from_name: Jon Noring

body:
Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> Jon Noring wrote:

>> Although I'm not certain Sony BMG would entertain an offer, there is
>> some reason to believe they might, especially if linked in with some
>> potential tax write-offs and the positive publicity that this would
>> give Sony BMG.

> That seems na?ve.  Although the profit that the recording companies may
> garner from any one recording are likely to be small.  Their investment
> in the collection as a whole would be substantial, and I do not see them
> going into that fit of altruism that would inspire them to give up
> capital rights in the material.  Keeping the works in vaults until the
> United States has passed a database protection law would be more in
> keeping  with their profit motives.

I appreciate your feedback.

Anyway, I don't believe my proposal to be na?ve because the monetary
value of the pre-1942 collection to Sony BMG is not that high compared
to their contemporary catalog. The value of a sound collection depends
upon:

1) Current costs to maintain the collection (legal, administrative and
   physically archiving and preserving the metal parts that still
   exist.)

2) Current profits of reissuing from the collection, and

3) Potential future profits of reissuing from the collection.


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] [Wikipedia-l] Password reminder limits

body:
George Herbert wrote:
> On 10/25/06, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> As promised [1], password reminder limits are now effective on all
>> Wikimedia
>> projects. There is a limit of one password reminder per user per 24-hour
>> period, and 5 password reminders per IP per hour.
>>
>> -- Tim Starling
[...]
> Just occurred to me... how many presumed-valid password reminder requests do
> we get from each AOL proxy server each hour, on the average?  Has anyone
> checked?

No idea, hopefully less than 5.

-- Tim Starling


list: wikien-l

from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Reverting without reading - another example

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> Delirium wrote:
>
>> While it's certainly nice for people to read all edits, on the flip
>> side, people should be expected to post at least a few words in the edit
>> summary, especially for significant changes.  Something like "deleting
>> rant" would be sufficient.  Making large changes without so much as a
>> single word in comment (in either the edit summary or talk page) is
>> rather discourteous.
>>
>>
>
> We advertise ourselves as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but
> you expect people to know all our rules and policies before they do so.
> /That/ is discourteous; if you're going to tell people "your do it rong"
> (in your worst Engrish) you could at least have the decency to explain WHY.
>

I don't expect them to "know all our rules and policies", but I *do*
expect them to read the text "edit summary" (conveniently placed right
next to the "save" button) and deduce that that's where they should
place a summary of their edit.  I don't recall having to read policy
pages to figure that out when I was new here.

-Mark


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] CC-BY-SA suitable for Wikipedia?

body:
On 10/26/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/25/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > For CC-BY-SA, you have to both tag or list its license info and the
> author
> > info (BY), and whatever you're producing can't restrict further
> > redistribution (if you're making a book, you can sell the book, but you
> > can't keep people from scanning or copying the images and then
> > redistributing them again).
>
>
> Two questions:
>
> 1. Is the "no restriction on redistribution" not also true of the GFDL?
> 2. While you cannot restrict further redistribution of the pictures in the
> book, does the copyright status of the images impact that overall
> copyright
> of the document in which they are redistributed?  (I'm guessing not).
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that one can include CC-BY-SA in
an otherwise copyrighted work, as long as you credit and don't restrict
further redistribution of the CC-BY-SA parts.  The key term here is that the
book becomes a Collective Work, with the CC-BY-SA works (images, text,
whatever) being component parts  of a larger whole.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode

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


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Mark Wagner wrote:

>On 10/26/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't expect them to "know all our rules and policies", but I *do*
>>expect them to read the text "edit summary" (conveniently placed right
>>next to the "save" button) and deduce that that's where they should
>>place a summary of their edit.
>>
>>
>Perhaps you should read up on human perception.  There have been
>numerous studies showing that people just don't see things that aren't
>part of the task at hand, no matter how obvious they are.
>
>The only parts of the user interface that the average new editor sees
>are the big edit field and the "save page" button.  All the rest of it
>is quite literally invisible, and there is nothing we can do to change
>that: any text we add will be similarly invisible.
>
Taking this one step further.  The average person who visits to read
some article can remain completely unaware of "Edit this page".

Ec


from_name: Guettarda

body:
On 10/25/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> For CC-BY-SA, you have to both tag or list its license info and the author
> info (BY), and whatever you're producing can't restrict further
> redistribution (if you're making a book, you can sell the book, but you
> can't keep people from scanning or copying the images and then
> redistributing them again).

Two questions:

1. Is the "no restriction on redistribution" not also true of the GFDL?
2. While you cannot restrict further redistribution of the pictures in the
book, does the copyright status of the images impact that overall copyright
of the document in which they are redistributed?  (I'm guessing not).


body:
On 10/26/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/26/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> > A touch of logic in the engine that recognised a diff as a revert of
> > the previous edit (i.e., identical to the last-but-one revision) would
> > be useful. Then a summary-less revert could be rejected with the
> > message "edit reversions must be given a summary".
>
> I think making edit-summaries mandatory for anonymous users is an
> excellent idea.
>
> (Making it mandatory for registered users would have the added
> advantage of removing it as an RfA criterion)

Hmm.  Interesting.

I was thinking about making it mandatory for anons, but for everyone is even
a different spin.

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


list: foundation-l

from_name: Brad Patrick

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia rankings astonishing

body:
Please take a minute to have a look at this and read the methodology document that accompanies it.

In any event, this kind of metric, 154M unique visitors in September, demonstrates we are one of the top web sites on the planet.

/me pats the community on the back!

-Brad

=======================================================================
Press Release

Media Alert: comScore Releases Worldwide Ranking of Top Web Properties

RESTON, Va., October 26, 2006 ? comScore Networks, a leader in
measuring the digital age, today reported the latest worldwide ranking
of top Web properties, ranked by unique visitors.  Of note were the
gains experienced by Wikipedia Sites and Youtube.com during September.
Both sites were up 12 percent versus August.

Top Global Web Properties
Total Unique Visitors (000),age 15+ *
September 2006
Total Worldwide - Home and Work Locations
Source: comScore World Metrix

Web Properties
Total Unique Visitors (000) Sept-06

Worldwide Total (Age 15+) 726,749
Microsoft Sites 505,479
Yahoo! Sites 480,641
Google Sites 467,498
eBay 237,327
Time Warner Network 217,843
Wikipedia Sites 154,848
Amazon Sites 133,518
Fox Interactive Media 117,789
Ask Network 112,768
Adobe Sites 95,196
Apple Computer, Inc. 94,909
Lycos, Inc. 91,126
CNET Networks 84,259
YouTube.com 81,019

Monster Worldwide 60,162


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikipedia-l

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Dream a little... --> The entire corpus of
	pre-1942 commercial sound recordings

body:
Steve wrote:

> Your proposal is very fascinating and your tact is remarkable. =)

Well, my reply may have been a little too harsh. Ray did bring up
valid points that needed addressing. The whole area of the copyright
of pre-1972 U.S. sound recordings is one big tangled can of worms. So
it is difficult to write something brief which completely untangles
everything to everyone's satisfaction. I'm not sure if anyone, outside
of a few top IP attorneys who are interested in the Public Domain,
such as Larry Lessig, really have a good grasp of the various nuances
(including state laws) regarding pre-1972 sound recordings.

And then there's the strategy in how to "free" the older sound
recordings --  there will definitely be differences of opinions.

The important point, though, is that the corpus of pre-1942 sound
recordings should somehow be "freed", and that is something which a
few associates and I have been working on the last three years. We
have an understanding of the various issues, and a good idea of how to
digitally transfer, with state-of-the-art quality, millions of
recordings once the "rights" issue is clarified (we are looking at
doing this in semi-automated and automated fashion.) As noted before,
we have close ties to ARSC as well.

And of course Brewster Kahle at the Internet Archive is very
interested in this as well, as he and I have discussed this. Once the
recordings are "freed" and digitally transferred, the digital copies
need to be preserved, as well as made available to the public in some
fashion. Also, the "metal parts" need to find a home and we have given
that some thought and have top experts (including one who was formerly
the head of the sound collection at the Library of Congress) with whom
we can consult.

So if the person with access to $100 million is interested in the
pre-1942 sound recordings, we have a team of experts with good
connections in various places that can be leveraged to help out with
the acquisition, cataloging, digitization, archiving and distribution
of the collection. We also have good connections on the legal front
that we may be able to utilize -- even when acquiring the collection
there will still be a couple copyright issues to deal with (which I
believe are manageable.)

Jon Noring

(p.s., I keep mentioning "pre-1942". There are a couple reasons why
1942 is a suitable cutoff date which are explained in the paper I
previously referenced:

   http://www.projectgramophone.org/TeleRead-Article-01Nov2003.html

In addition to the "royalty" issue (making pre-1942 safer), there's
the aspect that 1942 is well before the Rock era which started ca.
1953 (which the recording companies are less willing to part with) and
before tape was used for recording -- nearly all commercial recordings
before then were mastered as 78 rpm masters -- nearly all issued 78s
are, in essence, physical copies of the masters. And some of the
original metal masters still exist in good condition, and can be used
to press vinyl copies for direct transfer. All in all, though, it is
the royalty issue that makes post 1942 recordings more difficult to
deal with it, but I suppose we should not rule them out entirely.)


from_name: Steve

body:
Your proposal is very fascinating and your tact is remarkable. =)

Thanks for sharing!

