from_name: GerardM

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
Hoi,
There is no room to get NC and ND as an exemption.

You can disagree all you like, the basics of the draft are not up for
discussion. There is room in the draft within very narrow confines to opt
for a different implementation. Fair use is only possible as part of the an
EDP. It is up to a project to want to opt for an EDP. This EDP will have to
pass the legal requirements mentioned. An EDP will be denied when it does
not comply with what is essential in the resolution.

I expect that when the resolution or the EDP is not complied with, the
Foundation will reserve the right to enforce this requirement that all
projects have to comply with.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 2/26/07, teun spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Gerard,
>
> the draft says that communities may create excemption rules. Fair use may
> be
> an excemption. According to Kats statement, ND and NC do not qualify as
> such. This is a draft, and drafts may be discussed. Please try to
> understand
> that some people disagree with this draft.
>
> i wish you health and happiness,
> teun spaans
>
> On 2/26/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hoi,
> > The draft in and of itself does not approve Fair use. What it does is to
> > allow a community to have an exemption for the strict rules if the law
> > of the US and the relevant countries allow for it. This is however very
> > much not something that is favoured; this is clear in the restrictions
> > that surround exempted material. My statement about NC and ND is really
> > simple. Material that is NC and ND will not be allowed. Fair use
> > material may be allowed. When material is allowed under the EDP as Fair
> > use, it may have a NC or a ND license; this is incidental and actually
> > not relevant.
> > Thanks,
> >     Gerard
> >
> > PS Great to hear what you do with these collections .. I am glad to hear
> > about this :)
> >
> > teun spaans schreef:
> > > I will probably respond to the rest later, as your statement about NC
> > and ND
> > > raises som questions. As you have understood, I oppose the intended
> > draft if
> > > it allows fair use but disapproves other notions.
> > >
> > > But for the moment I'd like to say that I agree 100% with your remark
> > about
> > > referring to the mention of museums ion the metadata.
> > >
> > > As you may or may not know, my main pix are in the area of biology,
> and
> > I
> > > got permission of two academic botanical gardens and a nursery to
> > photograph
> > > their collections on the condition that I mention their location on
> > upload.
> > > A condition I gladly fullfill, as I am grateful for the chance they
> > offer
> > > me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/26/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hoi,
> > >> You read the draft incorrectly; NC and ND are on its own not
> permitted
> > >> in an EDP. This has been explicitly confirmed by Kat Walsh. So be
> clear
> > >> about it; only the argument "Fair use" allows something with a NC or
> ND
> > >> license to be kept in our projects. This is not negotionable.
> > >>
> > >> I am not a fan of Fair use, I am not a fan of the overly restrictive
> > >> ways that we are embarking on either. There is no way in which we can
> > >> have a logo of a company without creating a legalistic mess where the
> > >> license says that you can change it and the trademark says that you
> > >> cannot is horrible to me. The fact that we do not acknowledge museums
> > >> for looking after our cultural heritage by referring to them in the
> > Meta
> > >> data, the fact that we do not do this because it is Public Domain, is
> > >> another missed opportunity to do the right thing.
> > >>
> > >> The notion that with this doctrine we have established how we have to
> > >> deal with digital material once and for all is a notion that I do not
> > >> subscribe to.
> > >>
> > >> You want to remind me on how this thread started; in the Dutch
> > community
> > >> we are working on getting much more pictures of those famous in the
> > >> Netherlands by making it a project. This one picture of a former
> > >> basketball player is imho an isolated incident. When people have the
> > >> time and the inclination, this is something that can be done
> elsewhere
> > >> as well. I want to remind you in turn that I responded to a remark
> made
> > >> in this thread. This is what you do in threads.
> > >>
> > >> When you wonder how much effort was put in getting Free material.. we
> > >> can use more people in the (Dutch) committee for free material ..
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >>     GerardM
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> teun spaans schreef:
> > >>
> > >>> Gerard,
> > >>>
> > >>> May I kindly remind you how this thread started.
> > >>>
> > >>> This thread started with a beautiful story of how the lack of a
> photo
> > >>> prompted a professional photographer to donate photos. Personally I
> > >>>
> > >> think
> > >>
> > >>> this would never happened if there had been an image under the fair
> > use
> > >>> provision. The lack of a picture makes people run, if there is a
> > picture
> > >>>
> > >> no
> > >>
> > >>> one gets out of his chair to say: He, there is a match tonight, I'm
> > >>>
> > >> gonna
> > >>
> > >>> take some pix.
> > >>>
> > >>> I know many fair use advocates think the opposite. On this list I
> read
> > >>>
> > >> "the
> > >>
> > >>> availability of a fair use image won't stop
> > >>> someone from adding a free alternative" and "We should also recall
> > that
> > >>>
> > >> the
> > >>
> > >>> readers, would like to see an image until there "
> > >>>
> > >>> When we spoke with each other in the past you never supported the
> > usage
> > >>>
> > >> of
> > >>
> > >>> "fair use". Somehow your statements on this list, when I read them,
> > even
> > >>> where they seem to say the opposite, seem to suggest that you have
> > >>>
> > >> changed
> > >>
> > >>> your point of view.
> > >>> For example, when Muhammed suggests "the availability of a fair use
> > >>>
> > >> image
> > >>
> > >>> won't stop someone from adding a free alternative", I think: he's
> > right
> > >>>
> > >> it
> > >>
> > >>> is not forbidden to add a free picture. But no longer any one will
> > stand
> > >>>
> > >> up
> > >>
> > >>> and say: it is a shame that we dont have a photo, There is a mact /
