subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:24:14 +0930, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> > I'd rather make a $100 million bonfire than paying those who hold for
> > ransom what is legally in the public domain already.
>
> ... or at least that's our position and we're sticking to it; theirs is
> that they're the copyright holders, and, well, they're sticking to it too.

I don't think that is their official position, because the idea that works
written hundreds of years ago are still under copyright is entirely and
obviously without merit (not counting special cases like Crown copyright).

> Spending some money to find out *for certain* would be quite useful. No
> longer would they be able to say "Oh sorry we hold the copyright to
> that", we'd be able to point to the relevant rulings/legislation and say
> "Well, no you don't, hand it over". Oh, and we need to think global here.

The fact that they don't own the copyright does not mean you can make them
hand anything over. It simply means they can't use copyright to keep you
from distributing copies should you be able to get or make them. However,
they can try and use contracts (basically some form of NDAs) instead, which
is pretty much what they are doing these days.

Roger


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] Closing inactive Wikinewses

body:
magiske prosesser wrote:

>On my local Wikipedia (the no: Norwegian) I have
>previously on a couple of occasions raised issues
>regarding local sister projects only to be told in no
>uncertain terms that "this is Wikipedia. Matters relating
>to sister projects should be discussed at meta." Of
>course, that's not very helpful as very few local
>contributors read meta. Seeing as this reveals a void when
>it comes to adequate forums for local Wikimedia projects
>coordination, I think an effort, perhaps from these parts
>of the woods, to assist local chapters in finding
>constructive solutions to this problem might be valuable.
>Maybe a suggestion from "someone on high" to allow for the
>creation of local inter-project village punp solutions
>would spark more involvement in these projects.
>
>Halvor  (User:meco)
>
>
I will say that even with English langauge projects, Meta doesn't always
offer the best possible solution for significant announcements that need
to be made across multiple projects.  This was a very unhelpful
sentiment that Meta is the exclusive place to discuss projects other
than Wikipedia, particularly when there are inter-project issues that
need to be brought up.

I have in the past, and I anticipate that in the future I will also do
this, sent postings on the various "Village Pumps" (Scriptorium, Staff
Lounge, etc.) of English language projects when I felt some significant
input was needed by regular users of various projects.  In particular
that I've dealt with, some semi-recent activity relating between
Wikisource and Wikibooks has occured, particularly when there were some
significant number of pages being transwikied or to help define the
boudaries between the two projects.

Where Meta tends to excell is when there is some signifcant
organizational activity that needs to take place that goes beyond the
scope of a particular sister project.  In this case, an annoucement on
the village pump on Wikipedia making a notice about such activity would
be reasonable, but requesting that a follow-up and subsequent
discussions take place on Meta, noting the specific page on Meta where
that is taking place.  The discussions about Wikiversity, for example,
proved to be particularly well suited for Meta rather than being on
Wikipedia or Wikibooks.

I still fail to see how a request on a Wikipedia Village Pump requesting
interested parties to keep a particular language edition of Wikinews,
for example, is out of place.

BTW, as far as a "Meta" village pump for a particular language is
concerned, it would be reasonable to begin one on Meta if one doesn't
already exist.  My experience with the Meta Babel (English) page,
however, is that it is very seldom visited for much of anything, and
even then it is usually regarding issues that are about the Meta wiki
itself rather than issues that involve multiple projects.  That isn't to
say it couldn't be used more, but from experience it is seldom
frequented that much.

--
Robert Scott Horning


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikien-l

from_name: Cheney Shill

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Kristian Menchaca]] - link to video

body:
--- Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

> Cheney Shill wrote:
http://www.ogrish.com/archives/us_soldiers_kidnapped_in_iraq_shown_dead_in_video_Jul_10_2006.html
>
> Ah, sorry about that. I hadn't read some of the earlier
> part of this
> thread, I was relying on the article's talk: page.

Feel free to add it.  I would have already, but continue to
be blocked.

I agree with your view on Memory Hole.  I've had the site
bookmarked since 2004.  The award and its tradition is also
listed on POGO's site:
http://www.pogo.org/p/x/beyondhead.html

~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)

--spam may follow--

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


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
On 10/17/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> Although gmaxwell will eat me, yes. GFDL is _viral_ too. The bigger trick
> of GFDL and which may make some parties to still pay for it is that you need
> to include a copy of the GFDL (several pages). If it hasn't other license,
> they
> must contact you (and get an agreement) to use it without such terms.

But whats the purpose of a copyleft license if the recipient is not
made aware of their rights?

Your usage of the word viral to refer to the requirement that the
license come along is non-standard and still misleading (you can't
gain the requirement to carry the GFDL accidentally), but it makes
more sense than any of the other arguments that copyleft licenses are
viral. :)

The GFDL 2 draft includes language which would wave the requirement
for 'small' amounts of copying (up to 20,000 words).  This addresses
the easiest strawman case where the mandatory included license is
substantially longer than the covered work. (also keep in mind that if
you distribute multiple GFDLed works, you need only distribute one
copy of the license).

I should mention that while I expected the requirement to include the
license to be a primary factor in people's interest in licensing my
works under other terms, I've found that not to be the case...  In the
cases where I've asked, one was because it was worth their money to
get the work under their standard agreement, and in another was
because their lawyers opinion is that a license grant without fair and
reasonable compensation is on shaky legal grounds.

I no longer believe that the GFDL is substantially better than
CC-By-SA for the purpose of re-licensing opportunity. ... although I
personally will not use any of the Creative Commons licenses until
they stop making actually free content roadkill on the path to their
own popularity.   (Don't bother flaming me for criticizing Creative
Commons unless you can clearly articulate how Freesounds
(http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/) isn't a complete licensing travesty :)
)


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Reminder

body:
On 10/17/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/17/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > As I have said elsewhere, though it's currently Wikifashionable to stay
> > pseudonymous, in the long term I expect that people will accept this and get
> > over it, and start using real names more consistently.
>
> That would have the downside of lengthening the copyright terms on the
> stuff we produce.

How is that a downside (in practical terms, anyways)?  Anybody who
wishes to PD their contributions can already do so, and Wikipedia aims
to be free-content, not necessarily public domain.

--
Kirill Lokshin


from_name: Dschwen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little... ...of free geodata

body:
> > Right now there os only a very limited amount of free geodata available.
> > The US is a positive example, but in Europe most of the data to generate

> There is far more free geographical data in existence than you might guess.
> For example, in the US most local municipalities create their own

There is more to the world than just the US. The states are pretty much
covered with USGS, USDA, NPS, Tiger line data etc. It's the rest of the
planet that proves more difficult.

I agree about spending money to locate free data, or raise awareness for the
issue. Universities for example should register any data they provide in a
_central_ clearinghouse, making it available for automated access. And of
course provide it in a homogeneous format.

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwen
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwen
http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwen
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwen


subject: [WikiEN-l] Reminder

body:
On 10/17/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/17/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/17/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > That would have the downside of lengthening the copyright terms on the
> > > stuff we produce.
> >
> > How is that a downside (in practical terms, anyways)?  Anybody who
> > wishes to PD their contributions can already do so, and Wikipedia aims
> > to be free-content, not necessarily public domain.
>
> For the same reason that cc-by-sa is often preferred to cc-by.  The
> viral nature of share-alike -- which is what the GFDL amounts to --
> means that reusers have to put modifications under the same free
> licence.  This means that the content is more free and therefore
> furthers our mission.

And...? ;-)

No, really, I don't see how the length of the copyright terms is an
issue if everything is being licensed under the GFDL anyways (except
in the sense that longer copyright terms mean more time until somebody
can start getting usable Wikipedia dumps with no GFDL strings
attached, which presumably isn't something too desireable in any
case).

--
Kirill Lokshin


from_name: Angela

subject: [Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

body:
On 10/17/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> According to Ethnologue Latgalian is a dialect of Latvian. From my point of
> view, there is not even a proposed code to be used for your proposed
> Wikipedia that would be acceptable. Acceptable would be something like
> "lv-latg" or "lav-latg" ..

