but really, it boils down to that in my mind, and this has worked out
reasonably well.)

--Jimbo


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: John Ky

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Quoting, dashes, and HTML entities

body:
Timwi wrote:

> Yes, simple rule, but one that would probably discriminate against
> many languages.
>
> Timwi

Sorry, to bother you, but could you enlighten me on how it would
discriminate against some languages?  This is a chance for me to
acquire some appreciation on how different some languages are.

-John


list: foundation-l

from_name: Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Copyright issues...walking on thin ice

body:
Andre Engels wrote:
> The real problem is not with putting them into Wikipedia, but with putting
> them under the GNU/FDL license. Putting pictures into Wikipedia under fair
> use will be okay if not done too extensively, provided we use relatively
> low-resolution and specify the maker. But Wikipedia is not just a webpage,
> it is a document under the GNU/FDL. Which means people may make derived
> works and publish those. What if someone takes a Wikipedia page, and makes
> a derived work from it by removing all but the copyrighted picture, then
> publishes that under the GNU/FDL. We are currently permitting them to do
> so. But we can't.

This is a common misperception, and one that I want to combat every
chance that I get.  It is perfectly fine to aggregate independent
works under clause 7 of the GNU FDL.  The sort of aggregation that is
contemplated by the license is *precisely* of the sort that we do.

I have a very high comfort level on this point.  There are certain
ways in which some fair use images will be problematic.  But the idea
that if a page is GNU FDL, it may not be aggregated with independent
works that aren't also under the GNU FDL is simply wrong.

It would be perfectly fine *under the terms of the license* for us to
put any sort of image in an article, for example, images that are
licensed solely to us, or images that the Foundation itself owns
(works for hire, say) and simply publishes under default copyright.

I have asked this question of prominent and knowledgeable people, and
they have assured me that there is no conflict between GNU FDL and
fair use.  (They actually treated my question with some amusement.)

--Jimbo


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Andreas Kasenides

subject: [Wikitech-l] Help please with el wpedia

body:
Thanks Magnus. That did the trick or whatever else you did.
Andreas

Magnus Manske wrote:

> Force a reload (Ctrl-R in Mozilla, Ctrl-F5 in IE, if I remember
> correctly). The problem will go away.
>
> Magnus
>
>
> Andreas Kasenides wrote:
>
>> Could please a kind soul take a look at the el wikipedia.
>> Since about 3-4 days ago every article (including the main page)
>> come out with a strange notice at the bottom effective saying that
>> the article was recovered from the same article that is being viewed.
>> For example the main page comes out saying:
>>
>> ?????????? ???
>> "http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9A%CF%8D%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%B1_%CE%A3%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%AF%CE%B4%CE%B1"
>>
>>
>> Thanks for all the help.
>> Andreas
>> --
>>
>> Andreas Kasenides
>> e-mail: Andreas.Kasenides_at_cs.ucy.ac.cy
>> <mailto:Andreas.Kasenides%20at%20cs.ucy.ac.cy>
>> (replace the _at_ above with @)
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>

--

Andreas Kasenides
e-mail: Andreas.Kasenides_at_cs.ucy.ac.cy
<mailto:Andreas.Kasenides%20at%20cs.ucy.ac.cy>
(replace the _at_ above with @)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040810/c4eab7e1/attachment.html>


list: wikien-l

from_name: Dave Jarvis

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wiki Installation Problem ...

body:
Hi, folks.

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
-----------------------------
After a fresh install of Apache, PHP, and MySQL, I wanted to install
MediWiki for doing internal documentation.  Basically, I want to avoid
using M$ Word for living documents.

Using my Mandrake Linux machine, I attempted to install MediaWiki.  The
installation failed, and Google & MediaWiki have only shown me one other
person with this problem, without resolution.

PROBLEM TEXT
-----------------------------
# PHP 5.0.0: the MonoBook skin will be disabled due to an
incompatibility between the PHPTAL template library and PHP 5. The wiki
should function normally, but with the older look and feel.
# PHP server API is apache2handler; ok, using pretty URLs
(index.php/Page_Title)
# Have XML / Latin1-UTF-8 conversion support.
# PHP is configured with no memory_limit.
# No zlib support.
# Found ImageMagick: /usr/bin/convert; image thumbnailing will be
enabled if you enable uploads.
# Installation directory: /home/httpd/wiki
# Script URI path: /wiki
# Connected as root (automatic)
# Connected to database... 4.0.20; enabling MySQL 4 enhancements
# Database wikidb exists
# There are already MediaWiki tables in this database. Checking if
updates are needed...

...ipblocks is up to date.
...already have interwiki table
...indexes seem up to 20031107 standards
...have linkscc table.
...linkscc is up to date, or does not exist. Good.
...have hitcounter table.
Converting links table to ID-ID...
Sorry! The wiki is experiencing some technical difficulties, and cannot
contact the database server.

VERSION INFORMATION
-----------------------------
PHP 5.0.0 (cli) (built: Aug 10 2004 08:56:26)
Apache 2.0.50
WikiMedia 1.3.0beta6

DATABASE INFORMATION
-----------------------------
# mysqlshow
+-----------+
| Databases |
+-----------+
| wikidb    |
+-----------+

DEBUGGING INFORMATION
-----------------------------
# cat /tmp/wiki.log
DB connection error
Server: 192.168.168.234, User: wikiuser, Password: ...
Failed to connect to database 0 at 127.0.0.1
WARNING: Abrupt exit in /home/httpd/wiki/includes/Database.php at line 522
WARNING: Abrupt exit in /home/httpd/wiki/includes/Database.php at line 149
WARNING: Abrupt exit in /home/httpd/wiki/includes/LoadBalancer.php at
line 176
WARNING: Abrupt exit in /home/httpd/wiki/includes/LoadBalancer.php at
line 116
WARNING: Abrupt exit in /home/httpd/wiki/includes/LoadBalancer.php at
line 139
WARNING: Abrupt exit in /home/httpd/wiki/includes/DatabaseFunctions.php
at line 54
WARNING: Abrupt exit in /home/httpd/wiki/includes/DatabaseFunctions.php
at line 34
WARNING: Abrupt exit in /home/httpd/wiki/maintenance/convertLinks.inc at
line 34
WARNING: Abrupt exit in /home/httpd/wiki/config/index.php at line 459

ACTIVE DATABASE PROOF ;-)
-----------------------------
# telnet 127.0.0.1 3306
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to localhost (127.0.0.1).
Escape character is '^]'.
'
4.0.2011DCbDmu,^]
telnet> close

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated -- I want to show that M$ Word is
evil, especially when a vastly superior application is available.

<diatribe>
My apologies for the following brief diatribe. I think that a HOWTO
guide that shows, step-by-step, how to configure and install MediaWiki
from scratch on a typical Linux system would be priceless.  By "from
scratch" I mean, show how to install and configure the required versions of:

	- Apache
	- MySQL
	- PHP
	- MediaWiki

Granted there are MANY different scenarios, and specific configuration
possibilities, which is why I say "simple" and "typical" -- just enough
to get up and running.  An example HOWTO that illustrates what I mean by
a simple step-by-step document is at:

http://www.joot.com/dave/writings/articles/wireless-linux-howto.shtml
</diatribe>

Sincerely,
Dave Jarvis
--
Invoq Systems Inc.
t. 250.380.0304
e. djarvis at invoqsystems.com
w. http://www.invoqsystems.com


from_name: James Grier

subject: [Wikitech-l] Behavior of list markup

body:
We are experimenting with MediaWiki, but are suffering from the
fact that many of us use bulletted paragraphs, viz.:

I can't find a way to do a single list item on more than one
line.  I.e. if I do

* List item.  This list item is intended to all be in the same
paragraph, but it doesn't quite work.

   what I get from wiki is:

* List item.  This list item is intended to all be in the same

paragraph, but it doesn't quite work.

   whereas what I want is:

* List item.  This list item is intended to all be in the same
   paragraph, but it doesn't quite work.

The ':', '*', and '#' tags all have
the same behavior - any newline terminates the indentation or list.
While this behavior is great if you're doing:

* Item the first
* Item the second
** Subitem

it seems that lookahead to the next line to look for the possible
tag produces better results.

Is there any way around this?

Great stuff otherwise :-)

Thanks
Jim Grier


subject: [Foundation-l] wikiverse.org followup

body:
They are off the air for now, following my spam complaint.

There have been a few chanages as well to their domain registration
after I complained that the domain was registered to a fake address
(in an nonexistent city).

Their hosting company, 'hostingspot.biz' uses a hidden frame to
display the site of 'christianhosting.com', another innocent victim.
So I think that hostingspot.biz is a questionable operation as well.

So I ended up complaining to aplus.net, the next level up the chain,
and apparently action was taken.

Quite possibly, problem solved.

--Jimbo


subject: [Foundation-l] wikiverse.org followup


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Bughunt - New one?

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> When I changes my preferences at the test site, I got
>
> Notice:  Undefined index:  action in
> /home/wikipedia/common/php-new/header-dump.php on line 4
>
> I hope the real 1.3.0 doesn't do this...

That's an on-site debugging hack. I'll clean it up...

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040810/58ba1200/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Bugzilla

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> I've started setting up a bugzilla at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/
> The MonoBook-style template was adapted by Timwi.

Hm. It doesn't seem to work. I get the same thing as I do on
www.wikimedia.org: Links to the four main wiki projects.

Timwi


from_name: Jens Ropers

subject: [WikiEN-l] domain donation, cybersquatter, our copyright

body:
I've recently raised the following issues on this list:

1. I am seeking to donate the wikipaedia.net domain name (which I have
registered) to the Wikipedia Foundation. (I also expressly emailed
Jimmy on this... no reply yet...)
2. A particularly bad serial cybersquatter is controlling
wikipaedia.org, wikipaedia.com and wikipaedia.de. We really should get
these domains off him (and would be able to do so).
3. That same cybersquatter is infringing our copyrights, large scale.
4. That same cybersquatter is imposturing as us.