> > >>>
> > >> concert
> > >>
> > >>> / interview tonight, I am going there and snap some pix! So
> > effectually,
> > >>> having a fair use image does hurt the collecting of free content.
> Then
> > >>>
> > >> you
> > >>
> > >>> come and suggest that there is no need to cripple images for fair
> use
> > >>>
> > >> (an
> > >>
> > >>> doubtful statement, see below). Even when you add "If anything we
> > should
> > >>>
> > >> not
> > >>
> > >>> have "Fair use" material.", your previous statement seems to support
> > >>> Muhammeds plead for fair use.
> > >>>
> > >>> You suggest that it is not necessary to crop high quality images for
> > >>>
> > >> fair
> > >>
> > >>> use. The assumption that cropping images improves legal chances for
> > fair
> > >>>
> > >> use
> > >>
> > >>> application is however very widespread. It also was one of the
> factors
> > >>>
> > >> in
> > >>
> > >>> Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 03 C.D.O.S. 5888 (9th Cir. 2003).
> > >>>
> > >>> The defenders of fair use should realize that we talk about a rather
> > >>>
> > >> vast
> > >>
> > >>> amount of images.
> > >>> Some numbers:
> > >>> Template:albumcovers:     >55.000
> > >>> Template:film-screenshot: >15.000
> > >>> Template:Tv-screenshot:  > 30.000
> > >>> Now these images will be hard to replace, but I really wonder how
> many
> > >>> attempts have been made to make them free.
> > >>> Others, such as those of famous people, and many of the 15.000 pics
> in
> > >>> "template:fair use in" fall in this category, could potentially be
> > >>>
> > >> replaced
> > >>
> > >>> by free pictures is someone simply steps out of his chair and starts
> > >>>
> > >> taking
> > >>
> > >>> pictures.
> > >>>
> > >>> Gerad, I think you did not understand what I wrote about NC and ND.
> > The
> > >>> current draft as I read it, places little restrictions on
> exemptions.
> > >>>
> > >> This
> > >>
> > >>> may lead to all kinds of unintended exemptions.
> > >>>
> > >>> I know that in your heart, Gerard, you support the creation of free
> > >>>
> > >> content.
> > >>
> > >>> I wish you health and happiness,
> > >>> teun spaans
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 2/24/07, GerardM < gerard.meijssen at gmail.com > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> Teun.
> > >>>> May I kindly remind you that we are discussing on this list how to
> > deal
> > >>>> with
> > >>>> all types of issues. Personally I have never ever uploaded "Fair
> use"
> > >>>> material. It is however done on some of our projects. When material
> > is
> > >>>> used
> > >>>> with a justification of being "Fair use", there is imho no reason
> to
> > >>>> cripple
> > >>>> such material. This was suggested in the previous post.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You were wrong in how you reacted to what I wrote about NC and ND
> the
> > >>>> other
> > >>>> day, you again assume things that are not in line with what I
> wrote.
> > It
> > >>>>
> > >> is
> > >>
> > >>>> good to remember that "Fair use" is permitted to a project under a
> > >>>> Exemption
> > >>>> Doctrine Policy if they so choose. It is therefore relevant to
> > discuss
> > >>>>
> > >> how
> > >>
> > >>>> this is to be implemented if at all. This is what I did.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>      GerardM
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 2/24/07, teun spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Gerard,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> may I kindly remind you that our aim is to make and collect free
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> content?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Fair use is not free.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> And your remark about crippling content looks false: i checked a
> few
> > >>>>>
> > >> of
> > >>
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>> old versions, and these didnt have a photograph. Not even a fair
> use
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> one.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> regards,
> > >>>>> teun spaans
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 2/24/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com > wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hoi,
> > >>>>>> When you have a good quality picture that you want to use under
> > Fair
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> use,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> you use it as a good quality picture. Why cripple our content
> when
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>> there
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> is
> > >>>>>> no need ? If anything we should not have "Fair use" material.
> > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>      GerardM
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 2/24/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> <snip>
> > >>>>>>> Well, good work!..but as others said, this isn't the proper way
> to
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>> get
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>> rid of fair use images..the availability of a fair use image
> won't
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>> stop
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> someone from adding a free alternative, fair use images
> shouldn't
> > be
> > >>>>>>> added in a high resolution..right? so when someone sees the
> image
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>> with
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>> low quality and s/he has another free one, s/he will replace it
> > with
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> free image, provided that you place a message on free use images
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>> saying
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 'this image isn't free, if you can help.replace it...'...on the
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>> other
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>> end, I think with the increasing popularity, people will just
> add
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>> their
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> images(to say: hey, i took that image you see on [[Cat]]
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>> article!)...
> > >>>>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