-Steve

On 10/26/06, Jon Noring <jon at noring.name> wrote:
>
> Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> > Jon Noring wrote:
>
> >> Although I'm not certain Sony BMG would entertain an offer, there is
> >> some reason to believe they might, especially if linked in with some
> >> potential tax write-offs and the positive publicity that this would
> >> give Sony BMG.
>
> > That seems na?ve.  Although the profit that the recording companies may
> > garner from any one recording are likely to be small.  Their investment
> > in the collection as a whole would be substantial, and I do not see them
> > going into that fit of altruism that would inspire them to give up
> > capital rights in the material.  Keeping the works in vaults until the
> > United States has passed a database protection law would be more in
> > keeping  with their profit motives.
>
> I appreciate your feedback.
>
> Anyway, I don't believe my proposal to be na?ve because the monetary
> value of the pre-1942 collection to Sony BMG is not that high compared
> to their contemporary catalog. The value of a sound collection depends
> upon:
>
> 1) Current costs to maintain the collection (legal, administrative and
>    physically archiving and preserving the metal parts that still
>    exist.)
>
> 2) Current profits of reissuing from the collection, and
>
> 3) Potential future profits of reissuing from the collection.
>
> >From the information I have, the net profits, current and future, from
> the pre-1942 collection are and will remain quite nominal. They are a
> drop in the bucket compared to revenues of more contemporary sound
> recordings. In fact, I've heard some rumours (unsubstantiated) that
> Sony BMG is *losing* money on its pre-1942 collection. But even if
> this is not true, they clearly are making very little money on their
> pre-1942 sound collection (it would not surprise me if Sony BMG's top
> artist today probably makes many times more money for Sony BMG than
> the entire pre-1942 collection does -- and Sony BMG has hundreds of
> very profitable artists and thousands of more minor artists. Figure
> out the math and the pre-1942 collection is a drop in the bucket. Sony
> BMG may actually be happy to get rid of the collection for $50
> million plus some good PR.)
>
> Anyway, is there any harm in negotiating with Sony BMG? Until they are
> asked, we really don't know what their reaction will be. Anyone coming
> in with $100 million in their pocket will probably get an immediate
> lunch with Sony BMG's chairman, that's for certain. <laugh/>
>
>
> > For much of the stuff that they hold, copyrights may very well have
> > expired, but if they have the unique copy of one of these works, they
> > still have the right of possession, and will milk it for what it's worth
> > to them.
>
> NO!
>
> Read the article I wrote. The sound recordings are NOT covered by
> Federal copyright law, but by a patchwork quilt of state laws. The
> recent "Capitol vs. Naxos" copyright ruling was issued by New York
> State Supreme Court, which held for the plaintiff. So, in essence,
> Sony BMG holds *state copyright* rights to the collection, and it
> is enforceable just like Federal Copyright is enforceable. And state
> copyright laws are more onerous than is Federal Copyright law.
>
> And from the rulings, the recording companies don't have to hold the
> original metal parts to maintain ownership of the recordings. They
> just have to prove in court that they own them "on paper", and for
> the major labels from the pre-1942 era it is very easy to demonstrate
> the chain of ownership -- it is well-documented.
>
>
> >> For background information on the unusual copyright status of early
> >> U.S. sound recordings (which is surprising!), and whether or not Sony
> >> BMG might even be interested, refer to the article I wrote about the
> >> topic of freeing the older sound recordings:
> >>
> >>   http://www.projectgramophone.org/TeleRead-Article-01Nov2003.html
> >>
> >> (Especially refer to the section entitled: "A Note To The Major Media
> >> Companies: Why Not Donate Your Older Sound Recording Catalogues?")
>
> > I read your article, but I think you exagerate the legal points.
> > Copyright is a federal matter, and I don't see any state copyright laws
> > withstanding a constitutional challenge.  The burden of proving
> > perpetual royalty rights on a very old recording falls on whoever is
> > alleging that such a contract exists.  If nobody can find the old
> > contract the effect would be the same as if it had never existed.  They
> > are not indeterminable.
>
> Yes, Copyright is a Federal matter. and the U.S. Congress has decided
> NOT to cover pre-1972 sound recordings with Federal Copyright
> protection. At present sound recordings are covered by the patchwork
> quilt of state laws mentioned above and in the article I wrote. And
> refer to the Capitol vs. Naxos decision. When Federal law kicks in, it
> then pre-empts state law, but unless Congress acts sooner, for
> pre-1972 sound recordings we won't see that happen until 2067.
>
> The royalty issue I don't deem to be critical for what we are talking
> about.
>
> But to the recording companies, it is a big deal. For a long while
> MCA, which held the Decca collection, refused to reissue any of their
> older recordings because they were unsure of their royalty status. And
> they denied third-party requests to reissue the Decca stuff. This led
> to a period of time when NOTHING from the Decca collection was legally
> reissued.
>
>
> Jon Noring
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Mark Clements

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wish List

body:
"David Goodman" <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote
in message
news:480eb3150610252215r984ab43tabbbc82247690382 at mail.gmail.com...
> On 10/25/06, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > David Goodman wrote:
> > >
> > >(Nor should old textbooks be cited on WP except for historical
interest).
> > >
> > This last bit is not realistic.  While it is still preferable to cite
> > the most recent edition, the fact is that people cite the edition that
> > is available to them.  We cannot require people to go out and buy the
> > most recent edition before contributing.  It's up to subsequent editors
> > to update the information if they have something more recent.
> >
>
> We can  expect our editors to use libraries.  (And if you
> can't or don't want to work that way, there's an immense amount to write
on
> WP.  There's a great many topics--academic topics even--that can best be
> written with available Internet sources. )
>
> Is your goal to produce a WP useful for 2006, or 1996?  It would be very
> interesting to deliberately invent an encyclopedia appropriate for some
> specific earlier historical period, but many of the users may be more
> interested in the present.

It appears that you are refuting the viability of creating an encyclopedia
iteratively, and that only complete, accurate, verified and peer-reviewed
articles should be allowed on Wikipedia.

Surely information from 1996 is still valuable, in the absence of anything
more up-to-date?  Don't tell me that a textbook about Shakespeare will have
changed so much in the last 10 years that its information is worthless!

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


from_name: Michael Biven

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Is there a best recipe to remove index.php fromthe
	URL?

body:
Michael Biven <michael.biven at ...> writes:

>
> After looking and trying  the options suggested in the
> "Eliminating_index.php_from_the_url" page I'm at a lose to find one
> that works completely.

> Can anyone point me in the right  direction please?
>

>From the talk page for "Eliminating_index.php_from_the_url" it looks like this
cleaning the URL is a common problem. Anyone have a better resource to doing
this or how to handle removing the index.php from the special pages?

Thanks,

Michael B.


from_name: Rob Seaman

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

body:
This is one of the more interesting IP initiatives I've heard of,
even simply as an intellectual exercise.  Even better if it actually
happens.

I'll add two suggestions to the wish list.  First a purely selfish
plea for content lost:  the Voyager Company catalog of electronic
media.  This is almost a recursive request since several Voyager
titles were themselves exercises in freeing legacy works.  I'll lose
access to the titles on my shelf whenever Apple ceases support for
OS-9.  Some, like "With Open Eyes", are great works by the standards
of any medium.  Presumably there are many other publishers from the
early, perhaps pre-internet, days of electronic media whose
historically significant content is at risk.

A more revolutionary suggestion is to open up the technical standards
process.  Many international standards are proprietary, such as
ISO-8601 that any of you who were engaged in Y2K remediation efforts
must surely be familiar with.  Familiar with, but perhaps have never
seen a copy of, because they charge real bucks.  Another example just
from the area of timekeeping is ITU-R TF.460-6.  What is this you
say?  The internationally recognized (e.g., by our State Dept.)
definition of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC).  UTC underlies
standard civil time throughout the world.  Here is a theater-of-the-
absurd quote from the minutes of a recent ITU meeting of their
working party 7A:

	"After the introduction of the document the WP-7A counsellor
	informed WP-7A that a preliminary document i.e. the PDRR,
	could not be circulated beyond WP-7A according to ITU-R
	resolutions nor could the currently in effect Recommendation
	ITU-R TF.460-6, be attached to the SRG report with an
	explanation of proposed changes since all ITU-R
	Recommendations are only sold by the ITU-R."

To give you a sense of the kind of service opening this standard up
would provide, the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) is
debating removing any connection between UTC (i.e., the time on your
wall, your wrist, your cell-phone and your laptop) and the motion of
the Sun in the sky, by eliminating leap seconds.  Small in the short
term.  World-changing in the long term.