There's a test wiki at http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/ltg
The code bat-ltv has been suggested.

Angela

--
Angela Beesley
http://wikia.com | http://a.nge.la


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
On 10/17/06, Roger Luethi <collector at hellgate.ch> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:17:34 +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
> > The GFDL should absolutely not be used for non-textual content.
>
> Ah, I've been waiting for someone to say that. Thank you. That is the kind
> of information/discussion we would need to have if we were to pick a
> copyleft license for new content.
>
> It wouldn't hurt clarifying these issues for upload(er)s on the WPs and
> commons either, by the way.

It's also a load of rubbish.

Erik, what business do you have complaining about the use of GFDL for
images when Wikinews still welcomes  and encourages -ND and -NC
images?

(http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Image_use_policy#Grants_of_license)


from_name: David Goodman

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
For much freely available published material,--especially images--publishers
will be much more ready to permit access to the version on their own web
site than to permit copying it onto ours. We should not shut ourselves out
from this material.
Perhaps what we should ask for is an irrevocable license to link, and a
promise that the the material will be available permanently in some
repository.

But I do not think we need the long-term mirrored archival backup that would
be wanted for a scholarly journal. The very nature of a wiki project makes
it impermanent.

On 10/17/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Roger Luethi" wrote:
> > The Landsat images they use are in the public domain, but I don't know
> if
> > there's a place that offers them for bulk download.
> If there's not, a WMF place would be a good place to start with it.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.


from_name: Earle Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Episode summaries

body:
[de-lurk]

On 17/10/06, Chris Picone <ccool2ax at gmail.com> wrote:
> I somewhat agree, but take a look at a Family Guy episode summary..
> any one. See the Cultural References section? All facts listed there
> are entirely OR!
>
> >From "Peter's Got Woods":
> "When Shauna, Brian's love interest introduces herself, there's
> heavenly singing of the name 'Shauna' in the background. This parodies
> a scene from Ferris Beuller's Day Off when Jennifer Grey's character
> tells Charlie Sheen's character 'It's Jean, but most guys call me
> Shauna.'"
> -No source, based entirely on editor's personal knowledge! THese
> things are all over these summaries!

I'd say nuke anything like that from orbit, along with any
critic-esque writing that claims to describe the hidden allegorical
meaning of a film, painting, book, music video/song lyrics, etc.,
without providing a reference from the director, artist, author or
other creator of the item in question.

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Bryan Derksen wrote:
>> It seems to me like you may be trying to use policies and guidelines to
>> support a decision already made for other unrelated reasons. Are you
>> actually removing this link on some sort of "human decency" grounds, as
>> I recall you've done in other cases in the past?
>
> In this particular case, no.  But I do think such things are relevant.
>
> Now, as to Ogrish, I will add supporting arguments in the next couple of
> days.  Please treat this as an ordinary editing discussion among
> rational people, not an edict from above.

I have been. My lack of an initial revert was because I recognized you
as a long-time editor who's likely to answer my questions, not because I
feared the wrath of the God-King. I'm not a monarchist or theist. :)
There's no urgency now if there's no actual video on Ogrish any more,
though it'd always be nice to expand the article on Ogrish itself some.

I notice now that you also removed a similar external link to a video
from the Memory Hole website from [[Nick Berg]] with the same "RS, NOR"
reason. You should add a more detailed rationale there too, especially
considering there appears to be a lot of past discussion of the matter
in talk already. I believe I've also used Memory Hole myself as a source
of information in the past, so I'd be interested to hear of problems
with its reliability. The homepage claims it's won the Project on
Government Oversight's "Beyond the Headlines" Award 2005.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061017/5bb658da/attachment.pgp


from_name: ScottL

subject: [Wikipedia-l] starting a new language

body:
   Are you advocating dis-including a language because it does not have
an acceptable abbreviation?  Or are you maintaining that it is not
actually a language?

   If the first, then I suspect that is not a good reason to disallow a
new wikipedia to be formed.

   If the second, then we are still "'recognize[ing]' what some
activists believe".  Though an appeal to the processes of an external
body as part of our process does seem to mitigate that somewhat though I
think that is questionable in terms of our principals.

SKL

GerardM wrote:
> Hoi,
> In the past many things have been done that we should regret. We have on the
> one hand Brion who insists that we maintain the RFC to do with indicating
> content, on the other hand I advocate to use the ISO-639-3 standard and
> engage in the process to get adequate resolution on what is to be considered
> a language. Then there are people who consider that it does not make a
> difference and that we can do as we like.
>
> Yes, we have several codes that are wrong. Codes that are contrary to the
> terms of use of the ISO-639 code. The fact that we have done these things
> does not sanction that we continue to do so.
>
> When Samogitian gets the zog code, it means that we should be able to use
> that code. From an RFC point of view it seems that we are not allowed to do
> this. This is as foolhardy as insisting on using codes that are patently
> wrong and incompatible with what is done in the rest of the world.
>
> ISO is working on codes where dialects are given an official code. When this
> happens the position of these codes will become even more untenable. It is
> to be prefered to accept the best codes that comply with current practices
> and work on amending the practices where needed.
>
> The difference between a language and a dialect is often a problematic one.
> Issues are often highly politicized. It is absolutely wrong to "recognize"
> what some activists believe for reasons that have nothing to do with
> linguistics. Engaging in the process to get the recognition through ISO and
> Ethnologue is open to us, let us go that route.
>
> Thanks,
>    GerardM
>
> On 10/17/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Arns has a really good point. This is based on precedent.
>>
>> While we do try to follow certain conventions where possible, we do
>> have some inconsistencies with standards. But we're not ISOpedia.
>> Whether we conform to standards or not is our own choice.
>>
>> In the past, we have generally had codes in the form of fiu-vro,
>> bat-smg, and map-bms.
>>
>> This is despite the fact that V?ro, Samogitian, and Banyumasan are
>> considered by the Ethnologue (and many others) to be dialects of
>> Estonian, Lithuanian, and Javanese respectively.
>>
>> We are not perfect.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On 17/10/06, Zordsdavini iz Litvy <zordsdavini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Latgalian is going in the same way as Samogitian. Soon Samogitian will
>> have
>>> iso. It will be ZOG. For now it use bat-smg. The latgalian will have
>> iso,
>>> too, I hope because Latgalian have more tradition than Samogitian. When
>>> Samogitian wiki was starting we decided to use bat-smg. I think the best
>>> code for now is bat-ltg. To write about dictionary differences can
>> proposer.
>>> I'll tell him.
>>>
>>> Arns
>>>
>>> 2006/10/17, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> There are two issues.
>>>> * What/ is/ the code for the moment
>>>> * Get recognition for Latgalian as a language.
>>>>
>>>> People have considered languages like Min-Nan and Yue as a dialect of
>>>> Chinese for a long time. They HAD to use codes like zh-min-nan because
>>>> this was necessary to comply with the standards. At this moment we
>> have
>>>> 7602 languages that are recognised in ISO-639-3. This is a big
>>>> improvement over what was in ISO-639-2. The ISO-639-3 codes will
>> become
>>>> part of how languages are seen in the near future on the Internet. I
>> am
>>>> afraid that Latgalian is at this moment considered a dialect of
>> Latvian.
>>>> I am also sure that there are many other "languages/dialects" that are
>>>> in a similar situation. Either because people are afronted because
>> what
>>>> it considers a language they consider a dialect or the other way
>> around.
>>>> There are also many people who consider something a dialect of for
>>>> instance Italian while everybody knows that Italian was constructed
>>>> after the unification of Italy and, that Italian is based on
>> Florentine.
>>>> The point I am making here there is a lot of confusion and there is a
>>>> lot of posturing based on bad information. Having to base the code for
>>>> Latgalian on Latvian is the best for the moment.
>>>>
>>>> When you consider Latgalian a language, there are processes open to us
>>>> to have this considered by organisations like Ethnologue and ISO. We
>>>> have contacts that may help us achieve this. In order to get to that
>>>> stage, it is necessary to jump through certain hoops. One of these is
>> to
>>>> demonstrate that there is indeed this difference that warrants
>> Latgalian
>>>> to be considered a language. Aspects of this are also showing
>> literature
>>>> and current use of the language. One of the first resources would be a
>>>> Swadesh list where both Latvian and Latgalian can be compared.
>>>>
>>>> FYI I am from an area of the Netherlands; Westfriesland where they
>> used
>>>> to speak a language; Westfries. It has a literature; it has a grammar
>> it
>>>> is not understood by people who speak Dutch. There are dialects of
>>>> Westfries there are dictionaries of Westfries and there are revival
>>>> societies that give cabaret performances in Westfries. At some stage I
>>>> am sure that someone will ask for a Wikipedia in Westfries. I would
>> not
>>>> stop them. I KNOW that it takes relatively little effort to make the
>>>> case for Westfries. In WiktionaryZ I would welcome dictionaries in
>>>> Westfries or Latgalian... NB Westfries is not West Frisian .. which
>> imho
>>>> is a complete misnomer.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>    GerardM
>>>>
>>>> Zordsdavini iz Litvy wrote:
>>>>> latgalian has long tradition of writing system. It was in 1918-1944
>>>> second
>>>>> official language. Considering of dialect status is political. And
>> there
>>>> are
>>>>> very active people which are working on latgalian language life.
>> It's
>>>>> dialect like neopolitanian or venecian. We say it's the language.
>>>>>
>>>>> Arns
>>>>>
>>>>> 2006/10/17, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>>> The code bat is a "collective code" for Baltic (other). Latgalian
>>>> however
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> considered a dialect of Latvian and therefore it is not "other".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=lav
>>>>>> http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=bat
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>    GerardM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/17/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/17/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>>>>> According to Ethnologue Latgalian is a dialect of Latvian. From
>> my
>>>>>> point
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> view, there is not even a proposed code to be used for your
>> proposed
>>>>>>>> Wikipedia that would be acceptable. Acceptable would be something
>>>> like
>>>>>>>> "lv-latg" or "lav-latg" ..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's a test wiki at
>> http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/ltg
>>>>>>> The code bat-ltv has been suggested.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Angela
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ok^ ek^ besla ikv Olmok Vzauep^evk
>>> :)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