list: foundation-l

from_name: teun spaans

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
I still havent read any good argument for allowing fair use, except that the
english wiki is using it en masse. Which sounds like a very strange
argument, it is like saying: it is forbidden to spit, but as everyone spits,
we allow it. If everyone would be indulging in PAs on the english wiki,
would we allow them too?

On 2/26/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> There is no room to get NC and ND as an exemption.
>
> You can disagree all you like, the basics of the draft are not up for
> discussion. There is room in the draft within very narrow confines to opt
> for a different implementation. Fair use is only possible as part of the
> an
> EDP. It is up to a project to want to opt for an EDP. This EDP will have
> to
> pass the legal requirements mentioned. An EDP will be denied when it does
> not comply with what is essential in the resolution.
>
> I expect that when the resolution or the EDP is not complied with, the
> Foundation will reserve the right to enforce this requirement that all
> projects have to comply with.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
>
> On 2/26/07, teun spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Gerard,
> >
> > the draft says that communities may create excemption rules. Fair use
> may
> > be
> > an excemption. According to Kats statement, ND and NC do not qualify as
> > such. This is a draft, and drafts may be discussed. Please try to
> > understand
> > that some people disagree with this draft.
> >
> > i wish you health and happiness,
> > teun spaans
> >
> > On 2/26/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > The draft in and of itself does not approve Fair use. What it does is
> to
> > > allow a community to have an exemption for the strict rules if the law
> > > of the US and the relevant countries allow for it. This is however
> very
> > > much not something that is favoured; this is clear in the restrictions
> > > that surround exempted material. My statement about NC and ND is
> really
> > > simple. Material that is NC and ND will not be allowed. Fair use
> > > material may be allowed. When material is allowed under the EDP as
> Fair
> > > use, it may have a NC or a ND license; this is incidental and actually
> > > not relevant.
> > > Thanks,
> > >     Gerard
> > >
> > > PS Great to hear what you do with these collections .. I am glad to
> hear
> > > about this :)
> > >
> > > teun spaans schreef:
> > > > I will probably respond to the rest later, as your statement about
> NC
> > > and ND
> > > > raises som questions. As you have understood, I oppose the intended
> > > draft if
> > > > it allows fair use but disapproves other notions.
> > > >
> > > > But for the moment I'd like to say that I agree 100% with your
> remark
> > > about
> > > > referring to the mention of museums ion the metadata.
> > > >
> > > > As you may or may not know, my main pix are in the area of biology,
> > and
> > > I
> > > > got permission of two academic botanical gardens and a nursery to
> > > photograph
> > > > their collections on the condition that I mention their location on
> > > upload.
> > > > A condition I gladly fullfill, as I am grateful for the chance they
> > > offer
> > > > me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2/26/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hoi,
> > > >> You read the draft incorrectly; NC and ND are on its own not
> > permitted
> > > >> in an EDP. This has been explicitly confirmed by Kat Walsh. So be
> > clear
> > > >> about it; only the argument "Fair use" allows something with a NC
> or
> > ND
> > > >> license to be kept in our projects. This is not negotionable.
> > > >>
> > > >> I am not a fan of Fair use, I am not a fan of the overly
> restrictive
> > > >> ways that we are embarking on either. There is no way in which we
> can
> > > >> have a logo of a company without creating a legalistic mess where
> the
> > > >> license says that you can change it and the trademark says that you
> > > >> cannot is horrible to me. The fact that we do not acknowledge
> museums
> > > >> for looking after our cultural heritage by referring to them in the
> > > Meta
> > > >> data, the fact that we do not do this because it is Public Domain,
> is
> > > >> another missed opportunity to do the right thing.
> > > >>
> > > >> The notion that with this doctrine we have established how we have
> to
> > > >> deal with digital material once and for all is a notion that I do
> not
> > > >> subscribe to.
> > > >>
> > > >> You want to remind me on how this thread started; in the Dutch
> > > community
> > > >> we are working on getting much more pictures of those famous in the