Vast number of other standards documents that underlie the
infrastructure of the modern world are similarly protected behind
proprietary walls.  I recall a piece from the early days of Wired
magazine describing one noble soul's fruitless efforts to convince
ISO to loosen their proprietary policies.  Actually, there is a third
suggestion ? buy up the rights to back issues of Wired and other
"popular" journals, not just the academic literature.  Anybody who
has tried to navigate wired.com to find their rare precious nuggets
would thank you!

Rob Seaman
National Optical Astronomy Observatory


from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [Wikitech-l] Need a developer for a Kabyle wiki

body:
Toira wrote:
>
> -Modern Tifinagh works exactly like
> the latin alphabet, it is written from left
> to right and has vowels, so it is easily
>  convertible to latin with the use of a
> software (it would take less than one
> second for the whole process). but as I
> said earlier we seek efficiency in both
> real world and internet. No one's going
> to read the articles in the tifinagh
>  alphabet... and especially write them
>  on a paper.
> I have an experience of 5 years writing
> with the tifinagh alphabet, but still,
> it takes about 5 seconds to write a word
>  in tifinagh but less than 1 second in latin.
>  (don't forget that tifinagh dates back to 500 BC,
>  so the letters are very primitive, very big,
>  and complex to write.. I'd say draw since
> they look like geometric figures). Trying
> to improve the tifinagh would mean
> creating a new alphabet, sincerely we
>  do not have the capacity. Also,
> "improving" means that it (tifinagh) is used,
>  which is not the case.
>

Given your arguments above, it looks like a no-brainer to start the
Kabyle wiki in the Latin script.

However, if there is, as you say, a deterministic transformation to/from
Tifinagh, we could easily later use a variant of the multi-script
software currently used to handle the different Chinese scripts on the
Chinese Wikipedia to implement a dual-script interface, or at the least
an alternative Tifinagh display mode for the Latin-based text.

Do you have any references for Tifinagh <-> Latin transliteration?

-- Neil


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
On 10/26/06, The Uninvited Co., Inc <uninvited at nerstrand.net> wrote:
>
> Even a quick skim should reveal that the deleted text is an irredeemable
> editorial rant written by someone with an axe to grind.

Well... it's really just a little POV. Express it neutrally and it
would be fairly good content - there's encyclopaedic material to be
written about those cases. It's probably an essay someone's done for
administrative law - not the worst example of this sort of thing.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: niht-hræfn

body:
On Oct 26, 2006, at 16:27, George Herbert wrote:

> On 10/26/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/26/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>>> A touch of logic in the engine that recognised a diff as a revert of
>>> the previous edit (i.e., identical to the last-but-one revision)
>>> would
>>> be useful. Then a summary-less revert could be rejected with the
>>> message "edit reversions must be given a summary".
>>
>> I think making edit-summaries mandatory for anonymous users is an
>> excellent idea.
>>
>> (Making it mandatory for registered users would have the added
>> advantage of removing it as an RfA criterion)
>
> Hmm.  Interesting.
>
> I was thinking about making it mandatory for anons, but for
> everyone is even
> a different spin.
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com

When this has come up before, the idea of mandatory edit summaries
has been mostly rejected on the grounds that it'd encourage useless
summaries ("adsfdjhsf" etc). However, only certain types of edits
requiring edit summaries might be useful, as for removing large
blocks of text. Edit summaries of "asdfhjshf" vs "remove crap" might
weed out the blankers from the miffed.

Or it might all go to hell.

--Keitei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keitei


from_name: Alessandro Argentini

subject: [Foundation-l] WikiWorlds project proposal

body:
I read on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_policy that I
should notify the mailing list of new project proposals, so here is my
proposal

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWorlds proposal
http://editthis.info/wikiworlds/Main_Page demo


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
The problem is that GFDL really doesn't allow that kind of content-mixing.
It's more strongly viral than CC-by-SA.

On 10/26/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/26/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/25/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > For CC-BY-SA, you have to both tag or list its license info and the
> > author
> > > info (BY), and whatever you're producing can't restrict further
> > > redistribution (if you're making a book, you can sell the book, but
> you
> > > can't keep people from scanning or copying the images and then
> > > redistributing them again).
> >
> >
> > Two questions:
> >
> > 1. Is the "no restriction on redistribution" not also true of the GFDL?
> > 2. While you cannot restrict further redistribution of the pictures in
> the
> > book, does the copyright status of the images impact that overall
> > copyright
> > of the document in which they are redistributed?  (I'm guessing not).
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that one can include CC-BY-SA
> in
> an otherwise copyrighted work, as long as you credit and don't restrict
> further redistribution of the CC-BY-SA parts.  The key term here is that
> the
> book becomes a Collective Work, with the CC-BY-SA works (images, text,
> whatever) being component parts  of a larger whole.
>
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Yorian

body:
I'm not a 3d-artist myself, but I think this will be a fun project :)

Yorian

Alessandro Argentini schreef:
> I read on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_policy that I
> should notify the mailing list of new project proposals, so here is my
> proposal
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWorlds proposal
> http://editthis.info/wikiworlds/Main_Page demo
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 10/26/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is that GFDL really doesn't allow that kind of content-mixing.
> It's more strongly viral than CC-by-SA.

FUD!

>From the GFDL v1.2:

7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS

A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate
and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or
distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright
resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights
of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit.
When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not
apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves
derivative works of the Document.

Of course you can argue that an image created specifically to
illustrate an article, or that an article created specifically to
elaborate an image is a derivative rather than an aggregation, there
is no difference between the Creating Confusion - *  licenses and the
GFDL in this respect.


from_name: Earle Martin

body:
On 26/10/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> I don't expect them to "know all our rules and policies", but I *do*
> expect them to read the text "edit summary" (conveniently placed right
> next to the "save" button) and deduce that that's where they should
> place a summary of their edit.  I don't recall having to read policy
> pages to figure that out when I was new here.

A touch of logic in the engine that recognised a diff as a revert of
the previous edit (i.e., identical to the last-but-one revision) would
be useful. Then a summary-less revert could be rejected with the
message "edit reversions must be given a summary".

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


from_name: Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz

subject: [Foundation-l]Report from Frankfurt – October 2006

body:
oscar wrote:

 > I will spare you all the details and instead give a summarized list
of the
 > urgent to-do topics agreed upon (mind you, since they imply
''action'', all
 > these begin with a ''verb''), in alphabetical order:

But the problem is that indeed these details are the things which you
seem to really discussed. For example if there was a discussion about
organizational structure of the Foundation, what kind a structure do you
recommend? If you were discussing about expanding the Board, what was
your recommendation about it?

 >Did you ever try a complex voting system with wikimedians IRL? I
 > can tell you this is fun, not just the voting, but also, just like
on-wiki... {etc.)

If you were voting on something what was the results of these votings?
What do you exactly voted?

> Anxious for the further implementation of the hard work we did together, as
> well as for the follow-up so many hope will take place, I am confident that
> the first step of solidifying the "giant's feet of clay" into some more
> sustainable substance was in fact taken properly. Yet it is a first step and
> many more must follow on the same path, which will step by step involve many
> more people than the 21 at Frankfurt last weekend. Our main goals remain
> unchallenged, although the exact wording may vary slightly, so we need your
> help as well throughout the next stages of reorganization and expansion.
>

Well.. good to hear you still need other people help, but how we can
help if we don't know what have you exactly decided during this meeting...

 >...all of these were at the end of the meeting "given into the hands
of >the board",

Does it mean you have produced some sort of document with your
recommendations to the Board? If yes, I think, this document, even if
very long, would be much more interesting to read, than all the above
general, abstract statements wich in fact says nothing...

--
Tomasz "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Polimerek
http://www.poli.toya.net.pl/
http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/pl/TomaszGanicz.html


from_name: George Herbert

body:
On 10/26/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> Earle Martin wrote:
> > On 26/10/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> It's a nice idea, but after a few weeks of everyone being good about
> >> it, I predict seeing lots and lots of edit summaries consisting of "."
> >
> > That should be a warnable offense.
>
> Why not make blank edit summaries a "warnable offense", then? It'd be
> essentially the same thing.

A lot more technically friendly if  the software requires them to enter
"something" first; random people who aren't Wikipedia-familiar will
understand a message popping up with a little paperclip saying "I've noticed
you didn't enter an edit summary, these are important and required before we
can enter the updated data".

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


from_name: Sam Korn

body:
On 10/26/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> A touch of logic in the engine that recognised a diff as a revert of
> the previous edit (i.e., identical to the last-but-one revision) would
> be useful. Then a summary-less revert could be rejected with the
> message "edit reversions must be given a summary".

I think making edit-summaries mandatory for anonymous users is an
excellent idea.

(Making it mandatory for registered users would have the added
advantage of removing it as an RfA criterion)

--
Sam


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [Wikipedia-l] About featured articles on English Wikipedia

body:
On 26/10/06, Milos Rancic <millosh at mutualaid.org> wrote:
> It is possible that article about Belgrade passes featured article
> nomination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Belgrade).
> My question is: May we target some date, so we can make some promotion
> here in Belgrade/Serbia as Wikimedia Serbia?
>
> Also, it opens similar questions about other featured articles on
> en...? (Also, it is not related only to English Wikipedia.) May we
> have some coordination?