I didn't get much of a response when I first wrote about these things
(not even after a 3 day wait). This despite their (perceived, by
myself) severity.
I did however send most of what I wrote _as an attached HTML file_.

So maybe most people didn't get the HTML attachment?

I have thus now posted my "little paper" on my website, at:
	http://www.ropersonline.com/Area_51/wikipaedia.html

Note that Area 51 is restricted access only. Please log on as follows:
	user name: guest
	password: 1ns4nI+y
The clear text password is of course only a modest precaution -- I just
don't want to give the rascal I'm exposing there easy opportunity to
sue me.
Please feel free to pass these account details on to other *trusted*
Wikipedians.

_Please, PLEASE DO have a look at it and read it!_

Please, let's start tackling these issues! If there is a better place
to take this, please tell me so! -- I am still fairly new and chances
are I'm just not aware of it.
I really do want these issues addressed!

Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers

There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the
ones who watch progress bars.
http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1809 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040810/b652faf4/attachment.bin


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Bugzilla

body:
Thomas R. Koll wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 01:33:48PM +0100, Timwi wrote:
>
>>Hm. It doesn't seem to work. I get the same thing as I do on
>>www.wikimedia.org: Links to the four main wiki projects.
>
> it's not m but p!

I should have mentioned I tried that too; I get the "Wiki does not
exist" message in that case.


from_name: Thomas R. Koll

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Bugzilla

body:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 01:33:48PM +0100, Timwi wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> >I've started setting up a bugzilla at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/
> >The MonoBook-style template was adapted by Timwi.
>
> Hm. It doesn't seem to work. I get the same thing as I do on
> www.wikimedia.org: Links to the four main wiki projects.

it's not m but p!

ciao, tom

--
== Weblinks ==
* http://shop.wikipedia.org - WikiReader Internet zu kaufen
* http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
* http://www.hammererlehen.de - Urlaub in Berchtesgaden


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Behavior of list markup

body:
Rene Pijlman wrote:
> James Grier:
>
>>any newline terminates the indentation or list.
>
>
> * You can even do mixed lists
> *# and nest them
> *#* like this
or have newlines
inside lists
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing#Sections.2C_paragraphs.2C_lists_and_lines
>

I was less than precise on this point. What I mean is that
a single newline terminates the list element if there is not
a new list element on the next line.

The source text:

* Lists are easy to do
** Sub list
**# Sublist with number

* But things can get messed up
if you interpose a newline before
** The next list item

# Numbers
## sub numbers
## and another one,
but here I goof again
## Third item

renders as (sorta):

     *  Lists are easy to do
           o Sub list
                1. Sublist with number

     * But things can get messed up

if you interpose a newline before

     *    o The next list item

    1. Numbers
          1. sub numbers
          2. and another one,

but here I goof again

    1.    1. Third item

HTML:

 Lists are easy to do

 Sub list

 Sublist with number

 But things can get messed up

if you interpose a newline before

 The next list item

 Numbers

 sub numbers

 and another one,

but here I goof again

 Third item

At least on my browser, the line "The next list item" has both the
solid and the hollow bullet on the same line.

This is all happening on a 1.2 installation, BTW.


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 06:10:38 -0700 "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com>
wrote:

>1.  Fair use/fair dealing is a morally proper doctrine under any sane
>system of copyright.  We should not hesitate to make proper use of it,
>in all media.

The real problem is not with putting them into Wikipedia, but with putting
them under the GNU/FDL license. Putting pictures into Wikipedia under fair
use will be okay if not done too extensively, provided we use relatively
low-resolution and specify the maker. But Wikipedia is not just a webpage,
it is a document under the GNU/FDL. Which means people may make derived
works and publish those. What if someone takes a Wikipedia page, and makes a
derived work from it by removing all but the copyrighted picture, then
publishes that under the GNU/FDL. We are currently permitting them to do so.
But we can't.

Andre Engels


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Bugzilla

body:
Maybe it *should* be at bugzilla.mediawiki.org?

Magnus

Timwi wrote:

> Thomas R. Koll wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 01:33:48PM +0100, Timwi wrote:
>>
>>> Hm. It doesn't seem to work. I get the same thing as I do on
>>> www.wikimedia.org: Links to the four main wiki projects.
>>
>>
>> it's not m but p!
>
>
> I should have mentioned I tried that too; I get the "Wiki does not
> exist" message in that case.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Copyright of pictures and restrictions on the usage

body:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 10:13:43 +0200
  "Gerard.Meijssen" <gerardm at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>Hoi,
>Can pictures that are given to be used within Wikipedia and outside
>Wikipedia only in combination of the Wikipedia articles, be used. The
>things that come to mind are business logo's and material that the giver
>wants to restrict in order for it to remain within a resticted band of use.
>
>In my opinion this is a valid restriction that does allow for our own use
>and allows for the distribution of material to copied versions of
>wikipedia's.
>
>Any reason why this can not to be done in this way ?

I think it would go against the GNU/FDL, by making derivative works
impossible.

Andre Engels


subject: [Wikipedia-l] FW: Wikipedia for Old English

body:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 23:38:11 -0400 "James R. Johnson" <modean52 at comcast.net>
wrote:
>Sorry - there have been about 6 million speakers at the height of usage of
>Old English.  I guess it's like Latin in being a dead language, but just as
>deserving of a Wiki.

I disagree. Latin is still being used at least in the Catholic church if not
elsewhere. Old English on the other hand is not being actively used
nowadays, knowledge of it being used passively (reading existing older
texts) rather than actively (writing material). I am willing to hear
arguments in favor, but "it's like Latin" is not one of them.

Andre Engels


subject:
[WikiEN-l] differing article revisions depending on whether one is
	logged in

body:
I'm noticing that I frequently find myself looking at previous versions
of articles while I'm not logged in (that is, the one prior to the most
recent version).
Once I log in I then see the most recent article version.
Emptying my cache and refreshing doesn't seem to make any difference.

Is anyone else experiencing that problem?

Could people confirm?

Does anyone know anything about this phenomenon? Any ideas on what to
do about it?

Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers

There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the
ones who watch progress bars.
http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 712 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040810/e38e04ce/attachment.bin


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Current validation scheme: ya gotta see this!

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

> Hey, everybody, in the excitement of the recent discussion over Mav &
> Timwi & Angela's idea of version marking, we seem to have overlooked
> something!
>
> Magnus Manke has quietly developed a full-fledged scheme of his own, and
> you can see a Working Demo of this at:
>
> http://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Validate&mode=list_page
>
> I just read and evaluated two articles!!
>
> C'mon, let's give credit where credit is due!

This validation system Magnus Manske developed is indeed quite
impressive.  However, it is too bulky to use as a simple Recent Changes
patrol system.  It is infinitely more suited for long-term voting on
which articles are good, which articles require attention, etc. etc.

I view the two things as separate features which both serve different
purposes.

Timwi


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Recent Changes Patrol

body:
Andre Engels wrote:

> Great! Still, I have some questions:
> * Who can mark an edit as patrolled? Could this be restricted to
> logged-in users in some kind of 'good standing' (however defined)?

Currently, there is an option that can be set to either allow all
logged-in users or only sysops to mark something as patrolled.

> * Would it be possible to get a list of only unpatrolled edits?

Yes, I have added a link to Recent Changes that allows you to hide
patrolled edits in the same way that you can hide edits by bots, minor
edits, and edits by logged-in users.

Timwi


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Obnoxious art galleries...

body:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 11:25:34 -0700 Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
wrote:

>I would be curious to know what policy these galleries apply with regard to
>photography by individual visitors to the gallery.

Probably they either disallow it, or require such photographs to hand over
copyright.

>I think too that there is a question of burden of proof involved.  Even if
>their principle legal premise is correct they need to prove that our
>picture was taken from their website, rather than us needing to prove that
>it was from somewhere else.  Also if their premise is correct that there is
>a copyright in these reproduction, an individual who has taken his own
>photograph of a picture would not lose his own copyright on the basis that
>he had violated a no-photography rule.

I agree. In general copyright laws are there to protect artistic works. If
publishing the reproduction breaks copyright, then apparently the
reproduction has some artistic merit - which means that it should be
distinguishable from other reproductions of the same work. Thus, if they
have any ground for claiming that the reproductions are copyrighted, they
should be able to say which reproduction's copyright was being infringed
upon.

Then again, I am not a lawyer, and these laws often do not go with my
layman's opinion (in fact, they often go with whoever is willing to pay
their lawyers most, I'm afraid). It would be good to have a real expert
opinion on this.

>Another observation that I would make is that any copyrights to these
>reproductions must be determined separately.  Without that, how can we know
>the copyright date of a specific photograph?  Without the copyright date,
>how can we know when the copyright expires?  What is meant by publishing?
> If the same photograph was used to produce a postcard in 1930 the
>copyright on that would certainly have expired.  Whose courts have
>jurisdiction?

That's a very good point too. Let _them_ prove that it is not an image from
before they got the work, or from more than 50/70/100 (depending on country)
years old.

>Naturally, taking a stand on this requires more research than these off the
>cuff remarks.  Still I think that it is inevitable that as the putative
>copyright holders see their revenue streams threatened they will take
>action to protect those streams.  Sooner or later there will be a legal
>confrontation; what we need to know is which actions are worth defending.

I agree. It would also be good to have a discussion going with a gallery
like this - what about offering them a link for each work of 'theirs' that's
on our site. Problem is of course the GNU/FDL - as we do not believe them to
be copyright holders, we cannot require of downstream users to keep that
kind of thing.