> > > >> Netherlands by making it a project. This one picture of a former
> > > >> basketball player is imho an isolated incident. When people have
> the
> > > >> time and the inclination, this is something that can be done
> > elsewhere
> > > >> as well. I want to remind you in turn that I responded to a remark
> > made
> > > >> in this thread. This is what you do in threads.
> > > >>
> > > >> When you wonder how much effort was put in getting Free material..
> we
> > > >> can use more people in the (Dutch) committee for free material ..
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >>     GerardM
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> teun spaans schreef:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Gerard,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> May I kindly remind you how this thread started.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This thread started with a beautiful story of how the lack of a
> > photo
> > > >>> prompted a professional photographer to donate photos. Personally
> I
> > > >>>
> > > >> think
> > > >>
> > > >>> this would never happened if there had been an image under the
> fair
> > > use
> > > >>> provision. The lack of a picture makes people run, if there is a
> > > picture
> > > >>>
> > > >> no
> > > >>
> > > >>> one gets out of his chair to say: He, there is a match tonight,
> I'm
> > > >>>
> > > >> gonna
> > > >>
> > > >>> take some pix.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I know many fair use advocates think the opposite. On this list I
> > read
> > > >>>
> > > >> "the
> > > >>
> > > >>> availability of a fair use image won't stop
> > > >>> someone from adding a free alternative" and "We should also recall
> > > that
> > > >>>
> > > >> the
> > > >>
> > > >>> readers, would like to see an image until there "
> > > >>>
> > > >>> When we spoke with each other in the past you never supported the
> > > usage
> > > >>>
> > > >> of
> > > >>
> > > >>> "fair use". Somehow your statements on this list, when I read
> them,
> > > even
> > > >>> where they seem to say the opposite, seem to suggest that you have
> > > >>>
> > > >> changed
> > > >>
> > > >>> your point of view.
> > > >>> For example, when Muhammed suggests "the availability of a fair
> use
> > > >>>
> > > >> image
> > > >>
> > > >>> won't stop someone from adding a free alternative", I think: he's
> > > right
> > > >>>
> > > >> it
> > > >>
> > > >>> is not forbidden to add a free picture. But no longer any one will
> > > stand
> > > >>>
> > > >> up
> > > >>
> > > >>> and say: it is a shame that we dont have a photo, There is a mact
> /
> > > >>>
> > > >> concert
> > > >>
> > > >>> / interview tonight, I am going there and snap some pix! So
> > > effectually,
> > > >>> having a fair use image does hurt the collecting of free content.
> > Then
> > > >>>
> > > >> you
> > > >>
> > > >>> come and suggest that there is no need to cripple images for fair
> > use
> > > >>>
> > > >> (an
> > > >>
> > > >>> doubtful statement, see below). Even when you add "If anything we
> > > should
> > > >>>
> > > >> not
> > > >>
> > > >>> have "Fair use" material.", your previous statement seems to
> support
> > > >>> Muhammeds plead for fair use.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> You suggest that it is not necessary to crop high quality images
> for
> > > >>>
> > > >> fair
> > > >>
> > > >>> use. The assumption that cropping images improves legal chances
> for
> > > fair
> > > >>>
> > > >> use
> > > >>
> > > >>> application is however very widespread. It also was one of the
> > factors
> > > >>>
> > > >> in
> > > >>
> > > >>> Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 03 C.D.O.S. 5888 (9th Cir. 2003).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The defenders of fair use should realize that we talk about a
> rather
> > > >>>
> > > >> vast
> > > >>
> > > >>> amount of images.
> > > >>> Some numbers:
> > > >>> Template:albumcovers:     >55.000
> > > >>> Template:film-screenshot: >15.000
> > > >>> Template:Tv-screenshot:  > 30.000
> > > >>> Now these images will be hard to replace, but I really wonder how
> > many
> > > >>> attempts have been made to make them free.
> > > >>> Others, such as those of famous people, and many of the 15.000pics
> > in
> > > >>> "template:fair use in" fall in this category, could potentially be
> > > >>>
> > > >> replaced
> > > >>
> > > >>> by free pictures is someone simply steps out of his chair and
> starts
> > > >>>
> > > >> taking
> > > >>
> > > >>> pictures.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Gerad, I think you did not understand what I wrote about NC and
> ND.
> > > The
> > > >>> current draft as I read it, places little restrictions on