I'm not sure quite what you mean by "target some date" - do you mean
for when the article appears on en.wp's front page?

If so, the person you want to talk to is Raul654, who schedules them -
generally anything that doesn't have overt political significance is
fine if someone requests it. Leave a note at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests
when (if?) it passes...

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


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
George Herbert wrote:

>On 10/26/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Earle Martin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 26/10/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's a nice idea, but after a few weeks of everyone being good about
>>>>it, I predict seeing lots and lots of edit summaries consisting of "."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That should be a warnable offense.
>>>
>>>
>>Why not make blank edit summaries a "warnable offense", then? It'd be
>>essentially the same thing.
>>
>>
>A lot more technically friendly if  the software requires them to enter
>"something" first; random people who aren't Wikipedia-familiar will
>understand a message popping up with a little paperclip saying "I've noticed
>you didn't enter an edit summary, these are important and required before we
>can enter the updated data".
>
I still prefer human friendly to technically friendly.  The pop-up is an
encouragement to add any random entry.  The summarries are important in
many cases, but it would be madness to require them in all cases.  If,
for example, I move an article because of a small spelling change in the
title, I will try to follow that by cleaning up the links.  There may be
20 or 30 such links; I do not accept the need to generate a long series
of edit summaries when those summaries are longer than the edits themselves.

Ec


list: textbook-l

from_name: Michael R. Irwin

subject: [Textbook-l] Wikiversity logo

body:
Brianna Laugher wrote:

>Hello,
>
>1) Is there a wikiversity mailing list? If so, I couldn't find it at
>mail.wikipedia.org .
>
>
Yes, there is:

_______________________________________________
Wikiversity-l mailing list
Wikiversity-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l

>2) Is this in fact the official logo for Wikiversity?
>http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikiversity-logo.svg
>
>
I do not know. There have been some logo contest rumblings so you might
check with others at the mailing list or at the Colloquium:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Colloquium

>3) If so, whose fool idea was it to use a third-party LGPL icon as a
>logo (rather hard to subsume as {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} like the
>other project logos), and what is the status of this vote?
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/logo
>
>
Looks like the voting process status is layed out. "In *phase 4*, which
lasts from 16 October
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=October_16&action=edit>
until 31 October
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=October_31&action=edit>,
you can now determine the winning logo! *Vote for ONE logo only.* Please
note that if the winning logo should happen to use Wikimedia colours or
have blue as its most prominent colour, those colours *will have to be
changed* afterwards to something which is okay with the Wikimedia
Marketing Department."

Perhaps not so foolish. If the image is actually LGPL then it can be
used without permission on the Wikimedia Foundation when people wish to
publish GFDL'ed materials from Wikiversity ..... correct?

IIRC it took months/years for the Wikibooks people to sort out how to go
about publishing a Wiki Junior book due to trademark and logo issues
surrounding the "Wikibooks" trademark and logo.

If you find out the status of the vote after 31 October 06 please be
sure to let us know at the Wikiversity mailing list.

regards,
mirwin


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

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Rob Seaman wrote:
><snip>
>
>
>>A more revolutionary suggestion is to open up the technical standards
>>process.  Many international standards are proprietary, such as
>>ISO-8601 that any of you who were engaged in Y2K remediation efforts
>>must surely be familiar with.  Familiar with, but perhaps have never
>>seen a copy of, because they charge real bucks.  Another example just
>>from the area of timekeeping is ITU-R TF.460-6.  What is this you
>>say?  The internationally recognized (e.g., by our State Dept.)
>>definition of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC).  UTC underlies
>>standard civil time throughout the world.  Here is a theater-of-the-
>>absurd quote from the minutes of a recent ITU meeting of their
>>working party 7A:
>>
>>	"After the introduction of the document the WP-7A counsellor
>>	informed WP-7A that a preliminary document i.e. the PDRR,
>>	could not be circulated beyond WP-7A according to ITU-R
>>	resolutions nor could the currently in effect Recommendation
>>	ITU-R TF.460-6, be attached to the SRG report with an
>>	explanation of proposed changes since all ITU-R
>>	Recommendations are only sold by the ITU-R."
>>
>>To give you a sense of the kind of service opening this standard up
>>would provide, the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) is
>>debating removing any connection between UTC (i.e., the time on your
>>wall, your wrist, your cell-phone and your laptop) and the motion of
>>the Sun in the sky, by eliminating leap seconds.  Small in the short
>>term.  World-changing in the long term.
>>
>>Vast number of other standards documents that underlie the
>>infrastructure of the modern world are similarly protected behind
>>proprietary walls.  I recall a piece from the early days of Wired
>>magazine describing one noble soul's fruitless efforts to convince
>>ISO to loosen their proprietary policies.
>>
>>
><snip>
>
>Oh golly yes! My major gripe with the IEEE is that they won't accept
>public domain documents - I recently had to work with their software
>design document guidelines and was informed by my supervisor "this is a
>copyrighted document, look after it".
>
This is an interesting issue.  It ties in with freeing the laws.

To what extent do international standards have the force of law?  If the
United States adopts such a standard to have the force of law within the
United States then it should be subject to the same copyright provisions
as any other law of the United States.  This does not necessarily help
in other countries, but it's worth considering.

Ec


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
Earle Martin wrote:
> On 26/10/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's a nice idea, but after a few weeks of everyone being good about
>> it, I predict seeing lots and lots of edit summaries consisting of "."
>
> That should be a warnable offense.

Why not make blank edit summaries a "warnable offense", then? It'd be
essentially the same thing.

-------------- 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/20061026/8cfad069/attachment.pgp


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
Delirium wrote:
> The Uninvited Co., Inc wrote:
>> Greg Maxwell has made the point earlier that if, as a community, we want
>> to revert any large block deletions by IPs without edit summaries, we
>> would be better served to modify one of the many existing bots to do so
>> rather than encourage people to do it.  And I believe that Greg and I
>> are in agreement that such blind reversions are a bad thing, regardless
>> of whether they are performed by people or bots.  People should be
>> expected to read, particularly so in an era when we have so many
>> anti-vandalism bots operating.
>>
>
> While it's certainly nice for people to read all edits, on the flip
> side, people should be expected to post at least a few words in the edit
> summary, especially for significant changes.  Something like "deleting
> rant" would be sufficient.  Making large changes without so much as a
> single word in comment (in either the edit summary or talk page) is
> rather discourteous.
>

We advertise ourselves as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but
you expect people to know all our rules and policies before they do so.
/That/ is discourteous; if you're going to tell people "your do it rong"
(in your worst Engrish) you could at least have the decency to explain WHY.

--
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/20061026/f6fb2b3f/attachment.pgp


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Foundation-l] World Wikipedia project?

body:
On 26/10/06, luke brandt <shojokid at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have mentioned this a couple of times, but as yet no one seems interested.
> The idea is to coordinate Wikipedia policy over different languages as much
> as possible, so it becomes easier to amalgamate, to the benefit of all, with
> just translation needed.

What does "amalgamate" mean, exactly? I am not convinced of any great
need for all the projects to have identical policies.

Then issues of formatting, layout, image policy etc
> etc should already have been sorted. Comments?

Personally, I wouldn't mind if we all converged on de.wp or es.wp's
image policy, but I think there would be significant disagreement.

Formatting? Layout? What does this mean exactly? This is one of the
areas I would least expect to have policy convergence, given that each
written language has its own history and tradition.

Wikis evolve at different rates, and so do their policies. Many small
wikis might not even HAVE written policies on many key issues. You can
understand that a small community of eager editors can think of better
things to do than think up or translate twenty key policies.

Brianna
user:pfctdayelise


subject: [Foundation-l] World Wikipedia project?


subject: [Foundation-l] World Wikipedia project?

body:
Anders Wegge Jakobsen wrote:
> "luke brandt" <shojokid at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I have mentioned this a couple of times, but as yet no one seems interested.
>> The idea is to coordinate Wikipedia policy over different languages as much
>> as possible, so it becomes easier to amalgamate, to the benefit of all, with
>> just translation needed. Then issues of formatting, layout, image policy etc
>> etc should already have been sorted. Comments?
>
>  That's a sure way of speeding up the number of local forks.
> Personally I'll fork dawiki *long* time before we approach the level
> of policy-ness that enwiki is currently experiencing.
>

I'm still waiting for the content-driven fork of enwiki :/

--
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/foundation-l/attachments/20061026/9b9a364d/attachment.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] World Wikipedia project?

body:
Anders Wegge Jakobsen wrote:
> "luke brandt" <shojokid at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I have mentioned this a couple of times, but as yet no one seems interested.
>> The idea is to coordinate Wikipedia policy over different languages as much
>> as possible, so it becomes easier to amalgamate, to the benefit of all, with
>> just translation needed. Then issues of formatting, layout, image policy etc
>> etc should already have been sorted. Comments?
>
>  That's a sure way of speeding up the number of local forks.
> Personally I'll fork dawiki *long* time before we approach the level
> of policy-ness that enwiki is currently experiencing.
>

