subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

references:
<b23fe4070704060243n238e8a25v742fa8a3914edfca@mail.gmail.com>	<4616C845.2050909@telus.net>	<gqcc13l3s3he8j659deqgg75oaude0krbh@4ax.com>	<46163C8A.8080902@gmail.com>	<i3mc131bqtkei8cp1ub8465ncu01d7ojd8@4ax.com>	<4616CE89.2040500@gmail.com>	<84pe13h5p5aq5re6umin4r03firl3sqvrt@4ax.com>	<4617EC9B.1040501@gmail.com>	<ka6g13p7a5nkelfv0fgr1l49qv6gcl0lae@4ax.com>	<cc76a3bc4499e.4617bb17@shaw.ca>	<fm7g13lr4uv31ce127kcrerq1qe2orabvr@4ax.com>	<46185782.8070509@telus.net>
	<4pvj135c6qsocchkpog9pb23v45b6b06mi@4ax.com>

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 19:46:26 -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Let's face it, just mentioning NOR and fancruft in starting a thread
>>where you sought responses on a copyright question was bound to give the
>>wrong impression.  You've been around long enough to be aware of the
>>uncanny ability of members of this list for finding the wrong emphasis
>>in a message. :-)
>>
>>
>Well yes, that's true.  What I hadn't realised was that there appears
>to be a degree of philosophical opposition to the idea of copyright,
>or at least to the idea that we should only include what we know to be
>clean, rather than waiting for conclusive proof before removing
>anything.  That's a reversal of the burden of proof, as far as I'm
>concerned.
>
Not really.  The initial burden of proof lies with the person bringing
the matter to court.  He must establish

    1. that the material was copyright in the first place
    2. that he has a legal right to claim copyrights, and
    3. he must identify exactly what infringed upon the copyright.

Only then does the defence need to say anything on any of a number of
bases such as the material was not copyrightable, the plaintiff did not
properly inherit the copyright, or fair use.  These are not the only
ones.  The recent case against Dan Brown shows that it's not always easy
to win a significant copyvio case..

In many of these situations only a court decisiion can determine what is
clean.  All we have is opinions with not enough at stake to make a
lawyer's opinion worthwhile.  What the lawyer says is still nothing more
than an opinion.

Philosophical opposition is fine as long as one approaches copyright
with a sense of respect for the person who may be the holder of those
rights.  Simply saying that humanity needs to have this information is
not a sufficient rationale for copyright violation.  Our rules are
perhaps already more restrictive than what might be required by the
courts.  That's fine. Still, there must be a place for legitimate
challenges to particular copyright claims, and the first thing that I
would look at when a person seeks to add what could be copyright
protected material is some element of clue about copyright law.

Ec


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Conrad Dunkerson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Opt Out for Not So Notable Biographies

body:
* Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Define "Not so notable".

I'd think we'd have a good place to start with;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

&

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_privacy


list: foundation-l

from_name: Birgitte SB

subject: [Foundation-l] elections

body:
I agree with Lodewijk in this.  If smaller projects
want to form caucuses and vote together, they can do
so naturally.  Not by someone assigning "alliances"
from above.  It was already suggested at the last
election that the Wikisoures vote together, and I
imagine it will be a more mature idea this time
around.  Certainly I expect there will be some sort of
caucus-type discussion involving at least people from
the english, french and ws.org.  And the effort might
end up being more widely organized.

BirgitteSB

--- effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have hard feelings for this proposal. I am afraigh
> that it will only
> mek the gap between the english Wikipedia and the
> rest of Wikimedia
> bigger. In the current board, there is only one
> native english speaker
> on the elected seats, one french, one german and one
> dutch. I think
> "alliences" would only create a schism, and would
> also enlarge the
> idea that the other communities are evil, as it is
> for instance the
> "Dutch candidate" vs the "Frensh candidate", which
> is ridiculous.
> Further it is not that we want a Boltzmann
> distribution over the
> languages, but we want the best candidates. If the
> best candidates are
> all in the French Wikipedia, well, they shoulc be
> elected. And if they
> are mostly in the english, so be it. I think we
> should prevent that a
> boardmember from for instance the Finnish Wikipedia
> should only feel
> him/herself a representative for that single
> project. With this type
> of elections that idea is stringthened.
>
> Of course you can not and want not to prevent that a
> user is mostly
> supported by the people of his/her own project.
> Those are the people
> who know him/her the best, and are easier able to
> make a good
> decision. But I think it is very important that we
> are not
> discriminating in the election rules on whatever
> quality, not even
> language ability or home project. Please leave that
> up to the
> community that is willing to vote.
>
> So: decreasing the number of candidates: great.
> Selecting on origin: Please not.
>
> Greetings, Lodewijk
>
> 2007/4/7, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>:
> > > It is maybe not good idea, but we could create 2
> level elections in such a way:
> > > *First level - candidate has to win local
> election on one of the
> > > projects - the rules for this local elections
> should be similar on all
> > > projects, the number of candidates per projects
> might depend on the
> > > size of the project. Smaller projects may create
> an "alliance" to be
> > > able to propose a candidate.
> > > *Second level - 7-10 days elections on meta of
> the candidates
> > > preselected on projects.
> >
> > I like this idea (and was going to suggest it
> myself before reading
> > your email). If done correctly, it should give
> candidates from smaller
> > projects a more reasonable chance of winning. In
> the previous
> > elections, there were too many candidates, so I
> think knowing lots of
> > people (ie. being from a big project) was an
> unfair advantage, since
> > people just voted for who they knew. If we reduce
> the number of
> > candidates, while still ensuring that there are
> candidates from
> > smaller projects (which is exactly what this idea
> does) should allow
> > people to make informed decisions about such
> candidates.
> >
> > The hardest part of this idea is working out the
> alliances - there are
> > too many projects to give each project a candidate
> of their own, so
> > some kind of alliance system is essential. I would
> suggest grouping
> > smaller projects first by language (so the
> wikipedia and the
> > wikitionary in a medium sized language would get
> one candidate between
> > them) and then by language groups (so all the
> projects in native
> > american languages [that's a random example, I'm
> guessing there are
> > lots of small projects in such languages] would
> get one candidate
> > between them). Determining alliances by language
> reduces the need for
> > translating candidate statements for the
> pre-elections.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] elections


from_name: Solevic dragan

subject:
[Foundation-l] Serbian wiki megalomania and robust and rude
	administrators

body:
Today I was blocked on 24 hours on serbian wiki sr:????????:??????? because I started to do same thing as others are doing, but I was little bit workaholic. They have thousands of articles with years BC. (before Christ), many years in future and centuries in future. They were reluctant to delete these articles since as I understood numbers of articles will fall down. Even administrators were doing same thing as I had done on hundred of articles, I have done ReDirection of 45. century to 4. milenium like other administrators, but they have first told me that I should not do that since number of articles will fall down. I ignore that and they blocked me. (SasAstefanovic, but DungoDung and Kale are also behind that action). Today I started to ask what policy they followed. They say obstruction of project.
Please do something. I think serbian wikipedia is really needed some rearangement. Out of 42.000 articles they have more than 10.000 articles with french small villages with usually less than 100 inhabitants. They have maybe 5.000 articles about years, but with nothing in it. They plan to do entering of 100.000 articles with minerals automatically. I could say they had crazy ideas and they need outside control.