> > exemptions.
> > > >>>
> > > >> This
> > > >>
> > > >>> may lead to all kinds of unintended exemptions.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I know that in your heart, Gerard, you support the creation of
> free
> > > >>>
> > > >> content.
> > > >>
> > > >>> I wish you health and happiness,
> > > >>> teun spaans
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 2/24/07, GerardM < gerard.meijssen at gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Teun.
> > > >>>> May I kindly remind you that we are discussing on this list how
> to
> > > deal
> > > >>>> with
> > > >>>> all types of issues. Personally I have never ever uploaded "Fair
> > use"
> > > >>>> material. It is however done on some of our projects. When
> material
> > > is
> > > >>>> used
> > > >>>> with a justification of being "Fair use", there is imho no reason
> > to
> > > >>>> cripple
> > > >>>> such material. This was suggested in the previous post.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> You were wrong in how you reacted to what I wrote about NC and ND
> > the
> > > >>>> other
> > > >>>> day, you again assume things that are not in line with what I
> > wrote.
> > > It
> > > >>>>
> > > >> is
> > > >>
> > > >>>> good to remember that "Fair use" is permitted to a project under
> a
> > > >>>> Exemption
> > > >>>> Doctrine Policy if they so choose. It is therefore relevant to
> > > discuss
> > > >>>>
> > > >> how
> > > >>
> > > >>>> this is to be implemented if at all. This is what I did.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>      GerardM
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On 2/24/07, teun spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Gerard,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> may I kindly remind you that our aim is to make and collect free
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> content?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Fair use is not free.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> And your remark about crippling content looks false: i checked a
> > few
> > > >>>>>
> > > >> of
> > > >>
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>> old versions, and these didnt have a photograph. Not even a fair
> > use
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> one.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> regards,
> > > >>>>> teun spaans
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On 2/24/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hoi,
> > > >>>>>> When you have a good quality picture that you want to use under
> > > Fair
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> use,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> you use it as a good quality picture. Why cripple our content
> > when
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>> there
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>> no need ? If anything we should not have "Fair use" material.
> > > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>      GerardM
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On 2/24/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> <snip>
> > > >>>>>>> Well, good work!..but as others said, this isn't the proper
> way
> > to
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>> get
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>> rid of fair use images..the availability of a fair use image
> > won't
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>> stop
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> someone from adding a free alternative, fair use images
> > shouldn't
> > > be
> > > >>>>>>> added in a high resolution..right? so when someone sees the
> > image
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>> with
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>> low quality and s/he has another free one, s/he will replace
> it
> > > with
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> free image, provided that you place a message on free use
> images
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>> saying
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> 'this image isn't free, if you can help.replace it...'...on
> the
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>> other
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>> end, I think with the increasing popularity, people will just
> > add
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>> their
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> images(to say: hey, i took that image you see on [[Cat]]
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>> article!)...
> > > >>>>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