I'm still waiting for the content-driven fork of enwiki :/

--
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/foundation-l/attachments/20061026/9b9a364d/attachment-0001.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] World Wikipedia project?

body:
Anders Wegge Jakobsen wrote:
> "luke brandt" <shojokid at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I have mentioned this a couple of times, but as yet no one seems interested.
>> The idea is to coordinate Wikipedia policy over different languages as much
>> as possible, so it becomes easier to amalgamate, to the benefit of all, with
>> just translation needed. Then issues of formatting, layout, image policy etc
>> etc should already have been sorted. Comments?
>
>  That's a sure way of speeding up the number of local forks.
> Personally I'll fork dawiki *long* time before we approach the level
> of policy-ness that enwiki is currently experiencing.
>

I'm still waiting for the content-driven fork of enwiki :/

--
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/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061026/9b9a364d/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] World Wikipedia project?

body:
Anders Wegge Jakobsen wrote:
> "luke brandt" <shojokid at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I have mentioned this a couple of times, but as yet no one seems interested.
>> The idea is to coordinate Wikipedia policy over different languages as much
>> as possible, so it becomes easier to amalgamate, to the benefit of all, with
>> just translation needed. Then issues of formatting, layout, image policy etc
>> etc should already have been sorted. Comments?
>
>  That's a sure way of speeding up the number of local forks.
> Personally I'll fork dawiki *long* time before we approach the level
> of policy-ness that enwiki is currently experiencing.
>

I'm still waiting for the content-driven fork of enwiki :/

--
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/wikimedia-l/attachments/20061026/9b9a364d/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Milos Rancic

subject:
[WikiEN-l] [Wikipedia-l] About featured articles on English
	Wikipedia

body:
It is possible that article about Belgrade passes featured article
nomination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Belgrade).
My question is: May we target some date, so we can make some promotion
here in Belgrade/Serbia as Wikimedia Serbia?

Also, it opens similar questions about other featured articles on
en...? (Also, it is not related only to English Wikipedia.) May we
have some coordination?
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


body:
It is possible that article about Belgrade passes featured article
nomination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Belgrade).
My question is: May we target some date, so we can make some promotion
here in Belgrade/Serbia as Wikimedia Serbia?

Also, it opens similar questions about other featured articles on
en...? (Also, it is not related only to English Wikipedia.) May we
have some coordination?


from_name: Erik Zachte

subject: [Foundation-l] Report from Frankfurt - October 2006

body:
Tomasz "Polimerek" Ganicz
> Does it mean you have produced some sort of document with your
> recommendations to the Board? If yes, I think, this document, even if
> very long, would be much more interesting to read, than all the above
> general, abstract statements wich in fact says nothing...

Oscar thank you for what you did, but in my view you did not earn your right
to complain yet. I also would have expected a more in depth coverage of such
a crucial meeting. To name one thing specifically: what was the outcome of
the SWOT analysis? I'm sure you all did not do that hard work without taking
notes? You might include the SWOT outcome unedited, that saves time.

> I will spare you all the details

Who are you sparing here? Might that not be yourself in the first place ;)
I'm sure many readers of this list would not mind an extra page or two. If
you can't spare the time maybe split up the work after all. It is not our
fault that the organiser of this event forgot to rent the Big Brother house
for 3*24 hrs multichannel coverage ;)

Also I find it rather odd to present a list of priorities, where again as
you say you all put so much effort in, in alphabetical order. It does not
help to give us a sense of what was going on.

In August the board decided they needed a retreat among other things to
build better relations. Expensive but hey we need a board to be on good
terms which each other. Now this retreat grew into Wikimania 2006 part II,
it seems.

>  so let me here express the often heard plea for a next follow-up meeting:
a next step,
building on this first one.

Several times in past years the topic of a wikicouncil was raised
(originally by Jimbo). Ironically it seems to me that we now almost got an
impromptu wikicouncil, without difficult discussions about size, roles and
representativity. Like with the board itself I fear this 'retreat' might
transform into something noone had foretold. Of course wikis are all about
being bold, yet I learned how this principle can backfire and I reserve the
right to express my doubts.

Erik Zachte


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] World Wikipedia project?

body:
On 10/26/06, luke brandt <shojokid at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have mentioned this a couple of times, but as yet no one seems interested.
> The idea is to coordinate Wikipedia policy over different languages as much
> as possible, so it becomes easier to amalgamate, to the benefit of all, with
> just translation needed. Then issues of formatting, layout, image policy etc
> etc should already have been sorted. Comments?

Documenting practices on Meta -- possibly combined with subjective
analysis and commentary -- seems like a good idea to me. You don't
need to start a new project or ask for anyone's permission to do this;
just start writing and structuring your thoughts.

--
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] World Wikipedia project?


body:
On 26/10/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I think making edit-summaries mandatory for anonymous users is an
> > excellent idea.
> >
> > (Making it mandatory for registered users would have the added
> > advantage of removing it as an RfA criterion)
>
> Hmm.  Interesting.
>
> I was thinking about making it mandatory for anons, but for everyone is even
> a different spin.

It's a nice idea, but after a few weeks of everyone being good about
it, I predict seeing lots and lots of edit summaries consisting of "."
...

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


from_name: Fastfission

body:
On 10/26/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/26/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The problem is that GFDL really doesn't allow that kind of content-mixing.
> > It's more strongly viral than CC-by-SA.
>
> FUD!
>
> >From the GFDL v1.2:
>
> 7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS
>
> A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate
> and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or
> distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright
> resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights
> of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit.
> When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not
> apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves
> derivative works of the Document.
>
> Of course you can argue that an image created specifically to
> illustrate an article, or that an article created specifically to
> elaborate an image is a derivative rather than an aggregation, there
> is no difference between the Creating Confusion - *  licenses and the
> GFDL in this respect.

I find the CC licenses to be very explicit and very clear about what
constitutes a "collective" work (their equivalent of the GDFL's
"aggregate" section) and full of copius examples of what sorts of
things would be considered to be that. The GDFL's "aggregate" section
doesn't really indicate whether they mean that a final printed page
with mixed-licensing materials would be considered an "aggregate" or
not, or give any indication of what the real boundary is between
"aggregate" and "derivative," in my reading of it. I'd consider that a
rather big difference, personally -- clarity can go a long way.

FF


body:
On 26/10/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
> The only parts of the user interface that the average new editor sees
> are the big edit field and the "save page" button.  All the rest of it
> is quite literally invisible, and there is nothing we can do to change
> that: any text we add will be similarly invisible.

Which is why a follow-up screen ("Oi, you need a summary") would serve
to get their attention.

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


body:
On 26/10/06, niht-hr?fn <nihthraefn at gmail.com> wrote:
> When this has come up before, the idea of mandatory edit summaries
> has been mostly rejected on the grounds that it'd encourage useless
> summaries ("adsfdjhsf" etc). However, only certain types of edits
> requiring edit summaries might be useful, as for removing large
> blocks of text.

Or indeed reversions.

> Edit summaries of "asdfhjshf" vs "remove crap" might
> weed out the blankers from the miffed.

And the usual remedies for bad behavior could be applied.

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


body:
On 26/10/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's a nice idea, but after a few weeks of everyone being good about
> it, I predict seeing lots and lots of edit summaries consisting of "."

That should be a warnable offense.

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


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
"No-brainer" is a sort of idiom. Paradoxically, it means "the obvious choice".

Mark

On 26/10/06, Toira <venomens at yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Neil Harris <usenet at ...> writes:
>
> >
> > Given your arguments above, it looks like a no-brainer to start the
> > Kabyle wiki in the Latin script.
> >
> > However, if there is, as you say, a deterministic transformation to/from
> > Tifinagh, we could easily later use a variant of the multi-script
> > software currently used to handle the different Chinese scripts on the
> > Chinese Wikipedia to implement a dual-script interface, or at the least
> > an alternative Tifinagh display mode for the Latin-based text.
> >
> > Do you have any references for Tifinagh <-> Latin transliteration?
> >
>
> You mean no-brainer to start it in Tifinagh? (you've written latin), Yeah I
> guess so.
>
> The link to the transliteration of tifinagh could be found in wikipedia:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tifinagh
>
> But there is a probleme with the transliteration in latin, it's not the one used
> to write Kabyle (we actually use a modified latin alphabet).
>
> I'll try to add do it here :
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_alphabet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Dream a little... --> The entire corpus
 of	pre-1942 commercial sound recordings

body:
Jon Noring wrote:

>Steve wrote:
>
>
>>Your proposal is very fascinating and your tact is remarkable. =)
>>
>>
>Well, my reply may have been a little too harsh. Ray did bring up
>valid points that needed addressing. The whole area of the copyright
>of pre-1972 U.S. sound recordings is one big tangled can of worms. So
>it is difficult to write something brief which completely untangles
>everything to everyone's satisfaction. I'm not sure if anyone, outside
>of a few top IP attorneys who are interested in the Public Domain,
>such as Larry Lessig, really have a good grasp of the various nuances
>(including state laws) regarding pre-1972 sound recordings.
>
I've just read through the decision on "Capitol vs. Naxos".  I find the
reading tortuous, but I think I understand what they are getting at.
Depending on State common law implies that a different result could be
had with a judicious choice of state.  The bulk of thes cases invoking
common law appear to be a part of the original 13. It would be
particularly interesting to see how this plays in Louisiana which did
not have a background of English common law.  The legislation in
response to "La Cienaga vs. ZZ Top" would have the effect of restoring
common law protection, but it's unclear what would happen when the state
had no applicable provisions.