Andre Engels


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Recent Changes Patrol

body:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 07:02:48 +0100 Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>Hi.
>
>I posted this to wikien-l, but actually I meant to post it here. So here it
>is again.
>
>I have just written a new feature which I hope will be useful to users
>interested in a Recent Changes Patrol system. I wrote:
>
>     New feature: Recent Changes Patrol. All edits and new pages are
>     now highlighted on Special:Recentchanges and Special:Newpages
>     until someone "marks" them as "patrolled" using a special link.
>     For new pages, this link appears at the bottom of the article if
>     the link in Recent Changes or New Pages is followed. For all
>     other edits, this link appears only in the diff and only if the
>     diff link is followed from Recent Changes. (Might need to add
>     this functionality to Watchlist too; haven't done that yet.)
>
>THIS FEATURE IS NOT YET LIVE on the real Wikipedia (or any other project).
>I'm only announcing it here so that you no longer need to discuss this
>topic and talk about hypothetical alternatives. Maybe someone will put this
>feature live on a test server, and then you can have a go at it.

Great! Still, I have some questions:
* Who can mark an edit as patrolled? Could this be restricted to logged-in
users in some kind of 'good standing' (however defined)?
* Would it be possible to get a list of only unpatrolled edits?

Andre Engels


subject: [Wikipedia-l] send in the academics

body:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 20:04:03 -0400 (EDT)
  Abe <arafi at umich.edu> wrote:
>"Academia" is the name for a huge institutionalized process of peer
>review.  Wikipedia is peer review on steroids, so you'd think that
>academics would be clamoring to contribute to Wikipedia, especially since
>academia and Wikipedia both love free expression and open discourse.  The
>difference is, academia is peer review with competition for prestige and
>resources, and Wikipedia is not.

There's other differences as well. In academia to be a "peer" who reviews an
article, one has to have shown at least some expertise in the subject first.
In Wikipedia, I can come in and judge the article on black holes by my own
misunderstanding of Hawking radiation.

Another point is authorship. Authorship of Wikipedia articles is rather
vague. This person writes a line, that one a paragraph. The academia way
would be something like one person writes an article, and if someone else
has something to say about a subject, that person writes a different
article, and both articles are shown when the revelant search word is given.
That's closer to Nupedia and such.

Another point with people from academia is that they are judged by their
publications. We might change Wikipedia so that the articles are closer to
scientific publications in form, but then still there is the problem that
what I write today might be chopped up into something completely different
by someone else. That might well be too large a difference.

Andre Engels


from_name: L R

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales says help Randy30

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Randy30<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Randy30>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Queen0e.jpg<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Queen0e.jpg>

Jimmy said to email this link and my page to list.
Hope this helps.
_

User talk:Randy30
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
ATTENTION, Searching For This Royal Lady, Littlefield Parsons 1856-57 UNION Cased Ambrotype Image Found In Cincinnati, OH USA. She depicts the royal colors blue red, wearing a crown or tiara, jewelry, crown on the necklace. Possible JP Ball or Landy Photographer. PARIS FRANCE UK ENGLAND BRITISH QUEEN PRINCESS or COUNTRY ?? We don't know. Input welcome.. SEE HER IMAGE click here Media:queen0e.jpg<http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/9/98/Queen0e.jpg>

Hello First, this is my image, mine alone. All text herein is total mine. No copyright, please distribute freely. PUBLIC DOMAIN.. As with this link below, I own daguerreian.com This site will be built soon with many images of this Royal Lady Image. Please visit and view them. No commercial content, just my lifelong lonesome research. Thanks http://www.daguerreian.com<http://www.daguerreian.com/> --Randy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Randy30> 20:53, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)[1]<http://daguerreian.com/> (http://daguerreian.com) _ I'm an early photography historian and collector in Luxemburg, WI USA. My friends/colleagues include Scott Gampher (Director Cincinnati Museum Art Center) Linda Bailey also of the CMAC, as with research for Debra Willis book on JP Ball. I have an extensive collection of JP Ball early images nearly 300 ( JP a black freeman African American Photographer Cincinnati, OH 1843) and another 300 of my images by Ball are in the Cincinnati museum from my collection. 20+ years collecting Ball and other early photography.

 ___
With regards to this ROYAL image FOUND RECENTLY, 6-10-04 Cincinnati, OH USA estate,, We need basic help finding ID of this 1850s Queen or Princess displaying the royal colors blue and red, and maybe white, (colors were hand tinted by the photographer), gold with blue - red tint on the crown, gold tint to jewelry, a gold crown hangs on her necklace. A large image (4x5 inch 3/4 thick) called a 1/4 plate ambrotype in full union case by Littlefield and Parsons Daguerreotypes Case Makers.

(Worthy footnote) A photo was taken by JP Ball,, of a Queen/Princess in the 1850s,,, but has yet to surface. We believe this image is a historical find and hope all who see it will try to help id her and her country.

 Will gladly send other images or view at links above.

Behind the image it states the case maker case description,, date made 1876-57 but no info on this lady. With today's technology we hope someone can help locate her origin.

Please point us in a direction to solve this mystery woman's identity, we need a photo data base or any known online searchable image collection of Royalty.

Really appreciate your time, look forward to any input you may have. Over the years we have enjoyed your site and certainly hope you don't mind this important query. If so, we apologize in advance.

Thank you Randy in Luxemburg, WI USA new-age2000 at msn.com

PS This image and query will also be featured in the world newspaper The Daguerreian Society Sept. 2004 issue and the Dag Society Annual.. Another note: National Archives of the UK, requested several images of her, I sent them by email and hard copies via snail mail and await the UK historians input. Actually was direct from the Queen of England's Director of Historical Archives. This beautiful lady needs to be found! A national treasure that will be donated to the appropriate museum.. Media:queen0e.jpg<http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/9/98/Queen0e.jpg>

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Randy30<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Randy30>"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040810/dcec7e67/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikitech-l] machine translaton of the articles...

body:
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 15:05:27 +0100 (BST)
  prasad gadgil <gadgil_p at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have just joined, I am from mumbai, india. I would like to get the
>articles translated in marathi, my mother tongue. Looking at the effort
>and no of volunteers, this will not be usable in any reasonable amount
>of time.
>
>That has made me think of alternatives - machine translation. A state
>funded institute has a software available but I don't have access to it
>yet.
>
>Pl. comment about this approach. Has this been tried for any other
>language earlier.

Machine translations are in general of poor quality. They vary from
'containing a few strange errors' to 'not understandable at all'. If you
intend to use machine translations, I think it would be better to take the
translation as the basis for your own text rather than using it directly, or
even after removing grammar errors.

Andre Engels


subject: [Wikitech-l] Error message

body:
Hi,

I got the following error message:

Mailing mediawiki-cvs at wikimedia.org...
Generating notification message...
Traceback (most recent call last):
   File "/cvsroot/sitedocs/CVSROOT/cvstools/syncmail", line 433, in ?
     main()
   File "/cvsroot/sitedocs/CVSROOT/cvstools/syncmail", line 426, in main
     contextlines, fromhost, replyto)
   File "/cvsroot/sitedocs/CVSROOT/cvstools/syncmail", line 224, in
blast_mail
     pwinfo = pwd.getpwuid(os.getuid())
KeyError: getpwuid(): uid not found

when I tried to commit a change. The change was committed successfully,
but as a result of this error, one message in mediawiki-cvs is missing.

Since I don't know if this error is due to SourceForge or us, I thought
I'd post about it here in case it is important.

Timwi


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Markiing a version with a status flag

body:
Ah....I like the sound of that. Seems neat and much more efficient to
me, for the features it provides. I like it.

John Lee (User:Johnleemk)

Timwi wrote:

> Well, the "RC cleared flag" need not be a flag; it can be an integer.
> Theoretically, we can assign pretty much any meaning to pretty much
> any integer.  For example, we could view it as a "score", and people
> can increase or decrease the score depending on whether they think the
> edit was good or not.  Then we can show everything below, say, 5 in
> yellow and everything below 0 in red.  Thanks to the power of CSS,
> these colours would be entirely customisable without any further code
> changes.
>
> Currently (the way I have made it so far) this integer can only take
> the values 0 or 1, and once it is set to 1, it cannot be changed anymore.
>
> Timwi


from_name: Roman Maurer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Request for the second Serbian Wikipedia

body:
millosh pravi:

> There is one possibility: I see that there are some users (I think the most of them are stewards) on sr: which can vote... (But, don't ask people from former Yugoslavia to vote such as Romanm; it is not good idea.)

I don't recall that I voted on this issue on sr: (I see it as an
internal affair between the article writers and target population).  ?
--
	Pozdrav,
	  Roman


from_name: Dan Drake

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Toning down the personal remarks (was: Nationalist
	POV-pushing on Wikpedia: what to do?)

body:
Shucks, I guess I needed to follow my own proposal, and mark my posting as
being by a natural-born citizen of the USA, attempting to resist the
tarring of USA contributors with a loony-brush.

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:45:05 UTC, "Poor, Edmund W"
<Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

>...
>
> * This particular list is infested with Americans
>
> Excuse me? I'm not a bug! (I put bugs in the software I write, though
> ;-)

Clearly I need to avoid this kind of jocular language about classes if
people whom I want to hold up as good examples.

>
> * hot-headed American
>
> If I wear a hat outside, my scalp doesn't heat up so much; usually, I
> stay inside and enjoy the air-conditioning.

Waitaminnit!  I never called you hot-headed.