subject: [Foundation-l] For your information; about a search engine project

body:
Hoi,
I met Rob Savoye of OLPC and GNASH fame at FOSDEM. Rob received a lot of
attention as a OLPC developer. Rob had one of the first systems with him. It
was really cool to hold one of these early systems and, I can really imagine
myself using it as an E-book reader :)

The reason why I write about this meeting is that Rob mentioned that he is
also involved in a search engine that will become available under a GPL
license. Rob expects that the software will debut around October. He is
looking for people with an interest in working on such a system.. If you are
interested .. rob at lulu dot com.

Thanks,
    GerardM


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] For your information; about a search engine project


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [Foundation-l] WikiSym 2007 Call for Papers

body:
> The same rule applied last year when WikiSym was held in what was
> possibly the worst place for international travelers to get to (37
> hours for me) yet certainly wasn't a Danish-only, or even
> European-only, affair.

How is Denmark the worst place for international travelers to get to?
I can't see how it's any worse than anywhere else in Europe (other
than London and Paris, I suppose). I'm sure you could have done it in
less than 37 hours had you wanted to - I would guess you took an
indirect flight to save money (I did the same thing when I last flew
long haul - turned a 13 hour flight into a 16-17 hour flight and saved
about ?300).


from_name: Jeff V. Merkey

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.9.3 wgLogo renders improperly

body:
Kasimir Gabert wrote:

>Hello Jeff,
>
>The problem lies in your address for the URL.  The address currently is:
>
>./skins/common/images/SequoyahStub.jpg
>
>and needs to be
>
>/skins/common/images/SequoyahStub.jpg
>
>This should fix your problem.
>
>I hope that this helps,
>Kasimir
>
>

Thanks. I fat fingered that one.

Jeff

>On 2/26/07, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Please check and try to create an account on one of the two sites setup
>>with 1.9.3
>>
>>http://chr.wikigadugi.org
>>http://en.wikigadugi.org
>>
>>Even though $wgLogo is setup correctly, the images fail to render on the
>>default page with no user logged in.  When you switch to a login
>>panel or some other panel other than main display, the images then show
>>up properly.   They disappear completely when either logged out
>>or when sitting on a main page for editing.
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Wikitech-l mailing list
>>Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>


from_name: Angela

body:
> How is Denmark the worst place for international travelers to get to?

It was in Odense, which has no international airport.

Angela


from_name: Kasimir Gabert

body:
Hello Jeff,

The problem lies in your address for the URL.  The address currently is:

./skins/common/images/SequoyahStub.jpg

and needs to be

/skins/common/images/SequoyahStub.jpg

This should fix your problem.

I hope that this helps,
Kasimir

On 2/26/07, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
> Please check and try to create an account on one of the two sites setup
> with 1.9.3
>
> http://chr.wikigadugi.org
> http://en.wikigadugi.org
>
> Even though $wgLogo is setup correctly, the images fail to render on the
> default page with no user logged in.  When you switch to a login
> panel or some other panel other than main display, the images then show
> up properly.   They disappear completely when either logged out
> or when sitting on a main page for editing.
>
> Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
Kasimir Gabert


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Berto 'd Sera

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Translating the Five pillars (Was: Important
	Issue toHebrew Wikipedia and AdminAbuse)

body:
Hi!

>Should all Wikipedias translate the pillars? Why? Would it
>necessarily work, if they did?

Now this is an interesting subject. AFAIK, pillars ARE mandatory for all
editions. If not just let me know, pms.wiki will be extremely happy in
getting rid of the "no original research" limit. I'm sure most soviet wikies
will be very happy to get rid of the NPOV principle, as well.

Not sure the board will be happy in being flooded by a tide of weird cases
originated by wikies who decided that creationism is pillar, etc etc...

Berto 'd Sera
Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html


body:
> It was in Odense, which has no international airport.

According to the Wikipedia article, it has a domestic airport and a
train station. It's not unusual to have to do the last leg of your
journey on a domestic flight... You can't blame your 37 hour journey
on that.


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 2/26/07, Berto 'd Sera <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> Now this is an interesting subject. AFAIK, pillars ARE mandatory for all
> editions. If not just let me know, pms.wiki will be extremely happy in
> getting rid of the "no original research" limit. I'm sure most soviet wikies
> will be very happy to get rid of the NPOV principle, as well.

This has never been fully articulated on the Foundation level. It
should be, in collaboration with the community, for a "Wikipedia
mission statement" (something we should, I believe, have for all our
projects).
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

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

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


from_name: geni

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
On 2/26/07, Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Casey Brown a ?crit :
> >>Is your point that we should remove all "fair use images", causing the
> >>articles to be without an image making someone donate a free one?
> >>
> >>Cbrown1023
> >
> > Close I would suggest replaceing them with this (click the image):
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mamet
>
> Great!
>
> But better still, propose to upload the image to Commons. ;o)
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann

Untill we get some idea how clean the image stream will be I don't
think that is a good idea (should be noted that no image has been
upload through the system yet as far as I know).