At least there is need to check all administrators. They have over 40 administrators and they maltreat normal users as soon as you start working.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front


from_name: Denny Colt

subject: [WikiEN-l] Suppression of links to 'attack sites'?

body:
On 4/8/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>
> Not to mention that, since the (actual or potential) ban on such
> links has been interpreted as applying to talk and project pages as
> well, it would suppress the ability to cite content in such sites
> when discussing potential legal threats to Wikipedia, and the like,
> which are being discussed there.

 And legal threats would be addressed by email/fax/phone to the foundation
as was discusse on the ANI and BADSITES talk page and pointed out to you.

But I suppose we can just all put
> our heads in the sand and pretend they don't exist.
>

Or not go out of our way to endorse a website that seeks to do material harm
to us, Dan. Your a regular there, are you not?

What do you post about there? Do you ask them to shut down threads such as
"Who is Jayjg?" and so forth? Or just hang out with the zealots that are
trying to unearth everyone's identity?
--
- Denny


body:
Today I was blocked on 24 hours on serbian wiki sr:????????:??????? because
I started to do same thing as others are doing, but I was little bit workaholic.
They have thousands of articles with years BC. (before Christ), many years in future
and centuries in future.
They were reluctant to delete these articles since as I understood numbers of articles will fall down.
 Even administrators were doing same thing as I had done on hundred of articles,
I have done ReDirection of 45. century to 4. milenium like other administrators,
but they have first told me that I should not do that since number of articles will fall down.
 I ignore that and they blocked me. (SasAstefanovic, but DungoDung and Kale are also behind that action).
Today I started to ask what policy they followed. They say obstruction of project.
Please do something. I think serbian wikipedia is really needed some rearangement.
Out of 42.000 articles they have more than 10.000 articles with french small villages
with usually less than 100 inhabitants. They have maybe 5.000 articles about years,
but with nothing in it. They plan to do entering of 100.000 articles with minerals automatically.
I could say they had crazy ideas and they need outside control.

At least there is need to check all administrators. They have over 40 administrators
and they maltreat normal users as soon as you start working.

Solevic Dragan
Belgrade

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

references:
<b23fe4070704060243n238e8a25v742fa8a3914edfca@mail.gmail.com>
	<i3mc131bqtkei8cp1ub8465ncu01d7ojd8@4ax.com>
	<4616CE89.2040500@gmail.com>
	<84pe13h5p5aq5re6umin4r03firl3sqvrt@4ax.com>
	<4617EC9B.1040501@gmail.com>
	<ka6g13p7a5nkelfv0fgr1l49qv6gcl0lae@4ax.com>
	<cc76a3bc4499e.4617bb17@shaw.ca>
	<fm7g13lr4uv31ce127kcrerq1qe2orabvr@4ax.com>
	<46185782.8070509@telus.net>
	<4pvj135c6qsocchkpog9pb23v45b6b06mi@4ax.com>

body:
On 4/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 19:46:26 -0700, Ray Saintonge
> <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> >Let's face it, just mentioning NOR and fancruft in starting a thread
> >where you sought responses on a copyright question was bound to give the
> >wrong impression.  You've been around long enough to be aware of the
> >uncanny ability of members of this list for finding the wrong emphasis
> >in a message. :-)
>
> Well yes, that's true.  What I hadn't realised was that there appears
> to be a degree of philosophical opposition to the idea of copyright,
> or at least to the idea that we should only include what we know to be
> clean, rather than waiting for conclusive proof before removing
> anything.  That's a reversal of the burden of proof, as far as I'm
> concerned.

I'd say there's probably a large degree of philosophical opposition to
the idea of copyright over a collection of 4 groups of 20 or so names
of cars - not as much over the idea of copyright itself.

If you really want to exclude absolutely all copyrighted materials
from all articles, lest a lawyer goes through and gives a professional
opinion on whether or not the article is infringing, most articles on
TV series would be decimated.  If a list of 20 names of cars is
copyrighted, what about a list of 20 character names?  Seems to me
that would be even *more* likely to be copyrightable, as the
individual names themselves are creative.

At that point, maybe it's time to start a new project for fictional works.

Anthony


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [Foundation-l] elections

body:
I would be very saddened to see smaller projects join together as caucuses,
as this would promote the kind of factionalism that should not exist in any
board, let alone our board.  Furthermore, it ignores the real role of the
Board, which is to "keep the lights on" and ensure that the Foundation is
financially sustainable. It is not to decide how any particular project or  projects
are run.

Danny

In a message dated 4/9/2007 9:12:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
birgitte_sb at yahoo.com writes:

I agree  with Lodewijk in this.  If smaller projects
want to form caucuses and  vote together, they can do
so naturally.  Not by someone assigning  "alliances"
from above.  It was already suggested at the  last
election that the Wikisoures vote together, and I
imagine it will  be a more mature idea this time
around.  Certainly I expect there will  be some sort of
caucus-type discussion involving at least people  from
the english, french and ws.org.  And the effort might
end up  being more widely organized.

************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


subject: [Foundation-l] elections


from_name: Steve Summit

body:
Moreschi wrote:
> Having our deletion policies dictated by Daniel Brandt is a bad idea.

Refusing to heed a good idea because an idiot shares it
is a bad idea.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

references:
<b23fe4070704060243n238e8a25v742fa8a3914edfca@mail.gmail.com>
	<84pe13h5p5aq5re6umin4r03firl3sqvrt@4ax.com>
	<4617EC9B.1040501@gmail.com>
	<ka6g13p7a5nkelfv0fgr1l49qv6gcl0lae@4ax.com>
	<cc76a3bc4499e.4617bb17@shaw.ca>
	<fm7g13lr4uv31ce127kcrerq1qe2orabvr@4ax.com>
	<46185782.8070509@telus.net>
	<4pvj135c6qsocchkpog9pb23v45b6b06mi@4ax.com>
	<71cd4dd90704090503w5fe699u86d306a7e92ed69e@mail.gmail.com>
	<ilfk13lr691j5hqqn4v4ch38dgrqeadpvl@4ax.com>

body:
On 4/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 08:03:09 -0400, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org>
> wrote:
> >If you really want to exclude absolutely all copyrighted materials
> >from all articles, lest a lawyer goes through and gives a professional
> >opinion on whether or not the article is infringing, most articles on
> >TV series would be decimated.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights suggests that we
> already have such a policy.
>
I'm sorry, which part is that?  And where is there evidence that this
"policy" is followed?