body:
Cheney Shill wrote:
> --- Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>> So it's all moot anyway. I just wish people were more
>> open about their
>> arguments, anyone else doing basic fact-checking could
>> have discovered this.
>
> I did that basic fact checking earlier and provided a link
> to the page that has thumbnails and the video:
> http://www.ogrish.com/archives/us_soldiers_kidnapped_in_iraq_shown_dead_in_video_Jul_10_2006.html

Ah, sorry about that. I hadn't read some of the earlier part of this
thread, I was relying on the article's talk: page.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061017/60c8bc83/attachment.pgp


from_name: Delphine Ménard

subject: [Foundation-l] www.wikimedia.co.nr

body:
On 10/17/06, Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
> Will they be framed, or simple redirected?

I strongly advise anyone possessing a TLD domain that they wish to
redirect to the Wikimedia projects to put up a very simple page along
the lines of:

"You are probably looking for the xxxx language edition of [insert
name of project here]. Please update your bookmarks and follow this
link to find the original [link to project]"

in whatever language is appropriate, of course.

A redirect has many disadvantages:

1) most redirects through the registrar will mask the actual real
address of the project
2) other redirects do not make it clear for the person who typed the
address in, at any time, that this is not the real address to the
project and not the address they should be typing in.
3) If people get used to using a false address, they will also jump to
the conclusion that the person holding the domain is somewhat
responsible for the content they land on.

Believe me, you do not want to go that route.

In any case, it should be very clear for the visitor that the domain
is *not* the right way to get to any of Wikimedia projects. Or at
least that it is a longer way than typing the real address directly
in. This goes for any domain friendly held that wish to redirect to
the projects. Follow that simple rule, and we'll all sleep better :-).

Cheers,

Delphine
--
~notafish
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.


subject: [Foundation-l] www.wikimedia.co.nr


list: commons-l

from_name: geni

subject: [Commons-l] And in other news...

body:
On 10/17/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Touch?
>
> However,
> Judging by the popularity of Flickr, Youtube, and the non free
> creative commons licenses (which account for 2/3rds of the CC usage)
> I'd say that the general public cares not a lick about free content,
> so long as it is available to them at no cost and no one is suing them
> (i.e. free as in stolen beer is sufficient, since there is no RIAA
> going after folks for image copyright violations).

Getty have been going after websites.
--
geni


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
Roger Luethi wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:00:05 -0400, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>> I wonder if content acquired within the restrictions you mentioned (pick
>>> any of the good suggestions made by others) could be used as a lever in
>>> some dual-licensing scheme (as used by several major open source software
>>> companies). As long as the content is under a free license but not in the
>>> public domain (e.g. GFDL or CC-BY-SA), we'd have a bargaining chip that we
>>> could parlay into access to other works. -- We can't do that for Wikipedia
>>> itself (because there is no single copyright owner), but if we owned a
>>> significant piece of desirable content, things might be different.
>> Now you're talking!  Can we explore this more?  Is there a
>> sustainability model here?  Can we use $X to leverage the
>> content-freedom of $10X worth of good stuff?
>
> I believe so -- it's certainly worth a shot. I will sketch out the reasons
> below.
>
> A little introduction to dual-licensing, because I noticed some confusion
> elsewhere in this thread: some open source companies (e.g. Trolltech and
> MySQL) give their software away under a copyleft license (e.g. GNU GPL).
> The software is free to use, modify, and distribute as long as all
> derivative works remain under that license (that's essentially what
> copyleft means). Some users of the software, however, would like to
> distribute proprietary derivates, and they pay real money for the privilege
> of getting to use the very same code under a traditional, proprietary
> license.
>
> In a nutshell, dual-licensing is about offering products gratis to those
> agreeing to share alike and having those in the proprietary business pay
> for their use.
>
> The only area with fairly solid evidence on this form of dual-licensing is
> software, and that's a different industry with a distinct set of
> attributes. The key for us would be a good idea of derivative works and
> copyleft licenses as they apply to text, images, or any other content we
> might own.
>
> Basically, the question boils down to this: do we have to give the new
> content into the public domain, or can we use a free but copyleft license?
> And what do the copyleft restrictions _really_ mean for the type of content
> we acquire? (the latter question preferably answered by some experienced
> lawyers)
>
> So why hasn't this been done before, besides software? -- I suspect that
> there aren't many content owners a) willing to use their property to
> enlarge the commons and b) large enough themselves to get noticed.
> Wikipedia (available only under a copyleft license) could have been one of
> very few candidates if it wasn't for the fact that dual-licensing requires
> a single entity that can negotiate on behalf of all copyright owners.
>
> Your $100 million dream machine could create the critical mass in one go.
> To prospective creators of derivative works we could offer free use if they
> are willing to share alike. For proprietary derivative works, we could
> negotiate payment in cash or in works that _they_ would put under a free
> license in return.
>
> Roger

   Would something like this not require that the $100 Million worth of
copyrights in this case be assigned to WMF or some other foundation that
we setup rather than simply released under GFDL or a CC license?

   Further, if we end up creating some sort of copyright holding
foundation, might it also be worthwhile to make it easy for contributers
to assign their copyrights to WMF if they desire?  This is I think only
interesting in a dual-licensing type of setup, or am I missing something?

SKL


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] kid safe

body:
Angela wrote:
> On 10/17/06, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>What striked me is the subtitle of this site
>>
>>Kids.Net.Au - kids safe search engine for children, parents and teachers.
>>
>>I love the idea of a kid safe search engine for children using primarily
>>wikipedia :-)
>
>
> It's actually just a very out of date mirror of Wikipedia (July 2003
> according to their [[current events]] page). They don't appear to have
> changed anything to make it "child-friendly".
>
> Angela.