--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Another master split

body:
All done. The new master starting positions are:

db8-bin.001     79
thistle-bin.001 79

-- Tim Starling


list: wikien-l

from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Works cited in Wikipedia

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
> ...well, works cited where the citation involves an ISBN, anyway.
>
> http://www.librarything.com/blog/2007/02/wikipedia-citatons-with-feed.php
>
> Quite an interesting idea to play with, there.
>
What a coincidence - I was just today pondering how it was that many of
the books in my librarything collection seem not to be referenced by WP
articles, even some of those to which I personally added the reference.
Not necessarily vandalism though, one thing we learn quickly from
librarything is just how many dozens of ISBNs can be associated with a
particular work...

An interesting future possibility is to provide a route for article
checkers to get in touch with people who actually own the book being
referenced.

Stan


from_name: T P

subject: [WikiEN-l] What makes a good article?

body:
On 2/26/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> By comprehensive I mean that it covers what it should. We could write
> lots of tests for this (several present themselves), but for now,
> let's leave it at that. It's not missing anything. Note that NPOV is
> an aspect of comprehensiveness. This also covers excluding stupid
> trivia, to my mind. It also means that it provides a good start to
> research. This includes providing further places to look, i.e. "If
> you want to know more about Derrida, go read..."

Comprehensiveness sounds good, but there is a lot of room for disagreement
about what "should" be included.  Articles also need to be focused and
balanced, because on the Web they can't be very long.  We have links so
excessive detail and tangents can be linked to.  And too many articles have
long sections on one aspect while giving short shrift to other aspects.

By accurate I mean that nothing in it is incorrect. Currently we try
> to achieve this by sourcing, and in some cases that's obviously going
> to be necessary. Where those cases are is something we need to
> determine better. Sourcing should be used to back up things a
> reasonable reader might doubt.

I despise the current FA practice that "everything needs an inline
citation".  Basically all you need to pass FA is a lot of citations.

Interesting articles will establish context. They should be able to
> show why the subject is interesting to someone who isn't already a
> fan/scholar/whatever of the subject. I would particualrly note that I
> think we'd be in much better shape if we stopped talking about
> notability and started talking about interestingness. This would put
> us in a position to give more of a pass to well-written, thorough
> articles on odd but cool topics. This is good - it has demonstrably
> proven itself to be something people expect from Wikipedia. [[Heavy
> Metal Umlaut]] anybody?

I'm not sure this is the same issue, but I had an argument with someone who
wanted to include some loosely related material because it "related [the
subject] to people's lives".  Frankly I don't think we need to "sell" a
topic to the audience.  People look up articles in an encyclopedia because
they are already interested in the subject, it's not like a magazine where
you come across the topic randomly.

Adam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> [...] Far better to ask
> obnoxious teenage nerds who have no subject-area knowledge at all but
> sure can't tolerate grey areas.
>
Hey, you're disparaging 68% of our editors!

:-)

Stan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
Because he's an expert in the field of webcomics and no existing
encyclopedia has an article on any of them.

Adam

On 2/26/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/26/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/25/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >I should have said there are no good solutions.  This problem
> requires a
> > > >working solution, and we do have one.
> > > >
> > > And a working solution need not be a panacea.  If it helps to solve
> some
> > > problems it becomes a stepping stone to further solutions.
> >
> >
> > I would never claim our current solution is the final one.  But we do
> need
> > to take the criticism of people like Scott McCloud with a grain of salt.
>
> Because he's a best-selling author and respected expert in his field?
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
This is insane.  Is it impossible to imagine that Scout McCloud might have a
bias towards assuming the whole field of webcomics is more important than it
really is?

Adam

On 2/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 26/02/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/26/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I would never claim our current solution is the final one.  But we do
> need
> > > to take the criticism of people like Scott McCloud with a grain of
> salt.
>
> > Because he's a best-selling author and respected expert in his field?
>
>
> Exactly. Obviously, if you ask his expert opinion on comics, you have
> to Assume Bad Faith and assume he'll ... I dunno, do something
> obviously bad. You know those comics experts. Far better to ask
> obnoxious teenage nerds who have no subject-area knowledge at all but
> sure can't tolerate grey areas.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
All right, I didn't know that.  But the point stands that experts in their
fields routinely overestimate the importance of their fields.

Adam

On 2/26/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2007, at 7:09 PM, T P wrote:
>
> > Because he's an expert in the field of webcomics
>
> That's not true. He is clearly an expert on comics in general.
>
> -Phil
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Harish TM

subject: [Wikitech-l] WikiDump Parsing

body:
Thanks a ton guys...