When has a lawyer gone through and approved the listing of characters
and plot summaries from [[Lost (TV series)]], or [[Mission:
Impossible]]?  Or should this all be deleted too?  Is there an article
on a television series which in your opinion *shouldn't* have major
sections of it removed until a lawyer has signed off on them?

> Discuss a fictional work: fine.  Reproduce it: not fine.
>
You can't discuss a fictional work without reproducing at least a
little bit of it.

[[Dangerfield (TV series)]] has a list of characters in it.  You agree
with me that this list is copyrighted, correct?  Do you feel it should
be removed?

Anthony


list: commons-l

from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Commons-l] The disastrous popularity of Commons

body:
On 4/9/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I thought we had bandwidth for free.
>
> I believe Kennisnet pay for bandwidth out of Amsterdam and Yahoo! out
> of Seoul, but I'm pretty sure the WMF pays for bandwidth out of Tampa.

And the free bandwidth we do receive is finite.

But "reduce bandwidth" is entirely the wrong way to look at the issue.
The correct way is for us to try to find ways to maximize the ratio of
Wikimedia donations to commons bandwidth usage, then to *maximize* our
bandwidth usage.  :)

We would be ahead of the game if we found ways to turn more of
Common's growing viewer (vs contributor) base into Wikimedia donors.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 19:46:26 -0700, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

>Let's face it, just mentioning NOR and fancruft in starting a thread
>where you sought responses on a copyright question was bound to give the
>wrong impression.  You've been around long enough to be aware of the
>uncanny ability of members of this list for finding the wrong emphasis
>in a message. :-)

Well yes, that's true.  What I hadn't realised was that there appears
to be a degree of philosophical opposition to the idea of copyright,
or at least to the idea that we should only include what we know to be
clean, rather than waiting for conclusive proof before removing
anything.  That's a reversal of the burden of proof, as far as I'm
concerned.

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


from_name: Jeff Raymond

body:
Rob Smith wrote:

> So the question becomes balancing the public's appetite for a human
> sacrifice against a persons desire for privacy.

A human sacrifice?  At what point do we start discussion people being
accountable for their actions.  If someone was a porn star in a previous
life, that's what they were - we're not "sacrificing" them by pointing it
out, especially when we're not the first.

-Jeff

--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.


body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>
> My point being that the first part of this proposed policy should
> determine
> if the bio is actually causing the subject real world harm. Notability
> isn't
> the problem, so it's not the solution either. If there is negative
> information in a biography it can be removed. No reason to remove the
> entire
> article.

IF we aren't the first publication of it, THEN we're not causing harm.
We're simply sharing information, nothing more and nothing less.

-Jeff

--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.


body:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 19:20:20 -0500, "Slim Virgin"
<slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:

>Jeff, can you expand on how it would do that? As I see it, it might do
>the opposite. Biographies of borderline notable people often either
>languish unattended or are used as a platform by people with an axe to
>grind.

Absolutely.  In many cases the only non-trivial sources are
documenting a single event in their life.  Fine if it's rowing across
the Atlantic, not so fine if it's an allegation of rape that never
made it to court.

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


body:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:28:37 -0400, Jeff Raymond
<jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

>It's closer to pregnancy than some fleeting thing.  Keep in mind -
>Wikipedia notability has nothing to do with real world notability, so we
>need to keep it, uh, in-universe.  If we say "notability is x," we can't
>then turn around and say that there's "borderline" - it doesn't,
>shouldn't, and won't fly.

Yes it should.  It's about the depth and breadth of coverage.  If all
the coverage is in respect of the genitals incident, that's a merge to
an article on school sex scandals or some such.  We absolutely must
not confuse transient notoriety for notability.

Any politician who stands for a major office will generate a lot of
coverage, their campaign team will make sure of it.  After the
election, losing candidates are often never heard of again.  We
commonly merge these losing candidates to a single article.  (in my
view only reason we have articles on them in the first place is
because some people think we are Wikinews, but that's an aside).

Those politicians, last seen selling insurance in Mudhole Flats,
Idaho, may be offended that the sum total of human knowledge about
them, as judged by Wikipedia, is that they polled six votes in the
2006 run-offs for Mayor.  Or they may not care.  People whose supposed
notability rests on a single highly negative story (whether or not
they dunnit) which was a nine days' wonder in the press, they are
going to have a much bigger problem.  What do we do with people
against whom a single source has a vendetta, but has failed to get
more than passing coverage of that vendetta?  Like Zeleny's campaign
against Min Zhu?

Any case that does not make the books of notable cases is probably not
a notable case.  Having an article on that case, masquerading as a
biography, based on the fact that i enjoyed passing notoriety, is a
bad idea.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Opt Out for Not So Notable Biographies

body:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 20:32:18 +0100, "Thomas Dalton"
<thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:

>In your own words, that's a "rough" definition. We need a precise and
>objective one, otherwise this proposal will just result in more
>arguments.

That would be yet another attempt to legislate Clue.

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


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: phoebe ayers

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fwd: Copyright Determinator

body:
Perhaps of interest to Wikipedians, Wikisourcians, or those tracing the
tangled web of U.S. Copyright.
-- phoebe

-----------
> Stanford Report, April 2, 2007
> Database of copyright renewal records launched
> http://collections.stanford.edu/determinator/