I am so disappointed :-(


from_name: Giuseppe Delfino

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New wikipedia

body:
Hello to all,
I propose the creation of a new wikipedia in Griko: the Greek dialect spoken
in Southern Italy (Apulia and Calabria). I believe that wikipedia can
mantain alive a lot of endagered languages, and for this reason i ask the
creation of this new  wikipedia

_________________________________________________________________
Sei patito di sport ?
http://search.msn.it/results.aspx?q=sport&mkt=it-IT&form=QBRE


subject: [Commons-l] And in other news...

body:
On 10/17/06, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux at free.fr> wrote:
> This should remind teachers and parents that things such as using
> copyrighted photographs for a publicly displayed work (say, the kind of
> "students' works" shown during "open doors" days or at end of the year)
> may result in legal issues. After all, what SACEM does, the societies
> collecting rights for photographs may do. (Though I suspect they would
> have the common sense not to create themselves a public relation disaster.)

I think the amusing one would be when one of the kids takes their
school to court for violating their copyright.

> In any case, running things with the knowledge that things are ok
> because people will break the law and no one will bother does not sound
> like a sound approach.
>
> Wikim?dia France is trying to push many buttons to get public sources of
> photographs to release them under free licenses. It is not easy, believe me.
>
> Regards

Even if they do release them under a free lisence how were you
planning to get hold of them?

--
geni


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Commons-l] And in other news...

body:
Brief comments on happenings around the wiki:

* A process to recognise "featured galleries" has been started. (A
"gallery" is a Commons main namespace page that is used to
display/organise/annotate/present media files.)  If you are interested
in helping develop the criteria, or suggest some of your favourite
galleries as possible models, please comment at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Featured_galleries .
Innovative and unusual presentations are especially welcome.

* Commons is rapidly approaching one million files. How can we
celebrate and mark the occasion? See
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Commons:One_million_files

* A new process has been started [for admins] to review images from
Flickr, as license changes or license mismatches are a common problem.
No decision has been made about how to handle the images with
differing licenses. See
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Para/Flickr
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Flickr_review_needed
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Attention#Flickr_review

* There is a fledging project developing to organise and encourage
Commons maintenance and cleanup work to be done. Mop and bucket
optional. Your help needed at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:CommonTasks .

* A new process for photography feedback has been started. It doesn't
offer any shiny awards, but could give you more expansive feedback
than COM:QI (Quality images, ala 'Good articles', but only for
Wikimedian-created works) or COM:FP (Featured pictures). See
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photography_critiques .

regards,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


subject: [Commons-l] And in other news...

body:
On 10/17/06, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux at free.fr> wrote:
> We're not there yet. We're trying to get them to discuss the issues with
> us and trying to show them that, for instance, they would have an
> advantage in getting free advertisement on our sites (a public museum
> who puts up a photo on Commons that says "This photo was provided by
> museum Foobar which has the original painting, can be visited at blah
> blah" gets advertisement). :-)

Except that most stuff produced will not be digitalised. So while your
at it you might want to take a look at the restiction the goverement
puts on getting hold of PD material in it's various archives.

--
geni


from_name: magiske prosesser

body:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:30:59 -0600
  Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> I'm still not exactly sure what the threshold ought to
>be in terms of
> time to declare a Wikinews language edition "inactive",
>but the main
> goal ought to be to give the community who speaks that
>language the
> benefit of the doubt.  In addition, I would strongly
>recommend that if a
> Wikinews language edition is to be closed down, then the
>related "sister
> projects" of the same langauge ought to have a
>notification put in the
> Village Pump pages (even if in English... with an appeal
>for
> translation) that "their" language edition of Wikinews
>is being shut
> down due to inactivity.  Perhaps also a notification of
>any related
> mailing list that is specific to that language, if it is
>listed as an
> "official" Wikimedia mailing list.  I know that this
>seems like a lot of
> work, but the point here is to try and give a final
>effort to simply let
> speakers of that language know that Wikinews is even
>something that they
> could participate with.
>
> We might be surprised and get a few people to turn out
>without having to
> shut the project down in the first place.

On my local Wikipedia (the no: Norwegian) I have
previously on a couple of occasions raised issues
regarding local sister projects only to be told in no
uncertain terms that "this is Wikipedia. Matters relating
to sister projects should be discussed at meta." Of
course, that's not very helpful as very few local
contributors read meta. Seeing as this reveals a void when
it comes to adequate forums for local Wikimedia projects
coordination, I think an effort, perhaps from these parts
of the woods, to assist local chapters in finding
constructive solutions to this problem might be valuable.
Maybe a suggestion from "someone on high" to allow for the
creation of local inter-project village punp solutions
would spark more involvement in these projects.

Halvor  (User:meco)

--
email to and from this person will be subject to public
availability


body:
Cheney Shill wrote:
> Feel free to add it.  I would have already, but continue to
> be blocked.

I'll wait on Jimbo's response. I've brought up the issue in the
article's talk page and now that I've seen the video I found that it
closely matched part of a description of the contents from Salem News.
However, the Ogrish file is only the first minute of the full four and a
half minute video, so even though IMO it's "authenticated" it's still
not really a good source for other reasons. I also don't speak Arabic so
couldn't tell if the voice over was correct or meaningful.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061017/1d9ee0d1/attachment.pgp


from_name: David Monniaux

subject: [Commons-l] And in other news...

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>I'd be shocked if flickr didn't completely dwarf us in terms of images
>with 4:3 and 5:4 aspect.
>
"Free" ? As in "free speech" or in "free beer" ?


subject: [Commons-l] And in other news...

body:
Brianna Laugher wrote:

>Where are all these random stats coming from?? Anything the rest of us
>can play with?
>
Download the SQL dumps from dumps.wikimedia.org, load them into mysql,
run your own requests!


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] good example of overuse of {{fact}}

body:
jayjg wrote:

>On 10/17/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>jayjg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 10/16/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>A better and more important issue is that it's a waste of time to
>>>>source obvious facts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Not really. Once they're sourced, they're sourced forever ...
>>>
>>>
>>I'm glad to see you say that.
>>
>>Jefferson had an 8-year presidency during which a lot of things
>>happened.  An article about any one of those things can quite easily
>>have a reference to "third president Thomas Jefferson"  It follows from
>>what you say that a source will not be needed in any of those articles,
>>but a link to [[Thoma Jefferson]] will be sufficient.
>>
>>
>No, that doesn't follow from what I say. Wikipedia doesn't use itself
>as a reference, as you have no idea what might be in that [[Thomas
>Jefferson]] article when any individual happens to click on it.
>
>
Your POV makes no sense at all.  You might as well say that there's no
point to making links because you don't trust the work of others.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a reference to another article.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Episode summaries

body:
Earle Martin wrote:
> On 17/10/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'd fail you in any of my English classes for being a slave to
>> authorial intent.
>
> It is a testament to my having given up English classes that I don't
> even understand what that means... :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent :)

>> (Which is not to say "Hey, you know what we need, more OR" so much as
>> "For the love of GOD will people stop assuming they instinctively
>> know how/what to cite outside of their field?")
>
> Indeed.

For stuff like this where one show is making a reference or homage to
another, I'd say cite the thing it's making an homage to and count it as
"original research" only if after watching the two side-by-side the
reference isn't blatantly obvious. There will no doubt be borderline
cases where debate can be had, but that's life on Wikipedia and
shouldn't be feared.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061017/aff280fe/attachment.pgp


subject: [Commons-l] And in other news...

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>Judging by the popularity of Flickr, Youtube, and the non free
>creative commons licenses (which account for 2/3rds of the CC usage)
>I'd say that the general public cares not a lick about free content,
>so long as it is available to them at no cost and no one is suing them
>(i.e. free as in stolen beer is sufficient, since there is no RIAA
>going after folks for image copyright violations).
>
>
In France, a society of authors and composers called SACEM demanded
payment after a class of elementary school pupils sang a song for the
retirement of their teacher (the song's title translates as "goodbye, Mr
Teacher"), in public.

Technically, they were right: this was a public performance of a song
written by a still living artist, as managers of the rights of that
songwriter they can demand payment. Of course, this created an outrage;
the songwriter offered to pay the money owed to SACEM (once the artist
hands management to SACEM, as far as I know, he cannot directly choose
how SACEM manages his songs).