>So if the person with access to $100 million is interested in the
>pre-1942 sound recordings, we have a team of experts with good
>connections in various places that can be leveraged to help out with
>the acquisition, cataloging, digitization, archiving and distribution
>of the collection.
>
 From a Wikimedia perspective sound recordings are still only a small
part of the material that needs to be freed.  Any portion of the $100
million applied to these recordings should be in proportion to the
overall distribution of Wikimedian interests.  While it is clear that
our organizations have a common interest in freeing material from
copyright, I would question the appropriateness of turning over any
significant portion of these funds to another organization for the
furtherance of its objetives.

Ec


subject: [Textbook-l] Wikiversity logo

body:
Hello,

1) Is there a wikiversity mailing list? If so, I couldn't find it at
mail.wikipedia.org .
2) Is this in fact the official logo for Wikiversity?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikiversity-logo.svg
3) If so, whose fool idea was it to use a third-party LGPL icon as a
logo (rather hard to subsume as {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} like the
other project logos), and what is the status of this vote?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/logo

thanks,
Brianna
commons:User:pfctdayelise


from_name: Angela

subject: [Textbook-l] Wikiversity logo

body:
On 10/26/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 1) Is there a wikiversity mailing list?

Yes - http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l

> If so, I couldn't find it at
> mail.wikipedia.org .

It's one of the few listed as Wikimedia, not Wikipedia -
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo

> 2) Is this in fact the official logo for Wikiversity?
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikiversity-logo.svg

Not yet since the vote is still going on at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/logo

I don't know the status of that vote.

Angela.


from_name: Toira

body:
Neil Harris <usenet at ...> writes:

>
> Given your arguments above, it looks like a no-brainer to start the
> Kabyle wiki in the Latin script.
>
> However, if there is, as you say, a deterministic transformation to/from
> Tifinagh, we could easily later use a variant of the multi-script
> software currently used to handle the different Chinese scripts on the
> Chinese Wikipedia to implement a dual-script interface, or at the least
> an alternative Tifinagh display mode for the Latin-based text.
>
> Do you have any references for Tifinagh <-> Latin transliteration?
>

You mean no-brainer to start it in Tifinagh? (you've written latin), Yeah I
guess so.

The link to the transliteration of tifinagh could be found in wikipedia:

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

But there is a probleme with the transliteration in latin, it's not the one used
to write Kabyle (we actually use a modified latin alphabet).

I'll try to add do it here :

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


from_name: Anthere

body:
Brad Patrick wrote:
> Please take a minute to have a look at this and read the methodology document that accompanies it.
>
> In any event, this kind of metric, 154M unique visitors in September, demonstrates we are one of the top web sites on the planet.
>
> /me pats the community on the back!
>
> -Brad
>
>
> =======================================================================
> Press Release
>
>

grumble, mumble, scrumble, blumbuble, copyright violation, bad, crushed
by elephant, hmmmmmm.


from_name: Delphine Ménard

subject: [Foundation-l] World Wikipedia project?

body:
On 10/26/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 10/26/06, luke brandt <shojokid at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have mentioned this a couple of times, but as yet no one seems interested.
> > The idea is to coordinate Wikipedia policy over different languages as much
> > as possible, so it becomes easier to amalgamate, to the benefit of all, with
> > just translation needed. Then issues of formatting, layout, image policy etc
> > etc should already have been sorted. Comments?
>
> Documenting practices on Meta -- possibly combined with subjective
> analysis and commentary -- seems like a good idea to me. You don't
> need to start a new project or ask for anyone's permission to do this;
> just start writing and structuring your thoughts.

Yes, documenting differences would be an excellent idea. I believe
that informally, a lot of policies are derived from one project or the
other. But that many also originate in a project because they give an
answer to a need arising at one point in time.

As to why I personally believe that unifying the policies is a very
unpractical thing to do, just ask yourself and five other people from
different cultures what length of time they'd put behind the phrase
"It was a very long meeting".

I've done it in a room with 15 people and we came up with so many
different answers (a long meeting was from 20 minutes up to a 8 hours
meeting) that I started grasping the differences that culture (in the
case of Wikimedia, it would be national culture or project culture or
whatever other thing that makes people and communities different).

I believe that different people will give different answers to the
same issues. People may learn from each other, or may not. And that is
their choice. I don't believe that anyone should impose their
solutions on others. Translation is not only a language issue, it is
also an interpretation issue, so even in the unlikely case that all
communities would agree on policies, their translation in different
languages would probably already transform the policy just because it
refers to different concepts in the first place, although they have
the same name.

(hey, we should probably try to start with "what is the role and
definition of a sysop in your project". That one will probably show
the range of different understandings)

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


subject: [Foundation-l] World Wikipedia project?


body:
On 10/26/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure quite what you mean by "target some date" - do you mean
> for when the article appears on en.wp's front page?

Yes.

> If so, the person you want to talk to is Raul654, who schedules them -
> generally anything that doesn't have overt political significance is
> fine if someone requests it. Leave a note at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests
> when (if?) it passes...

And thanks :)


body:
But, one more thing: I would like to know when Belgrade or Nikola
Tesla or Serbian language or... -- would be featured articles on
German, French, Indonesian, Albanian, Dutch ... Wikipedia. Anyone
interested in coordination?

On 10/27/06, Milos Rancic <millosh at mutualaid.org> wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not sure quite what you mean by "target some date" - do you mean
> > for when the article appears on en.wp's front page?
>
> Yes.
>
> > If so, the person you want to talk to is Raul654, who schedules them -
> > generally anything that doesn't have overt political significance is
> > fine if someone requests it. Leave a note at
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests
> > when (if?) it passes...
>
> And thanks :)
>


from_name: Sanford Forte

subject: [Textbook-l] Textbook development and role of Wikibooks

body:
Many states have curriculum framework standards. Textbook companies
write their books based primarily on standards from California,
Texas, and Florida. They try to write books that will meet the
standards in those three states. If they get a book or program
adopted, especially in elementary language and/or other early
development programs in just one state, they can break even, and
leverage that win to adoption in smaller states. From there, it's all
gravy. The K-12 textbook sector is a $6-7B enterprise. Margins are
pretty good.

It's not rocket science to write a book that conforms to standards,
but it *does* take discipline. The irony is that so may people in
open source are extraordinarily creative types, so writing to a
"standard" can seem a burden. That said, writing to these standards
is the ONLY way to get past peer review, and get a book or program
materials recommended on a list of valid choices for adoption.

It's also important to realize that writing a book for elementary
education - like a language development book - is a HUGE undertaking.
It's better to start with something for high school, because the
process by which high school books are adopted is less demanding.

Something like this really needs critical mass, and MUST be managed,
like any other project.

Here are the California State Department of Education Curriculum
Frameworks
http://www.csun.edu/~hcbio027/k12standards/

Cheers,
Sanford

***************************************
Sanford Forte, Director
California Open Source Texbook Project
Palo Alto, CA
http://www.opensourcetext.org

On Oct 24, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>> I do have the attitude that the volunteers at Wikibooks have the
>> capability of creating the kinds of textbooks that you are looking
>> for,
>> Jimbo.  And that other than recruiting more talented wordsmiths we
>> can
>> pull off the kinds of ground breaking shifts in the textbook
>> publication
>> industry that have only been hinted at so far.
>
> I agree with this completely of course.  I don't know how it can
> happen,
> but a part of what needs to happen is that Wikibooks needs to really
> encourage people to make use of the existing frameworks... Sanford can
> probably help us by pointing out where to find them on the web, etc.,
> and by being here to help start making the right kind of noises to get
> them adopted, at least in California, which is one place to start.
>
> --Jimbo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> Textbook-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
>


from_name: Rich Holton

body:
Earle Martin wrote:
> On 27/10/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> Earle Martin wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/10/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's a nice idea, but after a few weeks of everyone being good about
>>>> it, I predict seeing lots and lots of edit summaries consisting of "."
>>>>
>>> That should be a warnable offense.
>>>
>> Why not make blank edit summaries a "warnable offense", then? It'd be
>> essentially the same thing.
>>
>
> I was speaking in the context of software-enforced mandatory
> summaries, which would make blank summaries impossible - certainly not
> otherwise.
>
>
How about a software confirmation prompt for blank summaries, at least
for non-logged-in users. This would require an extra mouse-click or
keystroke, but would ensure that everyone who edits at least knows that
the summary is available, and is normally expected.