> An online database that enables people to search copyright-renewal records
> for books published in the United States between 1923 and 1963 has been
> launched by Stanford University Libraries and Academic Information
> Resources (SULAIR).
>
> SULAIR developed the Copyright Renewal Database, dubbed the "Copyright
> Determinator," with a grant from the Hewlett Foundation.  The effort built
> on Project Gutenberg's transcriptions of the Catalog of Copyright Entries,
> which was published by the U.S. Copyright Office. (Project
> Gutenberg-http://www.gutenberg.org/-;produces free electronic books.)
>
> "This database is an important tool for anyone researching the copyright
> status of U.S. works," said Stanford attorney Lauren Schoenthaler. "Having
> a single, electronic source for all renewals for these works will greatly
> speed the research process."
>
> Determining the copyright status of books has become a pressing issue as
> libraries and businesses develop plans to digitize materials and make
> works in the public domain widely available. In order to appropriately
> select books for digitization, these organizations need to determine
> efficiently and with some certainty the copyright status of each work in a
> large collection. The Determinator supports this process, bringing all
> 1923-1963 book-renewal records together in a single database and, more
> significantly, making searchable renewal records that had previously been
> distributed only in print.
>
> U.S. works published from 1923 to 1963 are the only group of works for
> which renewal is now a concern. Renewals have expired for works published
> before 1923, and they are generally in the public domain.  The 1976
> Copyright Act made renewal automatic for works published after Jan. 1,
> 1964. Determining the renewal status of works published between 1923 and
> 1963 has been a challenge; the Copyright Office received renewals as early
> as 1950, but only records received by that office after 1977 are available
> in electronic form. Renewals received between 1950 and 1977 were announced
> and distributed only in a semi-annual print publication. For the
> Determinator databases, Stanford has converted the print records to
> machine-readable form and combined them with the electronic renewal
> records from the Copyright Office.
>
> SULAIR continues to refine the database and welcomes feedback.  Contact
> Mimi Calter at mcalter at stanford.edu with questions or comments.


body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> A newspaper article is usually published once and never heard from again
> unless someone goes looking for it.
> Wikipedia is a highly visible place, so we bring things to people's
> attention that would otherways be forgotten. I'd say that means we could
> cause harm whether we're the first, second or third.

I don't agree with that.  It may be a little worse with nofollow turned
off (since it increases where we sit in the rankings), but, again, you're
unlikely to find a bio like that on-site without looking for it, and if
you're going through Google, the newspaper article is unlikely to be
forgotten.

Unless you think the newspaper is causing harm, too.  Which, in that case,
well...

-Jeff

--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Did anything happen with dumps?

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

Felipe Ortega wrote:
> I've tried to get the latest completed dump (pages-meta-history) of
> dewiki, and I've found only two prior dumps available, neither of
> them valid.

They should be valid. Can you be more specific? (There are a couple
individual file dumps which were explicitly canceled during testing.)

Older versions are now automatically deleted instead of manually and
intermittently; this prevents numerous new failures due to disk space
fillage.

> In the latest pages I've found new links
> for RSS sindication (please excuse me if I missed some announcement
> about this). What is that all about?

It's an RSS feed for updates; pretty self-explanatory?

- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGGkwpwRnhpk1wk44RAhvAAKCfoB6bQeFX8hWE/Q8L4GcOMpaahgCfRYRx
Uquyj6wL62lCfoxuOQpsUx4=
=Z1Sz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


references:
<W585954999268941176059057@webmail19>
	<46198558.4060705@internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<4cc603b0704081720y6657a462rbe9d2cc7a8539e85@mail.gmail.com>
	<m30k1396km0a8e7o4inrpamhb5kmcep51v@4ax.com>
	<fb7fdd9c0704090508k59abde81s97bd40338b213400@mail.gmail.com>
	<1ufk13dsubuvhun7d1dfrsio9bk59bebuq@4ax.com>
	<fb7fdd9c0704090647i128e1b6cp4ba40be17a4f2713@mail.gmail.com>
	<3777.69.21.252.114.1176127219.squirrel@www.internationalhouseofbacon.com>
	<fb7fdd9c0704090708y7fe791e1v6cd3e10efb33b0e7@mail.gmail.com>
	<3998.69.21.252.114.1176128272.squirrel@www.internationalhouseofbacon.com>

body:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>> A newspaper article is usually published once and never heard from again
>> unless someone goes looking for it.
>> Wikipedia is a highly visible place, so we bring things to people's
>> attention that would otherways be forgotten...
>
> I don't agree with that.

If so, you are willfully overlooking the fact that Wikipedia is
now *BIG*.  We are no longer just some marginal nerdly Internet
toy.  We have impact in the real world, and with that comes
responsibility.  You may not think we should have to have it
(and you might even be right), but whether we like it or not,
the rest of the world is going to force that responsibility on us
(by assuming it of us, and complaining loudly if we decline).

Moreover, we're not just big, we're different.  Simple analogies
with newspapers and other media do not necessarily hold.


body:
Steve Summit wrote:
> Jeff Raymond wrote:
>> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>>> A newspaper article is usually published once and never heard from
>>> again
>>> unless someone goes looking for it.
>>> Wikipedia is a highly visible place, so we bring things to people's
>>> attention that would otherways be forgotten...
>>
>> I don't agree with that.
>
> If so, you are willfully overlooking the fact that Wikipedia is
> now *BIG*.  We are no longer just some marginal nerdly Internet
> toy.  We have impact in the real world, and with that comes
> responsibility.  You may not think we should have to have it
> (and you might even be right), but whether we like it or not,
> the rest of the world is going to force that responsibility on us
> (by assuming it of us, and complaining loudly if we decline).

If people don't understand us, then it's up to us to make sure they *do*
understand us, not try to fit into a mould of what they think we should
be.  We have *some* impact in the real world, but not the type we're
afraid of here.  It's because we're so big that we may, in fact, have a
responsibility to offer good biographies of people with what some may call
"borderline notability" - the mainstream press isn't bothered with the
other details.

> Moreover, we're not just big, we're different.  Simple analogies
> with newspapers and other media do not necessarily hold.

It's because we're different that we shouldn't be patching one alleged
hole by creating many little ones.

-Jeff

--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.


body:
Mgm wrote:
> On 4/9/07, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>> Jeff Raymond wrote:
>>> Either you're notable or not.
>>
>> Nonsense.  Notability ain't pregnancy.
>
> And herein lies the problem. If we can't agree on what is notable,
> a suggestion like the one we're discussing will never work.

In the real world, at least, notability is relative.  I am
notable in my family and in my circle of friends, but I'm not
notable enough in the real world to have a Wikipedia article.
A scientist can be extremely notable in his field but unheard
of in the rest of the world.  Etc.

(Now, I know, someone mentioned we weren't talking about
real-world notability here, but rather Wikipedia notability.
I suppose that makes a difference to the argument, though I'm
still not sure exactly what.)


from_name: Oldak Quill

body:
On 09/04/07, Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.dunkerson at att.net> wrote:
> * Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > Define "Not so notable".
>
> I'd think we'd have a good place to start with;
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
>
> &
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_privacy

Neither of these elucidate the problem much at all.