This should remind teachers and parents that things such as using
copyrighted photographs for a publicly displayed work (say, the kind of
"students' works" shown during "open doors" days or at end of the year)
may result in legal issues. After all, what SACEM does, the societies
collecting rights for photographs may do. (Though I suspect they would
have the common sense not to create themselves a public relation disaster.)

In any case, running things with the knowledge that things are ok
because people will break the law and no one will bother does not sound
like a sound approach.

Wikim?dia France is trying to push many buttons to get public sources of
photographs to release them under free licenses. It is not easy, believe me.

Regards


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
On 17/10/06, Roger Luethi <collector at hellgate.ch> wrote:

> > ... or at least that's our position and we're sticking to it; theirs is
> > that they're the copyright holders, and, well, they're sticking to it too.
>
> I don't think that is their official position, because the idea that works
> written hundreds of years ago are still under copyright is entirely and
> obviously without merit (not counting special cases like Crown copyright).

Minor general quibble: retaining copyright on material published
hundreds of years ago is certainly likely to be legally dubious (the
oldest somewhat-legally-defensible claim I can think of is stuff
published ~150 years ago, and even then IIRC they lost). Material
*written* hundreds of years ago and not published, however - if a
collection of Elizabethan letters found in a country house, as
occasionally happens, are transcribed and printed, the
publisher/editor gets a copyright of twenty years or so in most
jurisdictions

(This is to encourage publishing new things, and is probably the
closest thing in existence to the original concept...)

It may be ethically dubious, but it's legally fine, and it's worth
always remembering the distinction between dates of publication and
dates of creation.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


subject: [Foundation-l] Dream a little...

body:
On 16/10/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> > As you know, I strongly believe we need this and other extension-based
> > functionality; we just need a general security model for it that makes
> > sense.
>
> While this might be useful on wikisource on en it would have the
> problem of making the code shown on the editing pages even more
> incomprehensible.

Yes, because having math-tex code, which is fairly difficult to grok,
has crippled projects to the point where they can't work. Oh, wait.

If editors don't understand something in an editing screen, they leave
it alone - it's generally not difficult at all to figure out which bit
you're looking at even if you don't comprehend the code. I don't see
why providing for extensions which will be quite rarely used, but
provide definite extra functionality, is a downside.

Yes, other projects will use it more than enwp. But that doesn't mean
that it won't be useful on enwp, or mean that it's somehow an
automatic detriment...

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


subject: [Foundation-l] Dream a little...


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 10/16/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2006, at 6:12 PM, jayjg wrote:
> >
> > People keep claiming that it's hard to source "obvious facts";
> > however, in practice that's almost never the case. Obvious facts are
> > generally extremely easy to source.
>
> A better and more important issue is that it's a waste of time to
> source obvious facts.
>
It's also a waste of time to state obvious facts in an encyclopedia article.

For less than "obvious" facts I do think that a source should be *somewhere*
in the references.

I also don't think people should be removing facts that they know to be
true, just because they are unsourced.

Further, and not everyone agrees with me on this, someone should do a quick
check for a source before removing (or {{fact}} tagging) something which
isn't at least probably false (or unprovable and therefore POV).

Anthony


subject: [Commons-l] And in other news...

body:
geni wrote:

>Even if they do release them under a free lisence how were you
>planning to get hold of them?
>
>
We're not there yet. We're trying to get them to discuss the issues with
us and trying to show them that, for instance, they would have an
advantage in getting free advertisement on our sites (a public museum
who puts up a photo on Commons that says "This photo was provided by
museum Foobar which has the original painting, can be visited at blah
blah" gets advertisement). :-)


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [Commons-l] And in other news...

body:
David Monniaux wrote:
> And a few stats:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Commons_stats_October_2006.svg
>

Don't suppose we've got anything on admin stats yet?

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061017/9bedf92f/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikipedia-l] kid safe

references:
<eh2md2$s6r$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<8b722b800610170729offd4286t388dd70bc18edd1b@mail.gmail.com>
	<eh2v21$541$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
There are differences, some of them relevant.
AU didn't include the pictures, neither the general or the specialized.
AU didn't include the references or the outside sites.
AU didn't include much about the religious attitudes, especially the
Islamic. .
WP has a section of links labeled OPPOSITION.

There are  a number of relevant topics not included in WP (or at least not
in this article), and perhaps this will inspire me to add them.

Considering that "masturbation" is one of the words likely to be blocked by
filters, it is good to have this information in a reasonably reliable and
accessible source. --but there's a technical question: the link even within
WP is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation.
Possibly this would cause some filters to not accept the page. I found that
neither of my browsers could be set to enable parental controls, so I
couldn't test it.

On 10/17/06, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Angela wrote:
> > On 10/17/06, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>What striked me is the subtitle of this site
> >>
> >>Kids.Net.Au - kids safe search engine for children, parents and
> teachers.
> >>
> >>I love the idea of a kid safe search engine for children using primarily
> >>wikipedia :-)
> >
> >
> > It's actually just a very out of date mirror of Wikipedia (July 2003
> > according to their [[current events]] page). They don't appear to have
> > changed anything to make it "child-friendly".
> >
> > Angela.
>
>
> I am so disappointed :-(
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.


subject: [Commons-l] And in other news...

body:
geni wrote:

>Except that most stuff produced will not be digitalised. So while your
>at it you might want to take a look at the restiction the goverement
>puts on getting hold of PD material in it's various archives.
>
We're also working on that.

On Thursday I'm going to attend a meeting on electronic libraries.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] John Doolittle

references:
<6h18j2tjtgncjp0age5m6ngqsd32vlu7qq@4ax.com>
	<45340BCE.1090206@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<4534139C.1050201@wikia.com>

body:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:19:56 -0400, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
wrote:

>Without making any statement on this particular case, which I have not
>studied enough, I just wanted to point out that a balance issue can and
>often is a BLP issue.  Indeed, BLP issues are more often about balance
>than anything else.

Thank you, that was precisely my point.

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Dream a little...

body:
On 10/17/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, because having math-tex code, which is fairly difficult to grok,
> has crippled projects to the point where they can't work. Oh, wait.
>
> If editors don't understand something in an editing screen, they leave
> it alone - it's generally not difficult at all to figure out which bit
> you're looking at even if you don't comprehend the code.

There is a study floating around that suggests otherwise.

>I don't see
> why providing for extensions which will be quite rarely used, but
> provide definite extra functionality, is a downside.
>
> Yes, other projects will use it more than enwp. But that doesn't mean
> that it won't be useful on enwp, or mean that it's somehow an
> automatic detriment...

Keeping the edit code as simple as posible is important. In this case
I agree with the suggestion that this can be done through the use of
templates however this is an issue that should always be kept in mind.

--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] Dream a little...


from_name: Roger Luethi

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:07:11 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Those who have experienced the cost, time, and creativity which goes
> into the restoring and digitizing required for a high quality
> reproduction do not find this position shocking.

I'm not sure "shocking" is the right word, but many object to the ever
expanding, indiscriminate application of artificial monopolies in order to
fix perceived funding problems.

It is widely recognized that both copyright and patents on software suffer
from very similarly flawed analogies.

> Nor is it weakly established.  Bridgeman v. Corel was a surprising
> outcome considering established practices, and I expect future cases
> will substantially restrain the expansive application of that ruling.

Unfortunately, I can't say I disagree with that. Of course it becomes all
the more important to identify (and make available) works that are free.

Roger


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
On 17/10/06, Roger Luethi <collector at hellgate.ch> wrote:

> In a nutshell, dual-licensing is about offering products gratis to those
> agreeing to share alike and having those in the proprietary business pay
> for their use.
>
> The only area with fairly solid evidence on this form of dual-licensing is
> software, and that's a different industry with a distinct set of
> attributes. The key for us would be a good idea of derivative works and
> copyleft licenses as they apply to text, images, or any other content we
> might own.