If you publicly dismissed Jens's post as the usual anti-American
stuff--that's the context in which I used the phrase--I missed it. And I'd
be surprised if it turned out that you did.  The point I thought I was
making was that a hostile and dismissive response to the post is not
necessarily the work of an intellectually dishonest American right-wing
chauvinist, but might as easily be a hasty act of annoyance (which I quite
share) at a broad-brush accusation.  There are hot-heads everywhere, and
about (to take an example at random) three times as many in the USA as in
Germany, as one can easily determine from the census tables.

>
> * some rabid nationalist loony
> * American loonies
>
> Now, now. That's getting personal!

Nah, you're the conservative I mentioned who manages to hold weird
political ideas <g> without being a loonie who falsifies evidence.  As for
loonies and hot-heads, I still think that acknowledging their existence,
in both Red and Blue States, not to mention every other place in the
world, is better than denying it.

But it's plain that your main point is right: I've got to sober up my
rhetoric, at least until I can get the sense across clearly (a skill that
Mark Twain had difficulty mastering, so I'm not optimistic).


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 08/10/04 16:08, Timwi wrote:
> Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>> Hey, everybody, in the excitement of the recent discussion over Mav &
>> Timwi & Angela's idea of version marking, we seem to have overlooked
>> something!
>> Magnus Manke has quietly developed a full-fledged scheme of his own, and
>> you can see a Working Demo of this at:
>> http://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Validate&mode=list_page

> This validation system Magnus Manske developed is indeed quite
> impressive.  However, it is too bulky to use as a simple Recent Changes
> patrol system.  It is infinitely more suited for long-term voting on
> which articles are good, which articles require attention, etc. etc.
> I view the two things as separate features which both serve different
> purposes.

Certainly. Though viewing your 'Validated' as a tick-box in Magnus' scheme
would give useful information at a glance.

That said ... after pushing so hard for a validation/review scheme, I'd
like to see a lot more discussion on it :-) Specifically:

* is it appropriate to all Wikipedias in its present form? (What works
   on en may not be the right thing on de or sr.)
* What should the fields be?
* What bad effects could this have?

(For the last, let me suggest: vote spamming for a partisan version.)

I'd love to see actual discussion of problems, big or small, before it's
implemented, so as to make it as workable as possible before it goes live.
As such, I've crossposted and set followup to wikipedia-l, because this
would affect every Wikipedia.

- d.


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Current validation scheme: ya
	gotta see this!


from_name: Rene Pijlman

subject: [Wikitech-l] Behavior of list markup

body:
James Grier:
>any newline terminates the indentation or list.

* You can even do mixed lists
*# and nest them
*#* like this
or have newlines
inside lists

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing#Sections.2C_paragraphs.2C_lists_and_lines

--
Regards / Groeten,  http://www.leren.nl
Ren? Pijlman        http://www.applinet.nl


from_name: sannse

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikipedia-Freenode relations

body:
Timwi wrote:

> Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
>
> > Maybe I don't quite understand the issue, but one thing I like about
> > the cloak is that I don't have to worry about people pretending to be
> > me.
>
> You don't need a cloak to have this security. If you simply identify
> yourself using NickServ, you will get something like this:
>
> (your nick) is an identified user
>
> in your whois.
>

That identifies you as the same person each time on IRC, but it doesn't
identify you as the same person as whoever is using that nick on Wikipedia.

If someone registers "timwi" before you do on IRC they could pretend to be
the Wikipedia Timwi - and there is no way to tell differently.  Cloaks have
only been given out to people who have confirmed their nick on Wikpedia.

Like Jimbo - I like the security of knowing that I can be seen to be the
same "sannse" on IRC and Wikipedia.

--sannse


references:
<cfav43$88p$1@sea.gmane.org>	<a43ih0lg7n3sm10nib1r6e1t3tl9f3r85h@4ax.com>
	<41191ACF.5060109@netapp.com>

body:
James Grier wrote:

> * Lists are easy to do
> ** Sub list
> **# Sublist with number
>
> * But things can get messed up
> if you interpose a newline before
> ** The next list item
>

Yes, that's the way it is supposed to work.

Solution: Don't use newlines unless the list is over. :-) Works pretty
well for wikipedia.

But, if you really *need* it to work differently, a dirty hack might do
the job:
* Find all lines that are not empty
* and do not start with * or #
* but where the previous line did
* and replace the newline with a space
Run this right before the list generation code (should be
"doBlockLevels" in Parser.php, called from "Parse").

Magnus


subject: [Wikitech-l] Bughunt - New one?

body:
When I changes my preferences at the test site, I got

Notice:  Undefined index:  action in /home/wikipedia/common/php-new/header-dump.php on line 4

I hope the real 1.3.0 doesn't do this...


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Toning down the personal remarks (was:
	Nationalist	POV-pushing on Wikpedia: what to do?)

body:
Dan Drake and Ed Poor wrote:

>
> [ increasingly involved civility-incivility deliberations and
> (counter)accusations following my earlier flagging of U.S. nationalist
> POV as an issue ]
>

Uh-oh. Have I opened a can of worms?

Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers

There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the
ones who watch progress bars.
http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 512 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040810/d45db2e1/attachment.bin


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: domain donation, cybersquatter, our copyright

body:
(moving thread from wikien-l to foundation-l. Please reply there)

Jens Ropers wrote:

> 1. I am seeking to donate the wikipaedia.net domain name (which I have
> registered) to the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thank you for offering us this. My only concern is that confusion
could arise if we own wikipaedia.net but not the other wikipaedia
domains. If we don't own any of them, it's more obvious that
wikipaedia is nothing to do with us.

> 2. A particularly bad serial cybersquatter is controlling
> wikipaedia.org, wikipaedia.com and wikipaedia.de. We really should get
> these domains off him (and would be able to do so).

I asked in the German IRC channel about this. Maybe I'm assuming too
much good faith, but I think we ought to approach that site owner in a
friendly way at first before we get too heavy handed. Sansculotte is
going to take this to the VereinDE-l mailing list and discuss it
there. Hopefully someone who speaks German can contact the site about
this. We might well get no reply, but at least we can say we tried
before taking this any further. It is worth noting that Akl was
successful in getting the wikipedia.ch and wikipedia.at domains back,
so perhaps this can be successful too.

Angela.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: domain donation, cybersquatter, our copyright


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Copyright issues...walking on thin ice

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> There is also something like fair dealing in the Berne Convention.
> The exact term escapes me for now.

Fair practice.

--Michael Snow


body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>Andre Engels wrote:
>
>
>>The real problem is not with putting them into Wikipedia, but with putting
>>them under the GNU/FDL license. Putting pictures into Wikipedia under fair
>>use will be okay if not done too extensively, provided we use relatively
>>low-resolution and specify the maker. But Wikipedia is not just a webpage,
>>it is a document under the GNU/FDL. Which means people may make derived
>>works and publish those. What if someone takes a Wikipedia page, and makes
>>a derived work from it by removing all but the copyrighted picture, then
>>publishes that under the GNU/FDL. We are currently permitting them to do
>>so. But we can't.
>>
>>
>
>This is a common misperception, and one that I want to combat every
>chance that I get.  It is perfectly fine to aggregate independent
>works under clause 7 of the GNU FDL.  The sort of aggregation that is
>contemplated by the license is *precisely* of the sort that we do.
>
>I have a very high comfort level on this point.  There are certain
>ways in which some fair use images will be problematic.  But the idea
>that if a page is GNU FDL, it may not be aggregated with independent
>works that aren't also under the GNU FDL is simply wrong.
>
>It would be perfectly fine *under the terms of the license* for us to
>put any sort of image in an article, for example, images that are
>licensed solely to us, or images that the Foundation itself owns
>(works for hire, say) and simply publishes under default copyright.
>
>I have asked this question of prominent and knowledgeable people, and
>they have assured me that there is no conflict between GNU FDL and
>fair use.  (They actually treated my question with some amusement.)
>
>--Jimbo
>
Clause 7 of the GFDL is predicated on aggregating the GFDL content with
"separate and independent documents or works". Are images actually
separate and independent?

As files in the Image namespace, it's easy enough to say images are
separate and independent works from articles. But once the image is used
in an article, it gets fuzzier. When I view an article with an image,
the image shows up there with the rest of the article, and looks to the
reader like it is part of the article. It does not look very "separate
and independent", nor does the image give any indication that it may be
under a different license than the GFDL. You may point out that in wiki
syntax, the image is actually linked to rather than being incorporated
directly into the article, but that argument does not instill much
confidence in me. The law has been known to disregard such attempts at
technical distinctions and look at things from the simpler practical
perspective.

But online content is not that big of an issue really, because anyone
who says we're infringing on their copyright has to give us a takedown
notice first, and we can remove the offending image. The real problem is
print. And once you get to print, I have a _very_ hard time buying any
argument that the image which illustrates an article is somehow a
separate and independent work from the article text. The one kind of
print version for which I might entertain this argument is if the images
are segregated as is done in many books, on separate glossier facing
pages or in a batch of illustrations in the middle of the book. But in
the routine print version, where the image is printed out on the same
page as the article, they look like part of one document and I don't see
how you can make much of a case that they're not. As a result, I think
the article as a whole, _including_ associated images, is the smallest
Document to which we can legitimately atomize the GFDL.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040810/e453097e/attachment.htm


body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>Andre Engels wrote:
>
>
>>The real problem is not with putting them into Wikipedia, but with putting
>>them under the GNU/FDL license. Putting pictures into Wikipedia under fair
>>use will be okay if not done too extensively, provided we use relatively
>>low-resolution and specify the maker. But Wikipedia is not just a webpage,
>>it is a document under the GNU/FDL. Which means people may make derived
>>works and publish those. What if someone takes a Wikipedia page, and makes
>>a derived work from it by removing all but the copyrighted picture, then
>>publishes that under the GNU/FDL. We are currently permitting them to do
>>so. But we can't.
>>
>>
>
>This is a common misperception, and one that I want to combat every
>chance that I get.  It is perfectly fine to aggregate independent
>works under clause 7 of the GNU FDL.  The sort of aggregation that is
>contemplated by the license is *precisely* of the sort that we do.
>
>I have a very high comfort level on this point.  There are certain
>ways in which some fair use images will be problematic.  But the idea
>that if a page is GNU FDL, it may not be aggregated with independent
>works that aren't also under the GNU FDL is simply wrong.
>
>It would be perfectly fine *under the terms of the license* for us to
>put any sort of image in an article, for example, images that are
>licensed solely to us, or images that the Foundation itself owns
>(works for hire, say) and simply publishes under default copyright.
>
>I have asked this question of prominent and knowledgeable people, and
>they have assured me that there is no conflict between GNU FDL and
>fair use.  (They actually treated my question with some amusement.)
>
>--Jimbo
>
Clause 7 of the GFDL is predicated on aggregating the GFDL content with
"separate and independent documents or works". Are images actually
separate and independent?