According to your first link a public figure could be defined as
someone who is "pervasively involved in public affairs". Couldn't this
definition include headmasters or even teachers in state-funded
schools?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Robert Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] elections

body:
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
>
> I would be very saddened to see smaller projects join together as caucuses,
> as this would promote the kind of factionalism that should not exist in any
> board, let alone our board.  Furthermore, it ignores the real role of the
> Board, which is to "keep the lights on" and ensure that the Foundation is
> financially sustainable. It is not to decide how any particular project or  projects
> are run.
>
> Danny
>
>

I don't see how this is something that can be avoided as the projects
grow more diverse and some clear policy philosophies are emerging.
While I would hope that these elections would remain "non-partisan", it
does seem like a natural reaction for people to try and organize
themselves with other like-minded individuals, however you want to
define the term.  Even this attitude that the board should not have any
factionalism is a philosophical concept that by itself may be a faction
(self-contradictory, but a real example).

As can be seen with the fair use, check user, and privacy policies,
board actions are having a very direct impact on day to day operations
and individual project policies that go far beyond just fundraising and
"keeping the lights on".  And plenty of disputes over individual project
conflicts also end up somehow becoming a foundation issue as well, like
trying to deal with the Moldovan Wikipedia and the personalities
involved with that project.

-- Robert Horning


subject: [Foundation-l] elections


subject: [WikiEN-l] Special rules for "controversial" AFDs

body:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 17:44:53 -0400, "Ron Ritzman" <ritzman at gmail.com>
wrote:

>But in order to make it possible, you had to make a special rule about
>having to have 150 edits to make a keep/delete comment, a rule that
>doesn't apply to any other AFD though a similar "made up" rule was
>used once used for GNAA.

So it's our fault that Leyden used sockpuppets and offsite
votestacking?  I don't think so.

How many editors with genuine knowledge of Wikipedia policy and
community mores will have fewer than 150 edits?

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


body:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 00:33:42 -0400, Phil Sandifer
<Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

>There's no way to close an AfD like this to
>everybody's satisfaction. I'd rather the thing that pisses people off
>be a well-reasoned human than an arbitrary set of rules.

Absolutely.  It does not happen often enough to justify a special
policy anyway.

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


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia notability (was "Opt Out for Not So Notable
	Biographies")

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> If someone is real-world notable and we can back it up, I don't see how
> Wikipedia notability would be any different.

Because Wikipedia notability, in many people's minds, needs more than
simply "backing it up."  Society's idea of notable is fluid and depends on
what you're talking about - Wikipedia's got a small but vocal number of
people who feel notability is constant and defined only by who says as
such.

It's why there needs to be a distinction - "not so notable" or "borderline
notability" is a false concept that only exists in that small but vocal
group.  It has little in the way of a basis in reality, and is not defined
by anything that is logical.

-Jeff

--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.


body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> The fact I need to use LexisNexis to find the newspaper articles I need to
> write certain articles proves not every newspaper article is available
> online. For most newspapers, the publicly available bit is archived for a
> limited amount of time. We are a LOT more accessible.

Yes, we're more accessable, but the information is not unaccessable.  I've
been in the same boat as you on the research regard, trust me - it doesn't
mean the information isn't readily available and, again, if we're not the
first publisher, we're not doing the harm.

-Jeff

--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.


subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
> Unless you think the newspaper is causing harm, too.

Some of them surely do.

> Which, in that case, well...

Earlier today someone said that having Daniel Brand tell us what
to do was a bad idea.  Here I would say that having the National
Enquirer tell us what to do (or what we can do) is also a bad idea.


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 09/04/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Conrad Dunkerson wrote:

> >I'd think we'd have a good place to start with;
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
> >&
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_privacy

> If the matter has already been in the newspaper, and we are using that
> as the source one could hardly call it an invasion of privacy.

One of the problems comes when an article in such a Reliable Source is
not in fact so reliable.

- d.


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 4/8/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
> Erik Moeller schreef:
> > I think if one wants to institute such a policy, a good test would be
> > whether the person's notability is the result of a _continuing_ record
> > of activities (which are verifiable), rather than a singular event.

> I'm looking forward to see your vote at [[Wikipedia:Articles for
> Deletion/Lee Harvey Oswald]].

Then add a clause like "singular event of limited historical significance".

Are history books likely to write about the event in the future? Is it
a particularly relevant case study?

Again, I'm fine with a clause that allows 15 minute celebrities to get
their articles removed (or at least strongly consider their wishes in
an AfD). For anyone whose actions leave an indelible record of
continuing media coverage (or historical analysis) I'd have
reservations.

As for Michael's suggestion that such things can sometimes be done
without much fanfare by OTRS volunteers and the like, IMHO, this is
what {{prod}} is for -- it can be used by anyone to get articles
deleted without the usual AfD spectacle, and still leaves a track
record for future review.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
Steve Summit wrote:

> Earlier today someone said that having Daniel Brand tell us what
> to do was a bad idea.  Here I would say that having the National
> Enquirer tell us what to do (or what we can do) is also a bad idea.

The difference, of course, being that I don't believe anyone considers the
Enquirer reliable.

-Jeff

--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.


from_name: Seth Finkelstein

body:
> Christiano Moreschi
> Is there really a single situation where our existing system of BLP
> vigilance, emails to the Foundation, OTRS volunteers, AfDs, reliable
> sourcing, etc has failed to deal with people wanting their bios taken
> down/fixed with the exception of Daniel Brandt?

	Well, if you define "deal with people" as "has anyone else
taken their unhappiness as far as has Daniel Brandt?", the answer is
"No". But I don't think that would be a useful definition.

> Beyond Daniel Brandt, do we really have a problem here that needs fixing?

	Yes (IMHO).

	My view is that I'm not going to go on a legal crusade over
my own issues with Wikipedia - that for biographies of living people,
it's an attractive nuisance and a weapon of asymmetrical warfare.
But I sure do think it's a problem that needs fixing.

--
Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  http://sethf.com/
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php


from_name: Monahon, Peter B.

subject:
[Commons-l] Cool tool that lets you check for copyright
 renewals on books

body:
.
I'm not sure I understand the problem in this case.  I think the challenge is trying to use an unattributed illustration.  That is happens to appear in two different sources encourages at least one person to assume it's in the public domain.  Have I got it?
?
- Peter Blaise
- Monday, April 09, 2007 11:27:49 AM

>> The copyright holder of the book still under copyright would still be
>> the copyright holder thus surely Stewart v. Abend would apply?
>
> I can't see that Stewart v. Abend is really applicable in this
> situation, which is rather different; Stewart v. Abend covers a
> copyrighted work and the details of how rights over a copyrighted work
> pass to the heirs on the author's death and how this affects copyright
> assignments and permission for derivative works.
>
> The scenario I asked about is when two independently copyrighted
> works, where neither is a derivative work of the other, include the
> same image that has not been independently copyrighted.