There's anecdotal evidence for this happening for images. The
Wikimedia enquiry address gets a lot of requests to discuss licensing
for an image, generally assuming we're the copyright holder (but
sometimes asking directly for the author); money is certainly in the
air on some occasions, though I suspect most end up as "Sure, use it,
can you put my name on the flyleaf?"

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


subject: [WikiEN-l] Episode summaries

body:
On 17/10/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Congratulations, you've nuked half of the television-related articles on
> wikipedia.
>
> NOR is fine and good, but pop culture references do help people understand
> an episode. Instances would be scenes where (for example) the Simpsons rip a
> scene directly from a Quentin Tarantino movie.
>
> ...
>
> But to "nuke it from orbit"? Ouch. As for a source, see if one can be found,
> and if necessary just use the two sources side by side as your reference.

Maybe I should have been more specific - I'm certainly not advocating
the removal of /all/ pop-culture references. The original example
quoted was:

> > "When Shauna, Brian's love interest introduces herself, there's
> > heavenly singing of the name 'Shauna' in the background. This parodies
> > a scene from Ferris Beuller's Day Off when Jennifer Grey's character
> > tells Charlie Sheen's character 'It's Jean, but most guys call me
> > Shauna.'"

That, to me, is not obvious. A scene ripped direct from a Tarantino
movie is definitely a cultural reference, but "singing of the name
'Shauna' in the background" doesn't, to my eye, appear to have any
relation to the quoted scene from Ferris Bueller's Day Off at all, and
smells strongly of a fan getting a little too enthusiastic.

There are also cases of repeated cultural references/running jokes in
shows that only become clear after a longer period of watching (for
example [[1729 (number)]] in Futurama). These might seem harder to
prove but are still an order of magnitude better to include than
/hidden allegorical meanings/, which was the main point of my post.
For example, suggesting that the "Alien" series of movies are actually
allegories for the state of American politics, which I actually read
in a print publication once.

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
On 17/10/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> Um.  I've made a non-trivial amount of money relicensing my images to
> folks who found them via Wikimedia projects... not enough to pay for
> my equipment yet, but within a few years perhaps. ... but I'm just one
> person with only a few commercially interesting images.

Really? That's even better than I assumed... I was assuming it wasn't
much more than paying for an occasional lunch for our regular
image-creators.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


body:
geni wrote:
> On 10/17/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bryan, I don't know that the Ogrish link was being used for in this
>> case, but in general our understanding of what's "reliable" involves a
>> degree of editorial oversight, such as fact-checking, legal scrutiny,
>> and so on. I believe the Ogrish site posts video and images from
>> anyone who sends them in, regardless of whether they're authentic or
>> staged;
>
> So do we. Commons is close to 1 million images. Looks like you have a
> lot of deleting to do.

You, we don't. Commons routinely deletes things which are being used as
"original research". Please stop your trolling.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061017/c6c84b24/attachment.pgp


from_name: Matt R

subject: [WikiEN-l] Reminder

body:
I saw this on BBC News today:

   http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6059726.stm

Made me think. I suspect I'm not the only one on this list to have encountered
some pretty disturbed and angry people on Wikipedia. I know you all know this
already, but a reminder: it's a good idea to ensure your physical address (at
the very least) is not public if you plan to tangle with nutcases online.

-- Matt

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

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


body:
geni wrote:
> On 10/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>> You, we don't. Commons routinely deletes things which are being used as
>> "original research". Please stop your trolling.
>>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Stroudwater_Canal_Bridge.JPG
>
> The caption is original reaseach (it is also wrong but that is do to
> someone removeing so called POV from the original)
>

How so?

> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pulsatrix_perspicillata01.jpg
>
> original research
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pulsatrix_perspicillata.jpg
>
> original reasearch
>

How so? And please note that you're accusing an en: Arbitrator of
"original research", so you'd better be damned sure you want to make
that claim.

> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Toepfe_fcm.jpg
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Herrenchiemsee.jpg
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Reichsburg_Cochem_9.JPG
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Arnold101.JPG
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Taxidermied_grey_fox_face.jpg
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:U-Bahnhof_Hohenzollernplatz.jpg
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NewZealandCadetCorps.JPG
>
> original reasearch

You're wrong, as usual. "Primary source image" isn't the same as
"original research". An example of something that /is/ "original
research" and was deleted as such is

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Img052.jpg

I'll ask you again, for the second time, to stop your trolling, or, as
you call it, "rules lawyering". If you're so proud of being a rules
lawyer, you'd better remember that the lawyers will be first against the
wall when the revolution comes. And believe me, the revolution is coming
sooner than you think.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061017/53af50f7/attachment.pgp


from_name: Earle Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Episode summaries

body:
On 17/10/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd fail you in any of my English classes for being a slave to
> authorial intent.

It is a testament to my having given up English classes that I don't
even understand what that means... :)

> (Which is not to say "Hey, you know what we need, more OR" so much as
> "For the love of GOD will people stop assuming they instinctively
> know how/what to cite outside of their field?")

Indeed.

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


from_name: Voice of All

subject: [Foundation-l] Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

body:
Seems fine by me, since it seems to simply check the anon-only for AOL IPs by
default.

One related thing that would  be really nice is no have the autoblocker not
go off for AOL user blocks.

Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> A few months ago the ability was added to limit IP blocks to allow
> logged-in contributions to continue. This allowed finer-grained blocking
> of troublemakers on shared IPs (schools, AOL etc).
>
> There's some suggestion to make this the default mode. I wanted to
> announce this ahead of time since it will change what happens when
> admins make a block without manually clicking something extra.
>
> If there's no serious objection, we'll go ahead and change this in a few
> days.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Planned-change-to-default-IP-blocking-behavior-tf2461698.html#a6868840
Sent from the WikiMedia Foundation mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Episode summaries

body:
On 17/10/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:

> > -No source, based entirely on editor's personal knowledge! THese
> > things are all over these summaries!
>
> I'd say nuke anything like that from orbit, along with any
> critic-esque writing that claims to describe the hidden allegorical
> meaning of a film, painting, book, music video/song lyrics, etc.,
> without providing a reference from the director, artist, author or
> other creator of the item in question.

Couldn't we consider citing, say, the enormously vast corpus of Actual
Serious literary and artistic criticism? Original research is one
thing, but attempting to prohibit using any research whatsoever may be
going over the top...

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Planned change to default IP blocking behavior

body:
On 17/10/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> A few months ago the ability was added to limit IP blocks to allow
> logged-in contributions to continue. This allowed finer-grained blocking
> of troublemakers on shared IPs (schools, AOL etc).
>
> There's some suggestion to make this the default mode. I wanted to
> announce this ahead of time since it will change what happens when
> admins make a block without manually clicking something extra.
>
> If there's no serious objection, we'll go ahead and change this in a few
> days.

Will new-user-creation be allowed or blocked by default?

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


from_name: gwern branwen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
On 10/17/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> Instead of buying them the journals, maps and so on which are in fact PD,
> why don't we politely ask for them and -if denied- use the millions to *sue*
> them? Some clever demands could make free a great number of items which
> paractically are not.
> Note: we must make sure that they at last get free. E.g. our queryying could
> be to the originals to digitalize them (for web-publishing).

*Can* we sue? My understanding was that if they sold us copies and
then tried to restrict redistribution of those PD works (and no EULA
or contract was signed) simply through copyright mechanisms, then we'd
have some sort of legal recourse, but that we can't demand that they
make the works physically available simply because they happen to be
PD if they decline to have us as customers.

--Gwern


from_name: ScottL

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
<snip the while discussion>

> Ah, but his revolution was on the opposite side of the political
> spectrum. Ours shall be a revolution of free culture, and stuff.

   "And stuff"!!!  That lightened my evening :)

   Thanks,
   SKL


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Reminder

body:
On 10/17/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> As I have said elsewhere, though it's currently Wikifashionable to stay
> pseudonymous, in the long term I expect that people will accept this and get
> over it, and start using real names more consistently.

That would have the downside of lengthening the copyright terms on the
stuff we produce.

--
geni


from_name: Cheney Shill

body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> There's a very big difference between Ogrish and The
> Memory Hole.