As files in the Image namespace, it's easy enough to say images are
separate and independent works from articles. But once the image is used
in an article, it gets fuzzier. When I view an article with an image,
the image shows up there with the rest of the article, and looks to the
reader like it is part of the article. It does not look very "separate
and independent", nor does the image give any indication that it may be
under a different license than the GFDL. You may point out that in wiki
syntax, the image is actually linked to rather than being incorporated
directly into the article, but that argument does not instill much
confidence in me. The law has been known to disregard such attempts at
technical distinctions and look at things from the simpler practical
perspective.

But online content is not that big of an issue really, because anyone
who says we're infringing on their copyright has to give us a takedown
notice first, and we can remove the offending image. The real problem is
print. And once you get to print, I have a _very_ hard time buying any
argument that the image which illustrates an article is somehow a
separate and independent work from the article text. The one kind of
print version for which I might entertain this argument is if the images
are segregated as is done in many books, on separate glossier facing
pages or in a batch of illustrations in the middle of the book. But in
the routine print version, where the image is printed out on the same
page as the article, they look like part of one document and I don't see
how you can make much of a case that they're not. As a result, I think
the article as a whole, _including_ associated images, is the smallest
Document to which we can legitimately atomize the GFDL.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040810/e453097e/attachment-0001.htm


body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>Andre Engels wrote:
>
>
>>The real problem is not with putting them into Wikipedia, but with putting
>>them under the GNU/FDL license. Putting pictures into Wikipedia under fair
>>use will be okay if not done too extensively, provided we use relatively
>>low-resolution and specify the maker. But Wikipedia is not just a webpage,
>>it is a document under the GNU/FDL. Which means people may make derived
>>works and publish those. What if someone takes a Wikipedia page, and makes
>>a derived work from it by removing all but the copyrighted picture, then
>>publishes that under the GNU/FDL. We are currently permitting them to do
>>so. But we can't.
>>
>>
>
>This is a common misperception, and one that I want to combat every
>chance that I get.  It is perfectly fine to aggregate independent
>works under clause 7 of the GNU FDL.  The sort of aggregation that is
>contemplated by the license is *precisely* of the sort that we do.
>
>I have a very high comfort level on this point.  There are certain
>ways in which some fair use images will be problematic.  But the idea
>that if a page is GNU FDL, it may not be aggregated with independent
>works that aren't also under the GNU FDL is simply wrong.
>
>It would be perfectly fine *under the terms of the license* for us to
>put any sort of image in an article, for example, images that are
>licensed solely to us, or images that the Foundation itself owns
>(works for hire, say) and simply publishes under default copyright.
>
>I have asked this question of prominent and knowledgeable people, and
>they have assured me that there is no conflict between GNU FDL and
>fair use.  (They actually treated my question with some amusement.)
>
>--Jimbo
>
Clause 7 of the GFDL is predicated on aggregating the GFDL content with
"separate and independent documents or works". Are images actually
separate and independent?

As files in the Image namespace, it's easy enough to say images are
separate and independent works from articles. But once the image is used
in an article, it gets fuzzier. When I view an article with an image,
the image shows up there with the rest of the article, and looks to the
reader like it is part of the article. It does not look very "separate
and independent", nor does the image give any indication that it may be
under a different license than the GFDL. You may point out that in wiki
syntax, the image is actually linked to rather than being incorporated
directly into the article, but that argument does not instill much
confidence in me. The law has been known to disregard such attempts at
technical distinctions and look at things from the simpler practical
perspective.

But online content is not that big of an issue really, because anyone
who says we're infringing on their copyright has to give us a takedown
notice first, and we can remove the offending image. The real problem is
print. And once you get to print, I have a _very_ hard time buying any
argument that the image which illustrates an article is somehow a
separate and independent work from the article text. The one kind of
print version for which I might entertain this argument is if the images
are segregated as is done in many books, on separate glossier facing
pages or in a batch of illustrations in the middle of the book. But in
the routine print version, where the image is printed out on the same
page as the article, they look like part of one document and I don't see
how you can make much of a case that they're not. As a result, I think
the article as a whole, _including_ associated images, is the smallest
Document to which we can legitimately atomize the GFDL.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040810/e453097e/attachment.html>


body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>Andre Engels wrote:
>
>
>>The real problem is not with putting them into Wikipedia, but with putting
>>them under the GNU/FDL license. Putting pictures into Wikipedia under fair
>>use will be okay if not done too extensively, provided we use relatively
>>low-resolution and specify the maker. But Wikipedia is not just a webpage,
>>it is a document under the GNU/FDL. Which means people may make derived
>>works and publish those. What if someone takes a Wikipedia page, and makes
>>a derived work from it by removing all but the copyrighted picture, then
>>publishes that under the GNU/FDL. We are currently permitting them to do
>>so. But we can't.
>>
>>
>
>This is a common misperception, and one that I want to combat every
>chance that I get.  It is perfectly fine to aggregate independent
>works under clause 7 of the GNU FDL.  The sort of aggregation that is
>contemplated by the license is *precisely* of the sort that we do.
>
>I have a very high comfort level on this point.  There are certain
>ways in which some fair use images will be problematic.  But the idea
>that if a page is GNU FDL, it may not be aggregated with independent
>works that aren't also under the GNU FDL is simply wrong.
>
>It would be perfectly fine *under the terms of the license* for us to
>put any sort of image in an article, for example, images that are
>licensed solely to us, or images that the Foundation itself owns
>(works for hire, say) and simply publishes under default copyright.
>
>I have asked this question of prominent and knowledgeable people, and
>they have assured me that there is no conflict between GNU FDL and
>fair use.  (They actually treated my question with some amusement.)
>
>--Jimbo
>
Clause 7 of the GFDL is predicated on aggregating the GFDL content with
"separate and independent documents or works". Are images actually
separate and independent?

As files in the Image namespace, it's easy enough to say images are
separate and independent works from articles. But once the image is used
in an article, it gets fuzzier. When I view an article with an image,
the image shows up there with the rest of the article, and looks to the
reader like it is part of the article. It does not look very "separate
and independent", nor does the image give any indication that it may be
under a different license than the GFDL. You may point out that in wiki
syntax, the image is actually linked to rather than being incorporated
directly into the article, but that argument does not instill much
confidence in me. The law has been known to disregard such attempts at
technical distinctions and look at things from the simpler practical
perspective.

But online content is not that big of an issue really, because anyone
who says we're infringing on their copyright has to give us a takedown
notice first, and we can remove the offending image. The real problem is
print. And once you get to print, I have a _very_ hard time buying any
argument that the image which illustrates an article is somehow a
separate and independent work from the article text. The one kind of
print version for which I might entertain this argument is if the images
are segregated as is done in many books, on separate glossier facing
pages or in a batch of illustrations in the middle of the book. But in
the routine print version, where the image is printed out on the same
page as the article, they look like part of one document and I don't see
how you can make much of a case that they're not. As a result, I think
the article as a whole, _including_ associated images, is the smallest
Document to which we can legitimately atomize the GFDL.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040810/e453097e/attachment-0001.html>


from_name: Toby Bartels

body:
Michael Snow wrote in part:

>Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>>It is perfectly fine to aggregate independent
>>works under clause 7 of the GNU FDL.

>Clause 7 of the GFDL is predicated on aggregating the GFDL content with
>"separate and independent documents or works". Are images actually
>separate and independent?

Yes they are, as I will show.

>As files in the Image namespace, it's easy enough to say images are
>separate and independent works from articles. But once the image is used
>in an article, it gets fuzzier. When I view an article with an image,
>the image shows up there with the rest of the article, and looks to the
>reader like it is part of the article. It does not look very "separate
>and independent", nor does the image give any indication that it may be
>under a different license than the GFDL. You may point out that in wiki
>syntax, the image is actually linked to rather than being incorporated
>directly into the article, but that argument does not instill much
>confidence in me. The law has been known to disregard such attempts at
>technical distinctions and look at things from the simpler practical
>perspective.

The law shouldn't pay attention to wiki syntax' that's quite irrelevant.
You don't download wiki syntax (unless you click on "Edit this page");
rather, you download the entire web page that the server presents to you.

So am I agreeing with you?  No!  Because the Wikimedia server does *not*
present to you a web page that combines text material with an image!
Look at the HTML (*that* is relevant, because *that* is what you download);
you'll see that the HTML source (arguably a single document in the FDL)
contains the text, but not the image.  The image is only referenced,
with something like "<IMG src = "foo" alt = "bar" title = "baz" />".
The file <foo> contains the image, which is downloaded separately.

It's not Wikimedia's fault if your silly web browser confuses the issue,
making you think that the text and the image comprise a single document.
If you used a sensible web browser, like lynx ^_^, then it would be clear.