PS - Regarding web site policing the copyright of open contributions, I'm not sure why anyone but the copyright holder is pursuing such "policing" of their own copyrights and infringements.  I think it rather presumptuous for anyone ELSE to scrutinize contributors and "police" the use of someone else's copyright as if it's their job to act as the author's agent.  I appreciate it's property, just like my home or car.  But, I do not expect anyone to come running after me on the street and say, "Hey, prove you own that car" - unless they alone are the real owner and they know I stole THEIR car.  So, I do not expect someone else who is NOT the original author and / or copyright owner to come running after me and say, "Hey, prove you have the rights to those words / pictures / intellectual property."  My 2? today.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20070409/8154f6bd/attachment.htm


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia notability (was "Opt Out for Not So
 Notable Biographies")

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> It may be, but it shouldn't. It should be based on facts, not someone's
> deletion opinions. The result based on those facts may differ, though.

It should be, but it's not.  Thus the problem.

-Jeff

--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.


body:
On 4/9/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/9/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
> > MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> >
> > > The fact I need to use LexisNexis to find the newspaper articles I need
> > to
> > > write certain articles proves not every newspaper article is available
> > > online. For most newspapers, the publicly available bit is archived for
> > a
> > > limited amount of time. We are a LOT more accessible.
> >
> > Yes, we're more accessable, but the information is not unaccessable.  I've
> > been in the same boat as you on the research regard, trust me - it doesn't
> > mean the information isn't readily available and, again, if we're not the
> > first publisher, we're not doing the harm.
>
>
> We'll have to agree to disagree then. I think we're certainly not the first
> or only people causing harm, but if we make a piece of information
> permanently available to a worldwide audience, I don't think we can say
> we're not doing any harm at all.
>
I agree with this, but I think once you get into the game of measuring
harm you've opened up a can of worms that will ruin the encyclopedia.
If a policy of deletion of information about living people is adopted,
it must be carefully constructed to be applied neutrally.  That means
protecting the guilty along with the innocent, in my opinion.

Anthony


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Chicago situation resolved.

body:
On 4/8/07, ikiroid <ikiroid at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am still waiting for an administrator to archive the discussion. It is sad
> that a certain wikipedian can be so messed up and that we let their dirty
> laundry blow in the wind. Whether or not there was a genuine suicide
> attempt, it is still apparent that this person has many issues which will
> not be solved by having us gossip and joke about it.

I think we're joking about our reactions to it, not what he did directly.

Joking about our responses is ok.  Joking about his situation would not be.

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


from_name: Philip Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] When Unsourced Isn't That Bad

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gen?? is a more or less totally
unsourced article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cadmus is also a more or less
totally unsourced article.

It is my sense, and I suspect that others who read the articles will
agree, that [[Gen13]] is a toe-curling atrocity that should be hacked
to ribbons, whereas [[Project Cadmus]] is an OK start.

There are many reasons for this - [[Gen13]] is a sputtering mess of
subtle POV-pushing, making lots of claims about the social
circumstance the comics were coming out in. [[Project Cadmus]] sticks
basically to the question of what this thing is, where it's appeared,
and what it was doing there. [[Gen13]] has the tone of a fan essay,
[[Project Cadmus]] of something from a DC-Universe encyclopedia.

What's further interesting here is that [[Gen13]] is trying to be the
better article - lots of sections on real-world stuff, less in-
universe focus. [[Project Cadmus]] is much more in-universe. But it's
also the better article in practice.

Curiously, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Juggernaut_Bitch%21%21 is
sourced and worse than both of them - written in a totally
inappropriate style, ridiculous captions, and, despite being well-
sourced to things that might answer the question, totally lacking in
any answer to "who cares?"

Moral of the story: differing quality and style of articles have
different sourcing needs - not just in terms of what makes a good
source, but in terms of what sources are needed. At some points in an
article's development what it needs most are sources. At others what
it needs are clean-ups, or additions of whole new sections and facets
of the article, or other things. There is no one-size-fits all
solution, and sometimes complaining about the wrong thing is just
ridiculous - of the three articles, only [[Gen13]] really needs
sourcing right now. Only [[Project Cadmus]] needs heavy refocusing on
an out-of-universe perspective. And only [[The Juggernaut Bitch!!]]
needs the tender, loving care offered to articles on AfD.

We need to stop trying to craft general solutions to all articles and
start realizing that articles develop in different orders and on
different paths. Solutions that fix a problem we're seeing in one
area of the encyclopedia should not be crafted with the intention
that they will expand to encompass other areas. With nearly two
million articles, top-down editorial control just isn't plausible. We
need to abandon - immediately - the quest for broadly reaching
editorial mandates like "source everything" or "remove all X" and
start figuring out what areas of the encyclopedia are having what
problems and figuring out what solutions we can craft for those
problems and those problems specifically. The questions we need to
ask aren't "how do we fix BLPs" but "How do we fix the articles on
actors from Star Trek up?" (Because those articles likely share a
pool of editors, and thus also likely share a pool of strengths and
weaknesses)

This is an ENTIRELY new dynamic for how to think about editorial
problems on Wikipedia. It means something is going to have to happen
that, previously, hasn't happened - the sorts of editors who
subscribe to and post to the mailing list (editors who tend to be
interested in the big picture of Wikipedia) are going to have to
learn to talk to the sorts of editors who only do work on articles
related to DC comics.

They're a very different bunch - full of local concerns that most of
us don't care about, and generally mistrustful of the logic "Well, I
can't let you do X because then some unknown group of people over
here might do X and that would be bad." They're often ambivalent or
hostile towards bits of policy - go ahead and try explaining in-
universe perspective to a rabid editor of My Little Pony articles (to
pick something I've never even looked at). But they're also well-
meaning, dedicated, and write most of our articles.

We need, very badly, to start thinking about how to implement
projects of repairing Wikipedia on local levels. This isn't going to
be done by policy either - it's going to be done by figuring out ways
of going into the various trenches and working well with people who,
in some cases, seem to be on a different planet. A very well-meaning
planet, mind you, but a different one.

So what can we do? What can we put into place that facilitates this
sort of local engagement?

-Phil


from_name: Christiano Moreschi

body:
Having our deletion policies dictated by Daniel Brandt is a bad idea.