I'm not suggesting that Ogrish be considered equivalent to
Memory Hole on a reliability continuum.  It is rather odd,
however, that somebody rather high up in the Wiki chain of
command removed a link to MH using reasoning similar to
that used to remove the Ogrish link.

> Ogrish is designed to shock. It includes official blog
> postings signed
> with "Murder & Mayhem", and unofficial commentary in  the
> forum that
> makes it very clear that for most people using the site,
> their
> motivation comes from a fascination with death and gore.

Take, for example, that Ogrish will accept anything.  If
you go here:
http://www.ogrish.com/submit.html
You?ll see that you must submit and describe the content
for Ogrish to review.

Yes, it caters to a particular type of content. That,
however, is not a criticism made of business or medical
journals, so why here?  The Wall Street Journal is
considered an expert on business issues, yet it comes with
a significant ideological bias that can bias even basic
financial reporting.  Why not consider Ogrish an expert on
gore?  It's reasonable to say they have developed a
knowledge of what is and is not real when it comes to gore
submissions that Wikipedia and most other news/information
sources can not claim.

~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)

--spam may follow--

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


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and PayPal update

body:
It's previously been mentioned that we will be starting a public
fundraiser at some point in the near future. In anticipation of that, I
can pass on some good news.

For the primary method by which we receive funds (PayPal), we will be
able to accept donations in ten new currencies that they are now
supporting. These include Czech korunas, Danish krone, Hong Kong
dollars, Hungarian florints, New Zealand dollars, Norwegian krone,
Polish zloty, Singapore dollars, Swedish krone, and Swiss francs. This
is in addition to the six currencies that were accepted in the last
fundraiser: euros, pounds, yen, and three kinds of dollars (Australian,
Canadian, and US).

While I don't know in each individual instance how PayPal compares with
MoneyBookers (the other online option available), either in terms of
fees or popularity in those countries, this is obviously welcome news.
The translation team has started work on getting the relevant pages
updated, but I'm sure they would welcome help from people who aren't
already involved. It would be especially nice to get a Danish
translation of the fundraising page, since that's the one currency here
whose language currently seems to be missing entirely. Please feel free
to spread the word in the community.

--Michael Snow


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:11:30 +0100, Andrew Gray wrote:
> Minor general quibble: retaining copyright on material published
> hundreds of years ago is certainly likely to be legally dubious (the
> oldest somewhat-legally-defensible claim I can think of is stuff
> published ~150 years ago, and even then IIRC they lost). Material
> *written* hundreds of years ago and not published, however - if a
> collection of Elizabethan letters found in a country house, as
> occasionally happens, are transcribed and printed, the
> publisher/editor gets a copyright of twenty years or so in most
> jurisdictions

Yup, good point. [[Publication right]] for those who care.

But if you discuss ancient academic journals as we did in this sub-thread,
publication rights do not apply.

Roger


from_name: bawolff

subject: [Commons-l] And in other news...

body:
> And a few stats:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Commons_stats_October_2006.svg

Out of curiosity, Does anyone know what they highest resolution image
on commons is?

-bawolff


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
On 17/10/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:

> Although gmaxwell will eat me, yes. GFDL is _viral_ too. The bigger trick
> of GFDL and which may make some parties to still pay for it is that you need
> to include a copy of the GFDL (several pages). If it hasn't other license,
> they
> must contact you (and get an agreement) to use it without such terms.

Yes. For using images in print, the GFDL is pretty much a pretend free
content license, as the terms are ridiculously onerous in practice.

- d.


from_name: habj

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia in schools, and blocked IP:s

body:
This might well have been discussed thoroughly before. If so, I would
be very grateful for a pointer to the old thread.

Some teachers use Wikipedia in schools. Some schools also get their
IP:s blocked because of heavy vandalism, from the computers in the
school library and computer labs etc. The semi-new feature that an IP
can be blocked but editing of logged-in editors from that same IP
address is permitted, means these teachers have to tell their students
to create accounts. However, there is a limit to how many accounts can
be created a day from each IP-address - and so, it is not possible for
the whole class to create that user account. Blocking the school's IP
in this case prevents the teacher from using Wikipedia and introducing
the pupils/students in school.

Is there a good solution to this?

How many of the Wikipedias out there use this feature for eternal or
very long term blocks of IP:s of shared computers, which is the source
of lots of graffiti? What is the experience of this?

We are currently discussing this feature at Swedish Wikipedia, and
would greatly appreciate input from others.

/habj


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Reminder

body:
On 10/17/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/17/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > That would have the downside of lengthening the copyright terms on the
> > stuff we produce.
>
> How is that a downside (in practical terms, anyways)?  Anybody who
> wishes to PD their contributions can already do so, and Wikipedia aims
> to be free-content, not necessarily public domain.

For the same reason that cc-by-sa is often preferred to cc-by.  The
viral nature of share-alike -- which is what the GFDL amounts to --
means that reusers have to put modifications under the same free
licence.  This means that the content is more free and therefore
furthers our mission.

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Reminder

body:
--- Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> To quote from the article:
>
> 	Det Cons Christopher Creagh, of the Metropolitan Police, said:
> 	"This is the first instance of a web-rage attack."
>
> /me generally doesn't panic at the first instance.

Yup, that's entirely reasonable. Risk should be evaluated rationally, but it's
worth remembering to evaluate it.

-- Matt

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

___________________________________________________________
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" ? The Wall Street Journal
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html


subject: [WikiEN-l] Episode summaries

body:
On 17/10/06, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/17/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> > I'd say nuke anything like that from orbit, along with any
> > critic-esque writing that claims to describe the hidden allegorical
> > meaning of a film, painting, book, music video/song lyrics, etc.,
> > without providing a reference from the director, artist, author or
> > other creator of the item in question.
>
> Or from notable critics, academics, etc.  Creators aren't the only
> notable source of such things.

Right. There is certainly a notability threshold, although
unfortunately the margin of this email is too small to contain its
definition.

> Also, in some cases, a commonly
> accepted urban legend, even unconfirmed, becomes so common as to be
> worth noting; then, it will probably have appeared in writings
> discussing the urban legend.

Which is being discussed currently in the "blackboard" thread.

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Reminder

body:
On 10/17/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/17/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > For the same reason that cc-by-sa is often preferred to cc-by.  The
> > viral nature of share-alike -- which is what the GFDL amounts to --
> > means that reusers have to put modifications under the same free
> > licence.  This means that the content is more free and therefore
> > furthers our mission.
>
> And...? ;-)

I actually deleted my next sentence from my post for fear of being
flamed: "I personally disagree with this and think that the fewer
restrictions placed on work beyond simple attribution the better."

(I license my work cc-by.)

--
Sam


from_name: Samuel Klein

subject: [Foundation-l] Where to propose new features for MediaWiki?

body:
This can easily get out of hand if not framed properly, with long threads
about very specific features.  We used to have such a page...
   http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Incoming_requests

... but it was moved over to bugzilla, which now has thousands of bugs and
feature requests, many of them with extensive comments and descriptions.

http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=specific&order=relevance+desc&bug_status=__open__&product=&content=feature

If you want to start a new feature-proposals page, say to clean up and
organize the many proposals/proposal-clouds with their own meta-pages,
in a way that makes effective use of bugzilla for the more detailed
feature requests -- this could be a good thing.

--SJ

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Virgil Ierubino wrote:

> Couldn't there be set up a better place than the MediaWiki-l mailing list,
> where feature proposals can be made? A page on Meta with a structure like
> the project proposals page?
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
> Roger, could you expand on this? I'm not following how it works. I
> understand that dual-licensing works for software because companies
> may not want to copyleft their work, and because just source code
> isn't actually all that useful minus maintenance and support and
> documentation and other things that companies like Redhat provide for
> money, but how does this apply to regular old content? Is the GFDL as
> 'viral' as the GPL in regard to modification and incorporation, and is
> not being GFDL valuable enough to various parties that the relevant
> corporations would still realize their desired sums?
>
> --Gwern

Although gmaxwell will eat me, yes. GFDL is _viral_ too. The bigger trick
of GFDL and which may make some parties to still pay for it is that you need
to include a copy of the GFDL (several pages). If it hasn't other license,
they
must contact you (and get an agreement) to use it without such terms.