To be sure, since we have a reasonable expectation that most browsers
present content in a way that is liable to cause this very confusion,
we ought to take steps to avoid this sort of confusion.  And we do!
We say "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free
Documentation License" -- note the phrase "all text", not "all content" --
and then we give a link to [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]], which explains things
in more detail (especially in section 1.2, at least on [[w:en:]]).
Even you, although not convinced about the aggregate nature of the page,
knew that something was up -- because you followed that link.

>But online content is not that big of an issue really, because anyone
>who says we're infringing on their copyright has to give us a takedown
>notice first, and we can remove the offending image. The real problem is
>print. And once you get to print, I have a _very_ hard time buying any
>argument that the image which illustrates an article is somehow a
>separate and independent work from the article text. The one kind of
>print version for which I might entertain this argument is if the images
>are segregated as is done in many books, on separate glossier facing
>pages or in a batch of illustrations in the middle of the book. But in
>the routine print version, where the image is printed out on the same
>page as the article, they look like part of one document and I don't see
>how you can make much of a case that they're not. As a result, I think
>the article as a whole, _including_ associated images, is the smallest
>Document to which we can legitimately atomize the GFDL.

I think that you have a good point about the paper version.
When a paper version is printed, we will have to take more care.
Even so, we'll probably want to treat images as separate documents;
but we'll need to take additional steps to make this clear to the reader.
That's because printed paper intermingles text with images
in a way that HTML (our only current publishing method) does not.

Offhand, I would suggest printing a notice of copyright information
along the side of each image that appears in the paper version,
similar to (but more detailed than) the photo credits in magazines.
The FDL notice for the article would again have to specify text only.
But we can (and should!) think about this matter more carefully
when we start producing printed versions.

-- Toby


body:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:52:40 UTC, Jens Ropers
<ropers at ropersonline.com> wrote:

>
>
> Dan Drake and Ed Poor wrote:
>
> >
> > [ increasingly involved civility-incivility deliberations and
> > (counter)accusations following my earlier flagging of U.S. nationalist
> > POV as an issue ]
> >
>
> Uh-oh. Have I opened a can of worms?

Maybe, but it's recanned.  I even figured out, at last, the good reason
why Ed might have sniffed out an unintended insult, and re-engaged my
brain long enough to take it off line.
And after all, US nationalist POV *is* (in my POV) a significant problem.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Bugzilla

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> Still can't reach either. Shouldn't DNS be updated by now (has been over
> 12h)?

Wait a few days. DNS is teh suck.

 > Also, why do we need a DNS update at all for a subdomain?
> Shoudln't the Apache do that?

Bugzilla requires a metric buttload of Perl modules. Rather than
multiplying the setup requirements for every apache box, I put it on
zwinger only.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040811/4ec8679a/attachment.pgp>


body:
Andre Engels wrote in part:

>Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

>>It would be perfectly fine *under the terms of the license* for us to
>>put any sort of image in an article, for example, images that are
>>licensed solely to us, or images that the Foundation itself owns
>>(works for hire, say) and simply publishes under default copyright.

>I think this is a self-destructive interpretation of the license. Because
>if I can include a picture in this way, then why not text? That would make
>the by some lauded 'viral' aspect of the license just a dead letter - I can
>just use parts of a Wikipedia article, specify which they are and keep
>those under GNU/FDL, then incorporate them into my own copyright work.

This is fine (both legally IMO but IANAL, and ethically IMO but IANRMS),
as long as you keep the Wikipedia parts clearly separate from your material
(and also include the FDL notice for the Wikipedia excerpts, of course).
What you can't do under this scheme is to intermingle the article excerpts
with your own words -- without placing your own words under the licence.

For example, you can say something like this:

 I like carrots.  Carrots are yummy.  I saw a carrot on TV once.
 This rabbit ate a carrot and called this bald man a doctor,
 even though he wasn't a doctor but really a hunter instead.
 That rabbit is so funny!!!

 Here are more interesting facts about carrots:

   Carrots are often eaten raw, whole or shaved into salads for
   color, and are often cooked in soups and stews. One can also
   make carrot cake. The greens are not generally eaten in most
   cultures, but are edible.

   Together with onion and celery, carrots are one of the primary
   vegetables used in a mirepoix to make various broths. Beta
   carotene or Vitamin A, which gives this vegetable its
   characteristic orange colour, is thought to enhance the performance of
   receptors on the retina and thus improve eyesight. Carrots are also
   rich in dietary fibre, antioxidants, and minerals and are an
   alkaline food.

   Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot",
   available under version 1.2 of the GNU FDL.

 I got these facts from this weird site on the Internet which is free.
 Those guys must be crazy; I'm sure not going to make MY stuff free!
 My text is copyright 2004 by Toby Bartels, all rights reserved.
 Take that suckaz!!!

Now, this example doesn't really comply with the FDL,
because just saying "available under version 1.2 of the GNU FDL"
is not enough; you need to quote the entire licence somewhere
(and I'm not even going to touch the list-five-authors business).
But even with this (rather gross legally) deficiency,
the example is still harmless to the licence's viral nature.

Or try it the other way:

 Carrots are often eaten raw, whole or shaved into salads for
 color, and are often cooked in soups and stews. One can also
 make carrot cake. The greens are not generally eaten in most
 cultures, but are edible.

   I like carrots.  Carrots are yummy.  I saw a carrot on TV once.
   This rabbit ate a carrot and called this bald man a doctor,
   even though he wasn't a doctor but really a hunter instead.
   That rabbit is so funny!!!

   This indented text is copyright 2004 by Toby Bartels,
   all rights reserved.  Take that suckaz!!!

 Together with onion and celery, carrots are one of the primary
 vegetables used in a mirepoix to make various broths. Beta
 carotene or Vitamin A, which gives this vegetable its
 characteristic orange colour, is thought to enhance the performance of
 receptors on the retina and thus improve eyesight. Carrots are also
 rich in dietary fibre, antioxidants, and minerals and are an
 alkaline food.

 Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot",
 available under version 1.2 of the GNU FDL.

Again far short of the requirements of the FDL (as interpreted by Jimbo)
but still harmless.

On the other hand, suppose you intermingle the text:

 Carrots are often eaten raw, especially by funny rabbits on TV,
 and are often cooked in soups and stews, the method preferred
 by bald hunters.

 Copyright 2004 by Toby Bartels, available under version 1.2 of the GNU FDL.

In this example (which also falls short of the full requirements),
I have no choice but to put the whole thing under the GNU FDL.
Any failure in this respect will incur a serious violation of the licence --
even as Jimbo interprets it.

-- Toby

PS:  Despite what I may have written above for illustrative purposes,
     I /actually/ reserve no legal rights whatsoever to any of this post,
     just as I reserve no legal rights whatsoever to any of my creative work.


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Behavior of list markup

body:
Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> writes:

> Yes, that's the way it is supposed to work.

I'd rather call it broken by design.  But it does not matter since the
file format as such is flawed and it is getting worse with every
"enhancement".

In the past I reported some bugs (and some were fixed, thanks!), but as
long as you believe we must stick with an "easy" file format, it ain't
no use reporting problems.

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


from_name: Nikola Smolenski

body:
On Monday 09 August 2004 16:05, prasad gadgil wrote:
> Pl. comment about this approach. Has this been tried for any other
> language earlier.

There is entire English Wikipedia translated to Czech at
http://wikipedia.infostar.cz/ . But the quality of the translation is not too
good, I am told.


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Foundation-l] wikiverse.org followup

body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

> They are off the air for now, following my spam complaint.

I can still access http://www.wikiverse.org/

I think their application is interesting and it's a shame they send
spam to advertize it.  Apparently they combine each Wikipedia article
with relevant news headlines.  I've been doing some news headline
harvesting and I wonder if such a database could be released as open
contents.  Or is anybody doing this already?  It's really similar to
an RSS aggregator, but you also generate RSS feeds from sources that
don't provide one by processing HTML web pages.  Can O'Reilly's
Meerkat database be downloaded as open contents, just like DMOZ?

Is this a technical issue that should move to wikitech-l or a
political one, and where should it be discussed?

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik


subject: [Foundation-l] wikiverse.org followup


from_name: Bill Clark

subject: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla

body:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:28:39 +0300, Gutza <gutza at moongate.ro> wrote:
> Just to confirm, it now works from Romania with
> http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/ -- if it propagated until here, then it
> probably should've propagated everywhere ("If I can make it there/Then I
> can make it everywhere/Bucharest, Buchareeest!" :)).

Contrary to popular belief, DNS doesn't "propagate" -- more
accurately, cache entries expire.  Distance and topology are
irrelevant.  What matters is the age and TTL (Time To Live) of DNS
entries in your local DNS cache (as well as how your local cache is
configured).

And DNS isn't teh suck.. it's teh roxxors!!!11!!one

-Bill Clark


from_name: Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales

subject: [Foundation-l] wikiverse.org followup

body:
Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
>
> > They are off the air for now, following my spam complaint.
>
> I can still access http://www.wikiverse.org/

Yes, they appear to be back on the air now.  I think they have talked
things over with their ISP; perhaps they gave a promise of no more
spamming, or perhaps they lied and said that they were not spamming.

> I think their application is interesting and it's a shame they send
> spam to advertize it.

I agree completely.  Outside of the spamming issue, they are one of
the better mirrors that I have seen.

--Jimbo


subject: [Foundation-l] wikiverse.org followup


body:
Let me give a little background.  L R (Randy30I is a collector of very
old photographs, from the 1840s-1860s I believe he told me.  He is
interested in contributing scans from his collection to wikipedia, and
he is also interested in seeking out information about one particular
photo from his collection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Queen0e.jpg

He believes this may be a photo of a visiting head of state (queen or
princess?).  I see that someone has already responded on the image:
page with an opinion that this is just a costume ball or "Queen for a
day" shot.  I have no opinion.