Moreschi

_________________________________________________________________
Match.com - Click Here To Find Singles In Your Area Today!
http://msnuk.match.com/


body:
Oldak Quill wrote:

> For these reasons, "notability" is a terrible way to determine whether
> an article should be kept or deleted on Wikipedia. The sooner we
> abandon it (and start relying on harder measures such as
> verifiability), the better.

Shameless plug for [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]].

-Jeff

--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

references:
<b23fe4070704060243n238e8a25v742fa8a3914edfca@mail.gmail.com>
	<i3mc131bqtkei8cp1ub8465ncu01d7ojd8@4ax.com>
	<4616CE89.2040500@gmail.com>
	<84pe13h5p5aq5re6umin4r03firl3sqvrt@4ax.com>
	<4617EC9B.1040501@gmail.com>
	<ka6g13p7a5nkelfv0fgr1l49qv6gcl0lae@4ax.com>
	<cc76a3bc4499e.4617bb17@shaw.ca>
	<fm7g13lr4uv31ce127kcrerq1qe2orabvr@4ax.com>
	<46185782.8070509@telus.net>
	<4pvj135c6qsocchkpog9pb23v45b6b06mi@4ax.com>
	<42f90dc00704090215w37b61399i81ffd5bcc8c6a7fb@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 02:15:19 -0700, "Matthew Brown" <morven at gmail.com>
wrote:

>The opposition at least in my case is about how far some people and
>corporations will go to claim copyright (or trademark, or indeed
>patent, although the latter doesn't affect Wikipedia nearly so much)
>in ways that range from laughable through questionable and dubious to
>unlikely.

Oh sure.  I recently handled a complaint from someone who claimed that
sales figures for a product which he quoted on his website were
copyright, and we may not reproduce the figures.  That is clearly
complete bollocks.  On the other hand we had someone complaining that
a formatted list of tour dates was a direct lift out of his book.  He
was right; it was a direct lift.

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


body:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 11:27:01 +0200, "Erik Moeller" <erik at wikimedia.org>
wrote:

>Then add a clause like "singular event of limited historical significance".
>Are history books likely to write about the event in the future? Is it
>a particularly relevant case study?

That is a good way of putting it.

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


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

body:
On 4/9/07, Philip Sandifer <sandifer at english.ufl.edu> wrote:
> So what can we do? What can we put into place that facilitates this
> sort of local engagement?

Work through the relevant WikiProjects more?  There's a certain
element of disdain for them -- "I don't want to talk to WikiProject X
because they're all fanboys/POV pushers/people violating OWN/etc." --
that needs to be done away with; but they're an existing
infrastructure for interacting with editors that work primarily in a
particular subject area without getting involved in the Wikipedia-wide
bureaucracy.

Kirill


from_name: Phil Sandifer

body:
On Apr 9, 2007, at 12:21 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:

> On 4/9/07, Philip Sandifer <sandifer at english.ufl.edu> wrote:
>> So what can we do? What can we put into place that facilitates this
>> sort of local engagement?
>
> Work through the relevant WikiProjects more?  There's a certain
> element of disdain for them -- "I don't want to talk to WikiProject X
> because they're all fanboys/POV pushers/people violating OWN/etc." --
> that needs to be done away with; but they're an existing
> infrastructure for interacting with editors that work primarily in a
> particular subject area without getting involved in the Wikipedia-wide
> bureaucracy.

I agree - the WikiProjects were always, at their best, intended to
provide exactly this sort of vehicle. They've also long been tied
down in a tricky way - on the one hand, we don't want to give them
the leeway to create their own policy, or else we get something like,
as David called it, WikiProject AfD. On the other hand, we need to
empower them at least somewhat.

It occurs to me that this is, in practice, exactly what CZ's system
of editors does. It empowers certain trusted individuals to have
certain amounts of control in certain subject areas, thus
functionally creating micropolicy in certain subject areas. Obviously
we don't want to go CZ's route of credentialism, but there may be
something we can use here.

-Phil


from_name: Mark Clements

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tidy upgraded

body:
"Simetrical" <Simetrical+wikilist at gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:7c2a12e20704061126i13131ad4n550e1ae6afc55865 at mail.gmail.com...
> On 4/6/07, Gregory Maxwell
<gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is a philosophical issue about how Wiki works.  The lack of hard
> > syntax rules that people must conform to facilitates discover and
> > greatly softens the learning curve. ... it also means that our content
> > will perpetually be rubbish syntactically.
>
> It could be made sane on save, though, rather than on render.

Surely most of the objections to this could be solved by adding an extra
edit into the history.

(cur) (last)  11:39, 9 April 2007 MediaWiki Syntax Corrector (help)
(cur) (last)  11:39, 9 April 2007 HappyDog (Talk | contribs) (fixed typo)

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


body:
Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 09/04/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Oldak Quill wrote:
>>
>> > For these reasons, "notability" is a terrible way to determine whether
>> > an article should be kept or deleted on Wikipedia. The sooner we
>> > abandon it (and start relying on harder measures such as
>> > verifiability), the better.
>>
>> Shameless plug for [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]].
>
> I've read the page more thoroughly and I fail to see how you could
> have interpreted what I said as a plug for it. I said we should
> entirely abandon notability for verification while that page states
> that an article should be included if it is verifiable and notable.

I apologise, I was shamelessly plugging it, not inferring that you were.
Sorry if it wasn't clear.

-Jeff

--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Tidy upgraded

body:
On 09/04/07, Mark Clements <gmane at kennel17.co.uk> wrote:

> Surely most of the objections to this could be solved by adding an extra
> edit into the history.
> (cur) (last)  11:39, 9 April 2007 MediaWiki Syntax Corrector (help)
> (cur) (last)  11:39, 9 April 2007 HappyDog (Talk | contribs) (fixed typo)

Nice one!

- d.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 02:15:19 -0700, "Matthew Brown" <morven at gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>The opposition at least in my case is about how far some people and
>>corporations will go to claim copyright (or trademark, or indeed
>>patent, although the latter doesn't affect Wikipedia nearly so much)
>>in ways that range from laughable through questionable and dubious to
>>unlikely.
>>
>>
>Oh sure.  I recently handled a complaint from someone who claimed that
>sales figures for a product which he quoted on his website were
>copyright, and we may not reproduce the figures.  That is clearly
>complete bollocks.  On the other hand we had someone complaining that
>a formatted list of tour dates was a direct lift out of his book.  He
>was right; it was a direct lift.
>
The problem in both of these cases hinges on the popular misconception
that information can be copyright.  In the first case I would be
inclined to consider whether the material was proprietary data, but
that's a whole other field outside of copyright.  In the second case the
formatting is likely the deciding factor.  The tour dates themselves
(probably historical since they're from a book) are not protected.  Any
two people doing original research on the matter should come up with the
same dates.