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
geni wrote:
> On 10/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Very good. You accept NOR in it's purest form doesn't work for images.

Oh good, I'm glad we can agree on /something/.

> So lets see how wikipedia modifies this:
>
> "Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that
> Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures
> and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free
> license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images
> generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core
> reason behind the NOR policy."
>
> The key line appears to be " images generally do not propose
> unpublished ideas or arguments"
>

Right.

>
> So do our two videos propose unpublished ideas or arguments?
>
> Well first to the nick berg one. There are no shortage of reports that
> the video esists and various reports (rather a lot really due to
> ceritan conspiracy theories) on it's contents Assumeing the video
> doesn't contradict these it would appear not to propose unpublished
> ideas or arguments.
>
> Moveing on to Kristian Menchaca I've yet to see any evidence that it
> is proposeing unpublished ideas or arguments
>

The point was really verifiability.

>
>> I'll ask you again, for the second time, to stop your trolling,
>
> I'm not trolling. Simply applying reductio ad absurdum to certian arguments.
>

Granted, but it's a fine line to walk between the two.

<snip>
>> you'd better remember that the lawyers will be first against the
>> wall when the revolution comes. And believe me, the revolution is coming
>> sooner than you think.
>>
>
> Thomas Jefferson would have tended to dissagree I think
>

Ah, but his revolution was on the opposite side of the political
spectrum. Ours shall be a revolution of free culture, and stuff.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061017/d33eb7bf/attachment.pgp


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
On 10/17/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> I certainly would believe that a large high-quality GFDLed collection
> could generate real income by charging for releases under licenses
> which are more comforting and standard to various industries.  I doubt
> that the income would be enough to offset the substantial cost of
> digitizing and collecting such works.

The GFDL should absolutely not be used for non-textual content.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
Instead of buying them the journals, maps and so on which are in fact PD,
why don't we politely ask for them and -if denied- use the millions to *sue*
them? Some clever demands could make free a great number of items which
paractically are not.
Note: we must make sure that they at last get free. E.g. our queryying could
be to the originals to digitalize them (for web-publishing).


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
Roger Luethi wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:27:55 +0930, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>> Right. There are journal archives around with stuff going back hundreds
>> of years, but they claim copyright on all their materials; if we could
>> free that which already qualifies for PD-old, it would be a major step
>> in the right direction.
>
> I'd rather make a $100 million bonfire than paying those who hold for
> ransom what is legally in the public domain already.
>

... or at least that's our position and we're sticking to it; theirs is
that they're the copyright holders, and, well, they're sticking to it too.

Spending some money to find out *for certain* would be quite useful. No
longer would they be able to say "Oh sorry we hold the copyright to
that", we'd be able to point to the relevant rulings/legislation and say
"Well, no you don't, hand it over". Oh, and we need to think global here.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20061017/3c23adff/attachment.pgp


from_name: Roger Luethi

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:17:34 +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
> The GFDL should absolutely not be used for non-textual content.

Ah, I've been waiting for someone to say that. Thank you. That is the kind
of information/discussion we would need to have if we were to pick a
copyleft license for new content.

It wouldn't hurt clarifying these issues for upload(er)s on the WPs and
commons either, by the way.

Roger


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
"Roger Luethi" wrote:
> The Landsat images they use are in the public domain, but I don't know if
> there's a place that offers them for bulk download.
If there's not, a WMF place would be a good place to start with it.


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
For the satellite stuff we can use NASA WorldWind, right?

The maps, I don't know of any high quality good coverage free database
out there.

Brianna

On 17/10/06, Roger Luethi <collector at hellgate.ch> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:49:02 -0400, Patrick Hall wrote:
> > * I'd like to see Wikipedia commission or acquire a complete set of
> > world maps in SVG (this almost certainly falls under more general
> > ideas already covered, but this is one specific detail I'd really like
> > to see).
>
> You make me wonder what all the maps and satellite images used for Google
> Earth cost. That would be something worth having. But as far as I know this
> stuff is so expensive that a more sensible approach might be to ask: what
> resolution and age could we get for say $10 million? Not much, I suspect,
> because it's expensive enough without a right to sublicense.
>
> Roger
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Tim 'avatar' Bartel

body:
Hi,

Brion Vibber schrieb am 17.10.2006 21:37:
> A few months ago the ability was added to limit IP blocks to allow
> logged-in contributions to continue. This allowed finer-grained blocking
> of troublemakers on shared IPs (schools, AOL etc).
>
> There's some suggestion to make this the default mode. I wanted to
> announce this ahead of time since it will change what happens when
> admins make a block without manually clicking something extra.
>
> If there's no serious objection, we'll go ahead and change this in a few
> days.

I really support this.

Checking this box is the second most typical mouse click besides
deletion of single version of pages... ;)

'Disallow creation of new user accounts' should of course remain ticked
by default.

Bye, Tim.

--
http://wikipedistik.de


body:
I think the teachers should talk with the devs before, just as any visit to
a library or museum, in order to have the account throttling lifted for some
hours / for that ip. Having the teacher with a sysop on-hand (e.g. the
teacher is on irc) would help a lot too.
We should create some kind of burocrat process. Information for teachers
would be good, too. They are often unaware of our tricky licensing (how do
you dare to put me -a teacher- 'copyvio'?). I'd like the foundation/chapters
publishng docent material for teachers, also with a process to avoid
blockings and a contact person in case of problems.

Platonides


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
On 10/17/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Erik, what business do you have complaining about the use of GFDL for
> images when Wikinews still welcomes  and encourages -ND and -NC
> images?

The issue of NC use on Wikinews is part of a larger issue of non-free
licenses in our projects. I will discuss with the Board whether such
licenses should be prohibited in our projects.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
Roger Luethi wrote:
>>    Further, if we end up creating some sort of copyright holding
>> foundation, might it also be worthwhile to make it easy for contributers
>> to assign their copyrights to WMF if they desire?  This is I think only
>> interesting in a dual-licensing type of setup, or am I missing something?
>
> For the Wikipedias it's too late to be useful. For commons, why not?
>
> Roger

   Good point.

SKL


list: wikitech-l

from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-10-18

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

Running test TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Template with thumb image (with link in description)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Basic section headings... FAILED!
Running test Section headings with TOC... FAILED!
Running test Handling of sections up to level 6 and beyond... FAILED!
Running test Resolving duplicate section names... FAILED!
Running test Template with sections, __NOTOC__... FAILED!
Running test __NOEDITSECTION__ keyword... FAILED!
Running test Link inside a section heading... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test Fuzz testing: Parser14... FAILED!
Running test Fuzz testing: Parser14-table... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML Hex character encoding.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!

Passed 412 of 437 tests (94.28%) FAILED!


subject: [Foundation-l] FoundationWiki accounts

body:
Aphaia (Kizu Naoko) now has permission to create FoundationWiki
accounts, together with Michael Snow.

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


subject: [Foundation-l] FoundationWiki accounts


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little...

body:
Roger Luethi wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:24:14 +0930, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>>> I'd rather make a $100 million bonfire than paying those who hold for
>>> ransom what is legally in the public domain already.
>> ... or at least that's our position and we're sticking to it; theirs is
>> that they're the copyright holders, and, well, they're sticking to it too.
>
> I don't think that is their official position, because the idea that works
> written hundreds of years ago are still under copyright is entirely and
> obviously without merit (not counting special cases like Crown copyright).
>

For the case where they've digitized the materials, it is.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20061018/3aa37953/attachment.pgp


from_name: Angela

subject: [Wikipedia-l] kid safe

body:
On 10/17/06, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> What striked me is the subtitle of this site
>
> Kids.Net.Au - kids safe search engine for children, parents and teachers.
>
> I love the idea of a kid safe search engine for children using primarily
> wikipedia :-)

It's actually just a very out of date mirror of Wikipedia (July 2003
according to their [[current events]] page). They don't appear to have
changed anything to make it "child-friendly".

Angela.