L R wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Randy30<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Randy30>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Queen0e.jpg<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Queen0e.jpg>
>
> Jimmy said to email this link and my page to list.
> Hope this helps.
> _
>
> User talk:Randy30
> >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
> ATTENTION, Searching For This Royal Lady, Littlefield Parsons 1856-57 UNION Cased Ambrotype Image Found In Cincinnati, OH USA. She depicts the royal colors blue red, wearing a crown or tiara, jewelry, crown on the necklace. Possible JP Ball or Landy Photographer. PARIS FRANCE UK ENGLAND BRITISH QUEEN PRINCESS or COUNTRY ?? We don't know. Input welcome.. SEE HER IMAGE click here Media:queen0e.jpg<http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/9/98/Queen0e.jpg>
>
> Hello First, this is my image, mine alone. All text herein is total mine. No copyright, please distribute freely. PUBLIC DOMAIN.. As with this link below, I own daguerreian.com This site will be built soon with many images of this Royal Lady Image. Please visit and view them. No commercial content, just my lifelong lonesome research. Thanks http://www.daguerreian.com<http://www.daguerreian.com/> --Randy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Randy30> 20:53, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)[1]<http://daguerreian.com/> (http://daguerreian.com) _ I'm an early photography historian and collector in Luxemburg, WI USA. My friends/colleagues include Scott Gampher (Director Cincinnati Museum Art Center) Linda Bailey also of the CMAC, as with research for Debra Willis book on JP Ball. I have an extensive collection of JP Ball early images nearly 300 ( JP a black freeman African American Photographer Cincinnati, OH 1843) and another 300 of my images by Ball are in the Cincinnati museum from my collection. 20+ years collecting Ball and other early photography.
>
>  ___
> With regards to this ROYAL image FOUND RECENTLY, 6-10-04 Cincinnati, OH USA estate,, We need basic help finding ID of this 1850s Queen or Princess displaying the royal colors blue and red, and maybe white, (colors were hand tinted by the photographer), gold with blue - red tint on the crown, gold tint to jewelry, a gold crown hangs on her necklace. A large image (4x5 inch 3/4 thick) called a 1/4 plate ambrotype in full union case by Littlefield and Parsons Daguerreotypes Case Makers.
>
> (Worthy footnote) A photo was taken by JP Ball,, of a Queen/Princess in the 1850s,,, but has yet to surface. We believe this image is a historical find and hope all who see it will try to help id her and her country.
>
>  Will gladly send other images or view at links above.
>
> Behind the image it states the case maker case description,, date made 1876-57 but no info on this lady. With today's technology we hope someone can help locate her origin.
>
> Please point us in a direction to solve this mystery woman's identity, we need a photo data base or any known online searchable image collection of Royalty.
>
> Really appreciate your time, look forward to any input you may have. Over the years we have enjoyed your site and certainly hope you don't mind this important query. If so, we apologize in advance.
>
> Thank you Randy in Luxemburg, WI USA new-age2000 at msn.com
>
> PS This image and query will also be featured in the world newspaper The Daguerreian Society Sept. 2004 issue and the Dag Society Annual.. Another note: National Archives of the UK, requested several images of her, I sent them by email and hard copies via snail mail and await the UK historians input. Actually was direct from the Queen of England's Director of Historical Archives. This beautiful lady needs to be found! A national treasure that will be donated to the appropriate museum.. Media:queen0e.jpg<http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/9/98/Queen0e.jpg>
>
> Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Randy30<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Randy30>"
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
Michael Snow wrote:
> Clause 7 of the GFDL is predicated on aggregating the GFDL content with
> "separate and independent documents or works". Are images actually
> separate and independent?

Except in some hypothetical cases which are hard to even dream up, I
would say yes, absolutely.  The authorship of the image is different,
the process by which the image is authored is completely different, it
is stored in a separate file "in or on a volume of a storage or
distribution medium", etc.  It is hard to see how the image is somehow
a "derivative work" of the article or vice-versa.  They are simply a
compilation.

> It does not look very "separate and independent", nor does the image
> give any indication that it may be under a different license than
> the GFDL.

In order to make things more clear, it seems likely to me that some
indication of licensing status of images could be displayed as part of
the caption.

> And once you get to print, I have a _very_ hard time buying any
> argument that the image which illustrates an article is somehow a
> separate and independent work from the article text.

Can you point me to any case law on this point?  Law review articles?

Consider the implications of your argument for traditional licensing
of images for book publications.

Imagine the following scenario.  I write a book, under traditional
copyright.  For my book, I license some images from you, under a
traditional licensing scheme for such, i.e. you tell me that I can use
the images for my book, only for my book, and for no other purposes.

After the book has been published, I decide that I want to license a
portion of the text to a magazine.  Can you then object, saying that
the text is now a "derived work" of the photograph?  That the two are
no longer separate and independent?

I don't see how that could be so.

Now, clearly, I can't exceed the bounds of my license from you by
telling the magazine that they can use the photos.  But this is one of
the key reasons why the license includes Clause 7, to make it
abundantly clear that compilations of this sort *are* permitted.

--Jimbo


body:
Andre Engels wrote:
> I think this is a self-destructive interpretation of the license. Because
> if I can include a picture in this way, then why not text?

If you put some text in a sidebar box, and the text were loaded from a
different file on disk, then it would be the same thing, and it would
be completely approved by the license.

With images, the separate authorship and the independence of the work
is transparently obvious.  The text is not derived from the image, nor
is the image derived from the text.  No one modifies GNU FDL text and
turns it into an image, or vice-versa.  (Barring hypothetical edge
cases that are beyond the scope of this discussion.)

With text, there could be borderline cases.  But it seems clear to me
that so long as the two documents are kept separate in some fashion,
and are not derived from each other, there would be no problem.

Suppose someone takes a GNU FDL article and includes it as a chapter
in an otherwise proprietary book?  The license says this is fine, and
I think we all agree about that.  Suppose the GNU FDL text and the
proprietary text are placed side-by-side on a page, with clear
delineation via a "sidebar box".  Would you say that *this* is a
license violation?  That it's o.k. to put the text on two separate
poages, but not o.k. to put it on the same page?

That seems a very strained interpretation of the license.

--Jimbo


body:
Toby Bartels wrote:
> This is fine (both legally IMO but IANAL, and ethically IMO but IANRMS),
> as long as you keep the Wikipedia parts clearly separate from your material
> (and also include the FDL notice for the Wikipedia excerpts, of course).
> What you can't do under this scheme is to intermingle the article excerpts
> with your own words -- without placing your own words under the licence.

I think this is exactly right.  With text, what constitutes keeping
things "clearly separate" may have a large grey area. With images, it
is much simpler.

--Jimbo


from_name: Harry Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] anons editing

body:
Please check out the blast injuries article.
sometimes logging to the system is just too much
hassle.

--- Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:

> zero 0000 wrote:
>
> >In my almost-a-year editing Wikipedia, I am yet to
> hear a convincing
> >reason for allowing anons to edit at all, but saw
> plenty of cases when
> >I wished they couldn't.  Zero.
> >
> You must be looking at the wrong articles then.
> There's been a bunch
> of new material for which I've been grateful to
> anons for doing the
> scutwork of creating and filling in, and lots of
> grammar/spelling
> corrections from them too. Some of these are from
> IPs that become
> familiar, so I assume they have reasons for
> anonymity.
>
> I'm not averse to making anons be third-class
> though, logins with
> no real-world identification second-class, and
> real-world people as
> the first class. Anonymity cannot build the web of
> trust that we'll
> need for long-term stability and reliability, so we
> want to tolerate
> it but not encourage. (For instance, a quality
> rating system might
> elevate an article to where anons could no longer
> modify it.)
>
> Stan
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


body:
Toby Bartels wrote:
> So am I agreeing with you?  No!  Because the Wikimedia server does *not*
> present to you a web page that combines text material with an image!

While Toby and I are agreeing, I don't even think this hypertechnical
(to a court) explanation of how images are separate is necessary.  The
license clearly contemplates compilations of works which "are not
themselves derivative works of the Document".

The intepretation that says that just because two things appear on the
same page, they are therefore derivative works (of each other?)
strikes me as unfounded, but I am willing to look at case law, if any
exists.

> I think that you have a good point about the paper version.
> When a paper version is printed, we will have to take more care.
> Even so, we'll probably want to treat images as separate documents;
> but we'll need to take additional steps to make this clear to the reader.

I think that's totally correct.

> Offhand, I would suggest printing a notice of copyright information
> along the side of each image that appears in the paper version,
> similar to (but more detailed than) the photo credits in magazines.
> The FDL notice for the article would again have to specify text only.
> But we can (and should!) think about this matter more carefully
> when we start producing printed versions.

I also would support, as our image tagging gets more mature and
comprehensive, that we display this information on the web pages as
well.

--Jimbo


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Flagging US Nationalism (was: Toning down the personal
	remarks)

body:
I see no evidence that US nationalism is flagging. Rather, it seems to
have increased since 9/11.

Okay, let's see if we can put the worms back in the can now... ;-)

Ed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040811/53a1b65d/attachment.htm


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] the document vs. everything vs. the text

body:
> We say "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free
> Documentation License" -- note the phrase "all text", not "all content" --
> and then we give a link to [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]], which explains things
> in more detail (especially in section 1.2, at least on [[w:en:]]).