In any event, you need to deal with the factual situation in front of
you.  Anyone challenging your decision should exhibit a bit of
cluefulness about copyright, and a good whinge is not particularly cluefull.

Ec


from_name: Anthony

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia notability (was "Opt Out for Not So
	Notable Biographies")

body:
On 4/9/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/9/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Notability" has no divinely-ordained, objective definition that can
> > be logically deduced. The definition of "notability" changes according
> > to how much the person using the word wants an article to be deleted.
> >

> It may be, but it shouldn't. It should be based on facts, not someone's
> deletion opinions. The result based on those facts may differ, though.
>
"Notability" can be based on facts, but still change according to a
person's opinion, because it's a person's opinion as to how to weigh
the facts.

Even the term "notable" can be used in at least two different ways.  I
generally use it to mean "worthy of note", which is inherently an
opinion.  Some people think a game show contestant is worthy of note.
Others don't.  The term "notable" can also be used to mean "well
known", which is more of an objective decision, but I also thought it
was one which isn't useful in determining if an article should be
deleted.  Most contestants on Survivor are much more well known than
most Nobel prize laureates, but does that make them more notable?

Anthony


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] And over at RFA ...

body:
On 4/9/07, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think, frankly, that Danny was left to do a hard job in terms of
> handling a huge volume of complaints and crap, more than he probably
> should have had to handle, and the stress of that is largely
> responsible for some poor judgment on occasion.

This is probably true, but it's not really an excuse to treat your
fellow wikipedians badly when not in an office capacity.

> I also think that, freed of the load of the office, Danny will be a
> much better administrator.

This could certainly be the case, but it also brings up another point:
you don't need to be an admin to be a great wikipedian. If he wants to
get back to basics and just do good things for wikipedia, the best way
would probably be to go back to writing articles, or start
copyediting, or participate in discussions, resolving disputes and
consensus building. The people that spend a lot of time doing that are
doing more good for wikipedia than your average afd-closing,
vandal-blocking, speedy-deletioning admin. It's true that a lot of
people doing that are admins, but it is certainly not required.

--Oskar


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
Anthony wrote:

>On 4/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 19:46:26 -0700, Ray Saintonge
>><saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Let's face it, just mentioning NOR and fancruft in starting a thread
>>>where you sought responses on a copyright question was bound to give the
>>>wrong impression.  You've been around long enough to be aware of the
>>>uncanny ability of members of this list for finding the wrong emphasis
>>>in a message. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>Well yes, that's true.  What I hadn't realised was that there appears
>>to be a degree of philosophical opposition to the idea of copyright,
>>or at least to the idea that we should only include what we know to be
>>clean, rather than waiting for conclusive proof before removing
>>anything.  That's a reversal of the burden of proof, as far as I'm
>>concerned.
>>
>>
>
>I'd say there's probably a large degree of philosophical opposition to
>the idea of copyright over a collection of 4 groups of 20 or so names
>of cars - not as much over the idea of copyright itself.
>
>If you really want to exclude absolutely all copyrighted materials
>from all articles, lest a lawyer goes through and gives a professional
>opinion on whether or not the article is infringing, most articles on
>TV series would be decimated.
>
This is an interesting point.  Some of our plot summaries go into
considerable detail.  Why do we not hear complaints from the producers?
It they could commit themselves to a policy of saying, "You can do this,
but you can't do that," it would make our task much easier.  A lot of
what happens reflects custom rather than law.  They realize that a
certain amount of public discussion and information helps sell their
product.  Taking a clear stand on some of this, even the most obvious,
would be a loss of tactical advantage.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

references:
<b23fe4070704060243n238e8a25v742fa8a3914edfca@mail.gmail.com>
	<84pe13h5p5aq5re6umin4r03firl3sqvrt@4ax.com>
	<4617EC9B.1040501@gmail.com>
	<ka6g13p7a5nkelfv0fgr1l49qv6gcl0lae@4ax.com>
	<cc76a3bc4499e.4617bb17@shaw.ca>
	<fm7g13lr4uv31ce127kcrerq1qe2orabvr@4ax.com>
	<46185782.8070509@telus.net>
	<4pvj135c6qsocchkpog9pb23v45b6b06mi@4ax.com>
	<71cd4dd90704090503w5fe699u86d306a7e92ed69e@mail.gmail.com>
	<54f6f2050704090755r3ae7142codc2d2f0c02f7ece2@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 4/9/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 09/04/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > If you really want to exclude absolutely all copyrighted materials
> > from all articles, lest a lawyer goes through and gives a professional
> > opinion on whether or not the article is infringing, most articles on
> > TV series would be decimated.  If a list of 20 names of cars is
> > copyrighted, what about a list of 20 character names?  Seems to me
> > that would be even *more* likely to be copyrightable, as the
> > individual names themselves are creative.
> >
> > At that point, maybe it's time to start a new project for fictional works.
>
> Creating a content fork would be a rather dramatic solution that would
> harm Wikipedia.
>
Excluding absolutely all copyrighted materials from all articles would
be a rather dramatic action.  As for it harming Wikipedia, I think
that would all depend on how the fork was executed.  But it's not
likely to happen, so maybe it's best to just ignore this argument.

Anthony


from_name: Rob Smith

body:
It's all related to the issue of Sec. 230 reform.  The Courts have ruled
Sec. 230 was intended to encourage internal, self regulation.  An opt-out
policy is exactly that--self regulation.  In the absence of self-regulation,
there will be a Mothers Against Defamatory Dissemination (MADD) style
lobbying movement to force rewriting the Law; and the Congress people who
write the Law will grow tired of responding to allegations they are
pedophiles & holocaust deniers.

So it's a simple question: the industry either self-regulates, or the
government will self-regulate you on your behalf.


from_name: Skyring

subject: [WikiEN-l] If anybody is remotely interested...

body:
On 4/9/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 08/04/07, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'll be in London tomorrow for two nights. Camel and Artichoke in Lower
> > Marsh Street near Waterloo from 1830 on Tuesday. Tim Tams will be
> provided.
>
>
> Sadly I'm stuck at home on call. Bah!
>
> (Probably to be a father in a week or two. Eek ...)

Cripes! I hope it's twins. I guess even if not, this will be the end of your
Wikipedia career.

Sorry I won't get to meet you. Oh well, the local BookCrossers will make
short work of the Tim Tams. See [[Tim Tam Slam]] for a pic.

Pete, currently stuffing up one of Cathay Pacific's computers in The Pier
First