-Rich


from_name: James Hare

subject: [Foundation-l] World Wikipedia project?

body:
Keep in mind that Erik had expressed such an idea on his Campaign Platform.

On 10/27/06, magiske prosesser <magipro at organizer.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:33:15 +0200
>   "Erik Moeller" <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > Documenting practices on Meta -- possibly combined with
> >subjective
> > analysis and commentary -- seems like a good idea to me.
> >You don't
> > need to start a new project or ask for anyone's
> >permission to do this;
> > just start writing and structuring your thoughts.
>
> Now that was a strike of genius! I will even volunteer for
> such a project!
>
>
> Growth and love!
>
> Halvor (User:meco)
>
> --
> email to and from this person will be subject to public
> availability
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] World Wikipedia project?


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 10/26/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> I find the CC licenses to be very explicit and very clear about what
> constitutes a "collective" work (their equivalent of the GDFL's
> "aggregate" section) and full of copius examples of what sorts of
> things would be considered to be that. The GDFL's "aggregate" section
> doesn't really indicate whether they mean that a final printed page
> with mixed-licensing materials would be considered an "aggregate" or
> not, or give any indication of what the real boundary is between
> "aggregate" and "derivative," in my reading of it. I'd consider that a
> rather big difference, personally -- clarity can go a long way.

The CC licenses 'solves' the legally unclear boundary of derivative
works by claiming that anything which includes the work which doesn't
meet their criteria of collective works is derivative:

"or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or
adapted, except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will
not be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License."

I'm not so sure that doing so is wise: The boundaries of a derivative
work are created by law, not the copyright holder.  So while we can
pretend to declare what a derivative work actually is, should our
definition disagree with the law we will lose that argument every
time.

Their definition of a collective work is similar to the GFDLs:

Compare

"in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along with a
number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent
works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole."

with

"A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate
and independent documents or works"

Notice the words 'separate and independent' ?  This is the key
criteria used define collective/aggregate works in both the licenses.

It's true that the CC licenses include examples, but the examples are
potentially misleading. For example, if you were to publish a
"periodical issue, anthology or encyclopedia" in which the covered
work has been combined with another other work, the result would be
considered derivative because the covered and non-covered components
are not 'separate and independent'.

This is, in part, a stylistic difference between CC licenses and some
other licenses. The CC licenses are written in a way which combines
non-binding narrative in the body of the license proper while most
other licenses provide such content in separate documents or as part
of a preface.  The inclusion of such materials makes the license
appear more friendly, but it could be argued that doing so may result
in misunderstanding.

The aggregate works section of the GFDL v2 draft is unchanged from the
GFDL v1.2 and after carefully examining the language of CC-By-SA
licenses it seems apparent to me that they are almost functionally
equal. As a result I wouldn't recommend a change to this section of
GFDL v2.


from_name: Rob Seaman

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

body:
Ray Saintonge wonders:

> To what extent do international standards have the force of law?

I can't even pretend to understand the legal ramifications, but the
participation of the U.S. State Department in the UTC discussions
suggests that this particular standard is being treated as some sort
of treaty obligation.  One suspects that the "force of law" question
varies from standard to standard.  For instance, standards tied into
interstate commerce such as labeling requirements on food packaging
are likely very closely aligned with federal codes.

On the other hand, issues of timekeeping can vary from state to
state, i.e., Arizona does not observe daylight saving time.  Or even
vary within a state or province, since the Navajo nation NE of
Phoenix does observe DST, while the Hopi nation (completely embedded
within the Navajo boundaries) does not.  Many countries don't even
reference such standards directly, but only rely on indirect
effects.  In this case, a number of countries legally recognize the
older Greenwich Mean Time standard.  Opening up the standards
documents - if not the standards process - would benefit the powerful
as much as the powerless.

The question is:  What does $100M buy you?  This vanishes next to an
international media market of many billions of dollars.  That's
gigabucks per year, of course.  Even such a generous offering isn't
going to carry the open source revolution into the streets.

The proper model must surely be similar to the Nature Conservancy,
accomplished by:  aiming to free the most strategic of information
assets first, directly purchasing only what you must, protecting
other at-risk data via information easements, spending smarter not
outspending, building local cyber-coalitions, connecting open content
green-way corridors, cooperating with unlikely allies such as
"information ranchers", and ultimately funding it all with creative
methods such as tax-friendly knowledge-capitalist estate planning or
boutique info-tourist destinations.

Rob Seaman
National Optical Astronomy Observatory


from_name: Simetrical

body:
On 10/27/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> "No-brainer" is a sort of idiom. Paradoxically, it means "the obvious choice".

I.e., one you don't need brains to make correctly, not one that you
would only make if you had no brains.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Earle Martin wrote:

>On 27/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>There may be 20 or 30 such links; I do not accept the need to generate a long series
>>of edit summaries when those summaries are longer than the edits themselves.
>>
>>
>It may be a long series to you, but to someone inspecting the history
>of one of those pages, it is a single, unexplained edit which they
>need to read the diff to understand.
>
It would probably be marked minor, but they have every right to look at
the diffs.  The change will be obvious when they do.  No problem.

Ec


from_name: Liz Kim

subject: [Wikitech-l] php in mediawiki?

body:
is there some variable to be able to input raw php into the edit box??

for example,
I have the raw html variable enabled...
and  seem to work fine

I have tried..
<?php echo "hello"; ?>
but does not seem to do the trick...

Any ideas?

thank you


from_name: magiske prosesser

subject: [Foundation-l] World Wikipedia project?

body:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:33:15 +0200
  "Erik Moeller" <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Documenting practices on Meta -- possibly combined with
>subjective
> analysis and commentary -- seems like a good idea to me.
>You don't
> need to start a new project or ask for anyone's
>permission to do this;
> just start writing and structuring your thoughts.

Now that was a strike of genius! I will even volunteer for
such a project!

Growth and love!

Halvor (User:meco)

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


subject: [Foundation-l] World Wikipedia project?


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [WikiEN-l] new, citeable data for WP:DICK

body:
Ten early-warning symptoms and everything:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1161856750000&call_pageid=968867505381&col=969048872038


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

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

body:
Rob Seaman wrote:
<snip>
> A more revolutionary suggestion is to open up the technical standards
> process.  Many international standards are proprietary, such as
> ISO-8601 that any of you who were engaged in Y2K remediation efforts
> must surely be familiar with.  Familiar with, but perhaps have never
> seen a copy of, because they charge real bucks.  Another example just
> from the area of timekeeping is ITU-R TF.460-6.  What is this you
> say?  The internationally recognized (e.g., by our State Dept.)
> definition of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC).  UTC underlies
> standard civil time throughout the world.  Here is a theater-of-the-
> absurd quote from the minutes of a recent ITU meeting of their
> working party 7A:
>
> 	"After the introduction of the document the WP-7A counsellor
> 	informed WP-7A that a preliminary document i.e. the PDRR,
> 	could not be circulated beyond WP-7A according to ITU-R
> 	resolutions nor could the currently in effect Recommendation
> 	ITU-R TF.460-6, be attached to the SRG report with an
> 	explanation of proposed changes since all ITU-R
> 	Recommendations are only sold by the ITU-R."
>
> To give you a sense of the kind of service opening this standard up
> would provide, the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) is
> debating removing any connection between UTC (i.e., the time on your
> wall, your wrist, your cell-phone and your laptop) and the motion of
> the Sun in the sky, by eliminating leap seconds.  Small in the short
> term.  World-changing in the long term.
>
> Vast number of other standards documents that underlie the
> infrastructure of the modern world are similarly protected behind
> proprietary walls.  I recall a piece from the early days of Wired
> magazine describing one noble soul's fruitless efforts to convince
> ISO to loosen their proprietary policies.
<snip>

Oh golly yes! My major gripe with the IEEE is that they won't accept
public domain documents - I recently had to work with their software
design document guidelines and was informed by my supervisor "this is a
copyrighted document, look after it".

--
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/20061027/978d79a6/attachment.pgp


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
Earle Martin wrote:
> On 27/10/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Why not make blank edit summaries a "warnable offense", then? It'd be
>> essentially the same thing.
>
> I was speaking in the context of software-enforced mandatory
> summaries, which would make blank summaries impossible - certainly not
> otherwise.

But in such a system an edit summary of "." is exactly equivalent to a
blank edit summary, so I don't see the difference.

-------------- 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/20061027/a9320b59/attachment.pgp


from_name: Jon Noring

body:
Ray wrote:

> I've just read through the decision on "Capitol vs. Naxos".  I find the
> reading tortuous, but I think I understand what they are getting at.
> Depending on State common law implies that a different result could be
> had with a judicious choice of state.  The bulk of thes cases invoking
> common law appear to be a part of the original 13. It would be
> particularly interesting to see how this plays in Louisiana which did
> not have a background of English common law.  The legislation in
> response to "La Cienaga vs. ZZ Top" would have the effect of restoring
> common law protection, but it's unclear what would happen when the state
> had no applicable provisions.