I've spoken with Jimbo about this exact point back in February, and he
responded to me that it "is *not* a claim that _only_ text is available
under the terms of the GNU FDL."  Furthermore, the GFDL requires that the
*entire document* is released under the GFDL, and that's exactly what
Wikipedia:Copyrights does.  See this edit made by Jimbo after I spoke with
him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Copyrights&diff=2457295&oldid=2428454

That said, the use of the words "the Document" intentionally avoids the
issue of what the organisation intends to be releasing (and indeed whether
or not they are releasing anything or if instead they are merely acting as a
common carrier for the documents published by Wikipedians).  I'd like to see
this spelled out, and now that there's a board of directors a committee
could be formed to do so.

I can see why the organisation might not want to do so.  After all, it's
much easier to just adapt your position to whatever is convenient for
whatever legal situation you get into.  But as a free encyclopedia I think
there is a responsibility to give people some *official* explanation as to
how they can legally reuse the product.  A page freely editable by any admin
which uses weasel words like "You may be able to partially fulfill the
latter two obligations by..." doesn't really cut it.  Something like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying gets a little
closer.

Alternatively, of course, it's perfectly reasonable for the organisation to
say that it does not claim any copyright on the encyclopedia at all, that it
is a work of the Wikipedians and Wikipedia is merely a service provider.
>From a legal standpoint this might even be the best position to take, as it
fits in best under the OCILLA protections.  But once a print edition is
made, someone has to step forward and take the liability as publisher.

> -- Toby

Anthony


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:36:53 -0700 "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com>
wrote:

>This is a common misperception, and one that I want to combat every
>chance that I get.  It is perfectly fine to aggregate independent
>works under clause 7 of the GNU FDL.  The sort of aggregation that is
>contemplated by the license is *precisely* of the sort that we do.

I disagree. The pictures and the text are not 'separate and independent
documents', but have been combined into a single document by placing them on
a single page in a single lay-out. Clause 7 in my opinion is meant for
*separate* documents put into a single binding, on a single page, etcetera,
not for *combining* documents into a single one. Distributing the pictures
with the text would be clause 7. But we're not. We're embedding the pictures
*in* the document, which makes it a modified document as per clause 4 (or a
combined document if the picture itself is GNU FDL).

>It would be perfectly fine *under the terms of the license* for us to
>put any sort of image in an article, for example, images that are
>licensed solely to us, or images that the Foundation itself owns
>(works for hire, say) and simply publishes under default copyright.

I think this is a self-destructive interpretation of the license. Because if
I can include a picture in this way, then why not text? That would make the
by some lauded 'viral' aspect of the license just a dead letter - I can just
use parts of a Wikipedia article, specify which they are and keep those
under GNU/FDL, then incorporate them into my own copyright work.

Andre Engels


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Bugzilla

body:
Still can't reach either. Shouldn't DNS be updated by now (has been over
12h)? Also, why do we need a DNS update at all for a subdomain?
Shoudln't the Apache do that?

Magnus

Brion Vibber wrote:

> Thomas R. Koll wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 01:33:48PM +0100, Timwi wrote:
>>
>>> Brion Vibber wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've started setting up a bugzilla at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/
>>>> The MonoBook-style template was adapted by Timwi.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hm. It doesn't seem to work. I get the same thing as I do on
>>> www.wikimedia.org: Links to the four main wiki projects.
>>
>>
>>
>> it's not m but p!
>
>
> Both should work, but DNS may not have updated.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Robert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jayjg is using non-stop reverts

body:
I am again having problems with Jayjg. He is using non-stop
reverts to nearly every edit I make. He already has hit the
three revisions in a day to a single article level.

In general, on some of the articles, Jayjg is still
attributing positions to me and to others that we do not
have, and is repeatedly criticising these non-existent
positions. It is no clear whether he is engaging in
straw-man attacks on purpose, or is just not reading
carefully. In any case, it is taking me an average of two
days per article to convince him on any given point that he
is mistaken. Until then he just reverts, reverts, and
reverts.

I am currently attempting to mediate with him through a
third party, but nothing has occured yet.

Robert (RK)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla

body:
not working here.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:28:39 +0300, Gutza <gutza at moongate.ro> wrote:
> Just to confirm, it now works from Romania with
> http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/ -- if it propagated until here, then it
> probably should've propagated everywhere ("If I can make it there/Then I
> can make it everywhere/Bucharest, Buchareeest!" :)).
>
> --Gutza
>
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> > I've started setting up a bugzilla at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/
> > The MonoBook-style template was adapted by Timwi.
> >
> > Please don't start puttings bugs in there _just_ yet, it needs some
> > further tweaks and isn't 100% set up.
>
>
> >
> > -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Wikitech-l mailing list
> >Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Michal Jurosz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: machine translaton of the articles...

body:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> There is entire English Wikipedia translated to Czech at
> http://wikipedia.infostar.cz/ . But the quality of the translation is not too
> good, I am told.

Hi,

I and some linguisticians think, that quality of infostar.cz translator
is realy poor. But Google index this translated pages, so Czech users
can find original (English version of page) with keywords in Czech.

I start working on Perl Wikipedia ToolKit (
http://wiki.kn.vutbr.cz/mj/index.cgi?Perl%20Wikipedia%20ToolKit ). I
would like to add modules for "Computer aided Wikipedia translation". I
think that program can translate article titles, category names and some
sentences (translation memory) without big mistakes at least. Than
script can watch original of translated pages and say "translation
update needed for these sentences: ....". For some pages from namespace
Template or from Category:Lists ( e.g. Template:Wikipediatoc, List of
dog breeds,  ... ) machine translation can realy help.

--
------------------------------
   S pozdravem Michal Jurosz
rootmj at seznam.cz ICQ#:93348414
     http://mjhome.zde.cz
------------------------------


from_name: mbecker

body:
Well, I'm glad the copyright issues have been cleared up. Thank you everyone for your responses.
Is any work being done to allow the tagging of images as copyrighted or GFDL? I would like to see this happen before we have millions of copyrighted images on wikipedia. Otherwise, it could be a lot more work trying to find the copyrighted images to tag them. It concerns me that some of our free (as in freedom, not beer) content is dependent on non-free content. However, if we can draw a clear line between copyrighted and GFDL content on the database side of things, I think this will help keep the free and non-free content separate, allowing anyone to use our free content freely, without a risk of accidentally including non-free content.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:07:14 +0200, Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le Wednesday 11 August 2004 08:49, Michael Snow a ?crit :
>
> (...)
> > But online content is not that big of an issue really, because anyone
> > who says we're infringing on their copyright has to give us a takedown
> > notice first, and we can remove the offending image. The real problem is
> > print. And once you get to print, I have a _very_ hard time buying any
> > argument that the image which illustrates an article is somehow a
> > separate and independent work from the article text. The one kind of
> > print version for which I might entertain this argument is if the images
> > are segregated as is done in many books, on separate glossier facing
> > pages or in a batch of illustrations in the middle of the book. But in
> > the routine print version, where the image is printed out on the same
> > page as the article, they look like part of one document and I don't see
> > how you can make much of a case that they're not. As a result, I think
> > the article as a whole, _including_ associated images, is the smallest
> > Document to which we can legitimately atomize the GFDL.
>
> I would agree with you on the interpretation of the GFDL, but I think that the
> online and paper projects have to be treated differently.
> Some people even say that the WMF should never publish a paper edition on its
> own, and they may have some good points, but IANAL.
>
> Anyway, I think it's the responsibility of the publisher of the paper edition
> to remove fair use images. So it is important that images are clearly tagged,
> so they can be easily removed with a simple SQL query.
>
> And I can imagine another scenario where an organisation could buy the rights
> of copyrighted images to include them in a paper edition. But I can't say if
> this would be valid under the GFDL.
>
> > --Michael Snow
>
> Yann
>
> --
> http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
> http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
> http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Michael Becker


body:
Ah, that is a great idea! I might try and push for something like that on the en version, if it isn't being done already. Unfortunately, I've been gone so long that I don't know how these {{}} tags actually work. Could someone point be to the appropriate article on en that explains them? Thanks!

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:23:11 +0200, Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le Wednesday 11 August 2004 16:56, mbecker a ?crit :
> > Well, I'm glad the copyright issues have been cleared up. Thank you
> > everyone for your responses. Is any work being done to allow the tagging of
> > images as copyrighted or GFDL? I would like to see this happen before we
> > have millions of copyrighted images on wikipedia. Otherwise, it could be a
> > lot more work trying to find the copyrighted images to tag them. It
> > concerns me that some of our free (as in freedom, not beer) content is
> > dependent on non-free content. However, if we can draw a clear line between
> > copyrighted and GFDL content on the database side of things, I think this
> > will help keep the free and non-free content separate, allowing anyone to
> > use our free content freely, without a risk of accidentally including
> > non-free content.
>
> On fr:, we are doing it now.
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:Tipiac/images
> and the list is getting smaller every minute.
>
> We use the following tags whenever possible:
> {{GFDL}}
> {{DomainePublic}}
> {{FairUse}}
> {{LicenceInconnue}} (unknown)
>
> So later on, we can either clarify or remove the unknown licence images.
>
>
>
> Yann
>
> --
> http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
> http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
> http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
>

--
Michael Becker


from_name: Christopher Mahan

body:
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

> Okay, let's see if we can put the worms back in the can now... ;-)

Yes, Lets.

=====
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
chris.mahan at gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


from_name: Gutza

subject: [Wikitech-l] Bugzilla

body:
Just to confirm, it now works from Romania with
http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/ -- if it propagated until here, then it
probably should've propagated everywhere ("If I can make it there/Then I
can make it everywhere/Bucharest, Buchareeest!" :)).

--Gutza

Brion Vibber wrote:

> I've started setting up a bugzilla at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/
> The MonoBook-style template was adapted by Timwi.
>
> Please don't start puttings bugs in there _just_ yet, it needs some
> further tweaks and isn't 100% set up.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>