It is true that the laws in each state are different.


from_name: Mark Wagner

body:
On 10/26/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> George Herbert wrote:
>
> >On 10/26/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Earle Martin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On 26/10/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>It's a nice idea, but after a few weeks of everyone being good about
> >>>>it, I predict seeing lots and lots of edit summaries consisting of "."
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>That should be a warnable offense.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Why not make blank edit summaries a "warnable offense", then? It'd be
> >>essentially the same thing.
> >>
> >>
> >A lot more technically friendly if  the software requires them to enter
> >"something" first; random people who aren't Wikipedia-familiar will
> >understand a message popping up with a little paperclip saying "I've noticed
> >you didn't enter an edit summary, these are important and required before we
> >can enter the updated data".
> >
> The summarries are important in
> many cases, but it would be madness to require them in all cases.  If,
> for example, I move an article because of a small spelling change in the
> title, I will try to follow that by cleaning up the links.  There may be
> 20 or 30 such links; I do not accept the need to generate a long series
> of edit summaries when those summaries are longer than the edits themselves.

Copy-and-paste is your friend.  Linux copy-and-paste is even better,
as you've got *two* clipboard buffers to work from.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: Chuck Smith

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia API?

body:
Hi,

I'm thinking of making a website next year which would need the titles
of articles and their languages from Wikipedia on the fly (and on
occasion grab the article too).  Is there an official Wikipedia API or
plans to make one?  An API would also be of immense help to wiki
researchers.

Thanks,
Chuck


from_name: Earle Martin

body:
On 27/10/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Earle Martin wrote:
> > On 26/10/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> It's a nice idea, but after a few weeks of everyone being good about
> >> it, I predict seeing lots and lots of edit summaries consisting of "."
> >
> > That should be a warnable offense.
>
> Why not make blank edit summaries a "warnable offense", then? It'd be
> essentially the same thing.

I was speaking in the context of software-enforced mandatory
summaries, which would make blank summaries impossible - certainly not
otherwise.

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


body:
On 27/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> There may be 20 or 30 such links; I do not accept the need to generate a long series
> of edit summaries when those summaries are longer than the edits themselves.

It may be a long series to you, but to someone inspecting the history
of one of those pages, it is a single, unexplained edit which they
need to read the diff to understand.

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


from_name: Evan Prodromou

subject: [Wikitech-l] broadening the scope of hooks

body:
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 11:45 -0400, Travis Derouin wrote:
> Both seem sort of messy. Are there any plans to broaden the range of
> hooks other than by just adding more instances of hooks?

I don't think so. I don't think the idea of modifying the profile stuff
is a good idea, since the hooks that work now take (sometimes
modifiable) arguments, which don't get passed to the profiling commands.

I'm interested in expanding the scope of hooks, so suggestions for
places to put them are very welcome. Are there places that you think
there should be hooks, that they don't exist?

Eventually I'd like every "function point" in MediaWiki to be hookable.
But collecting the most important actions that require hooks will
probably be useful.

--Evan


subject: [Wikitech-l] templates: javascript+html?

body:
Can templates include non-wiki codes?
I am trying to add a link calling a javascript function.
It works fine when added to the article itself, but template does not seem
to work.
Thanks!

-- details:
wiki:
LINK

TEXT

template try:
<nowiki>{{{LINK}}}

{{{TEXT}}}
</nowiki>

wiki using template:
{{TEMPLATE_NAME|ID=someid |LINK=somelink |TEXT=sometext}}


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Textbook-l] Wikiversity logo

body:
On 27/10/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > 1) Is there a wikiversity mailing list?
>
> Yes - http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
>
> > If so, I couldn't find it at
> > mail.wikipedia.org .
>
> It's one of the few listed as Wikimedia, not Wikipedia -
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo

Well, it's not listed at http://mail.wikimedia.org/ either. Who can
edit those pages? Devs?

Brianna


subject: [Textbook-l] Wikiversity logo

body:
> >3) If so, whose fool idea was it to use a third-party LGPL icon as a
> >logo (rather hard to subsume as {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} like the
> >other project logos), and what is the status of this vote?
> >http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/logo
> >
<snip>
> Perhaps not so foolish. If the image is actually LGPL then it can be
> used without permission on the Wikimedia Foundation when people wish to
> publish GFDL'ed materials from Wikiversity ..... correct?
>
> IIRC it took months/years for the Wikibooks people to sort out how to go
> about publishing a Wiki Junior book due to trademark and logo issues
> surrounding the "Wikibooks" trademark and logo.

The only reason all the other project logos are
{{CopyrightByWikimedia}} is because the WMF wanted them to be that
way. Presumably they want that for all their official project logos.

At any rate, it seems not to be important, because the image I was
talking about is not a contender in this vote.

regards,
Brianna


list: commons-l

from_name: Tom M

subject:
[Commons-l] symphonic (and other) sample library was Re: Dream a
	little...

body:
I personally believe a symphonic (and other musical instrument) sample
library might be a worthwhile acquisition.

They are an necessary ingredient in modern music creation, are
relatively cheap to create (1 million was needed to create the Vienna
Symphonic Library which is the 'top of the line') yet are extremely
expensive to purchase ($4790 for the VSL Complete Orchestral Package
http://www.ilio.com/vienna/index.html ) (Or the East West Quantum Leap
Symphonic Orchestra -
http://www.soundsonline.com/EWQLSO-Platinum-Bundle-pr-EW-155PROB1.html
lists for  	$4,490.00)  Even at the lowest end of the symphonic sample
library offerings (far more limited sampling in both breadth and depth
of instruments; as well as a recording of only a small subset of each
instruments capabilities)  - the Garritan Personal Orchestra is 200$
http://www.garritan.com/

Those prices are per seat cost, so a school interested in allowing
each student in a 20 computer class to work on their own orchestration
is looking at nearly 100,000$ in sample library costs which is
obviously cost prohibitive.  (Of course I'm sure there must be school
discounts, etc. however how many schools would be willing or able to
afford even a single seat at list price?).

Providing sampling libraries would be a major enabler for the
unleashing of creativity and potential among individuals desiring to
create music across the world.  Perhaps doing for music creation what
the printing press did for reading.

Tom M.


from_name: oscar

body:
you may not be aware of this, but my report is designed to be the first in a
series of updates, designed for quick delivery and some comprehensive
information about the retreat, details will of course follow, but not just
by me. this takes time, people!!

whatever may have happened to the "assume good faith": a critical look is
always appreciated, but i feel like maybe next time i shouldn't sacrifice
yet another night's sleep again, there seem to be implicit expectations in
view of the reactions? there are however no solutions "out of a box"; it is
a step by step process, please bear with it.

best,
oscar

On 10/26/06, Erik Zachte <erikzachte at infodisiac.com> wrote:
>
> Tomasz "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > Does it mean you have produced some sort of document with your
> > recommendations to the Board? If yes, I think, this document, even if
> > very long, would be much more interesting to read, than all the above
> > general, abstract statements wich in fact says nothing...
>
> Oscar thank you for what you did, but in my view you did not earn your
> right
> to complain yet. I also would have expected a more in depth coverage of
> such
> a crucial meeting. To name one thing specifically: what was the outcome of
> the SWOT analysis? I'm sure you all did not do that hard work without
> taking
> notes? You might include the SWOT outcome unedited, that saves time.
>
> > I will spare you all the details
>
> Who are you sparing here? Might that not be yourself in the first place ;)
> I'm sure many readers of this list would not mind an extra page or two. If
> you can't spare the time maybe split up the work after all. It is not our
> fault that the organiser of this event forgot to rent the Big Brother
> house
> for 3*24 hrs multichannel coverage ;)
>
> Also I find it rather odd to present a list of priorities, where again as
> you say you all put so much effort in, in alphabetical order. It does not
> help to give us a sense of what was going on.
>
> In August the board decided they needed a retreat among other things to
> build better relations. Expensive but hey we need a board to be on good
> terms which each other. Now this retreat grew into Wikimania 2006 part II,
>
> it seems.
>
> >  so let me here express the often heard plea for a next follow-up
> meeting:
> a next step,
> building on this first one.
>
> Several times in past years the topic of a wikicouncil was raised
> (originally by Jimbo). Ironically it seems to me that we now almost got an
> impromptu wikicouncil, without difficult discussions about size, roles and
> representativity. Like with the board itself I fear this 'retreat' might
> transform into something noone had foretold. Of course wikis are all about
> being bold, yet I learned how this principle can backfire and I reserve
> the
> right to express my doubts.
>
> Erik Zachte
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: phoebe ayers

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Dream a little -- on NPR

body:
Yesterday National Public Radio featured an interview on Talk of the Nation
with Jimmy about this question, including input from listeners on what they
would want freed.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6387888

Also, a reminder that the wishlist and links to all the various threads is
here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_wishlist

-- phoebe

On 10/15/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>
> I would like to gather from the community some examples of works you
> would like to see made free, works that we are not doing a good job of
> generating free replacements for, works that could in theory be
> purchased and freed.
>
> Dream big.  Imagine there existed a budget of $100 million to purchase
> copyrights to be made available under a free license.  What would you
> like to see purchased and released under a free license?
>
>