Harish

On 2/26/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
> zetawoof wrote:
>
> > You'll do much better with a purpose-built lexical analyzer. If
> > nothing else, this'll work when titles and tags span across buffers -
>
>
> If they span buffers, the xml parsing libs choke as well, just for your
> information.  I know, I've seen them do it.
> I have a version that does not choke on buffer spanning, it buffers
> underneath.  I just posted that as an example.
>
> Jeff
>
> > something which the previous program will choke on on.
> >
> > Released into the public domain as a trivial example program. Save as
> > 'titleparse.l' and 'make titleparse'.
> >
> > %option noyywrap
> >
> > %{
> >    #include <stdio.h>
> > %}
> >
> > %x TITLE
> >
> > %%
> >
> > <INITIAL>"<title>" { BEGIN TITLE; }
> > <TITLE>"</title>" { BEGIN INITIAL; putchar('\n'); }
> > <TITLE>"<" { putchar('<'); }
> > <TITLE>">" { putchar('>'); }
> > <TITLE>"&quote;" { putchar('"'); }
> > <INITIAL>.|\n /* ignored */
> >
> > %%
> >
> > int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
> >    yylex();
> >    exit(0);
> > }
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: J.L.W.S. The Special One

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Admins blocking each other

body:
Perhaps you should just leave the Navajo Wikipedia.

On 2/22/07, Berto 'd Sera <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I do not know this guy personally, I have spoken with you (Mark) only here
> and quite casually, so all I can say is based on what I see/read/guess.
> IMHO, you either have a simple personal problem OR you have different
> conceptions of what should be done with the wiki.
>
> Pls stop unblocking yourself asap and only ask for external intervention (as
> you are already doing, I seem to understand). I know that asking something
> is easy, but getting WMF to make ANY decision (even the most elementary
> ones) is actually harder than changing Earth's Orbit with your bare hands,
> so one can easily be tempted by a "Do It Yourself" solution. After all it's
> what wikies are about, isn't it? Yet when it gets to conflict it's the wrong
> way, believe me.
>
> I'd really welcome an external "sort of U.N." ArbCom for things like these.
> I know it's not nice when we have to deal with annoying petty quarrels but
> someone must do the job, because no job gets done by leaving it on the table
> until the paper on which its specs are written gets destroyed by time.
>
> Many people will probably rate it a waste of time since it's about a 2
> people community. But if you cannot ensure that things go smooth and
> everybody's rights are respected when it's a small community.... then the
> winner will start to ban every newcomer who is not "politically correct" and
> there you go. It doesn't really matter whether the choice is made based on
> politics, religion, sexual orientation or just personal sympathy.
>
> The result is but one anyway: only those who comply with "the rules" stay in
> and the community grows as a sect. Once it's not going to be just 2 guys but
> a full 300 people monolithically structured around some implicit "belief" of
> theirs... then you bet you're going to have a hard time in making that wiki
> behave like a wiki should.
>
> B?rto 'd S?ra
> Personagi dl'ann 2006 p?r l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti voj?otri)
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Written with passion,
J.L.W.S. The Special One


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
I think assuming that Scout McCloud's POV outweighs mine is bad.

I am not claiming that the field is not important.  I am claiming that we
shouldn't take Scout McCloud's word for it that it is important.

This is what "a grain of salt" means, that you should not swallow someone's
opinion whole.  It doesn't mean that you should ignore their opinion
entirely.

Adam

On 2/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 27/02/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/26/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 26, 2007, at 7:09 PM, T P wrote:
>
> > > > Because he's an expert in the field of webcomics
>
> > > That's not true. He is clearly an expert on comics in general.
>
> > All right, I didn't know that.  But the point stands that experts in
> their
> > fields routinely overestimate the importance of their fields.
>
>
> The point also stands that you're clearly assuming that if you don't
> know about it (as you just showed you didn't) then it must not be
> important or relevant. This is the fundamental stupidity at the heart
> of the AFD problem.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: William Pietri

subject: [WikiEN-l] What makes a good article?

body:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
> I think before we can really deal with questions of what should and
> shouldn't be sourced, what a good source is, and what is and isn't
> worth having articles on, we have to go back to brass tacks and
> answer "What is a good article?"
>
> [...]
>
> To my mind there are three parts of a good article: it must be
> comprehensive, accurate, and interesting. [...]
>
> Are there any problems that people can see with this formulation?
>

I think it's a good start, but it's hard to say for sure without seeing
the implications. I'm sure you'll get more reaction as you connect it to
policy changes.

There are two other qualities I'd like in a good article: readable and
useful. I think the first one is somewhat out of scope, as you're
focusing mainly on sourcing. Although as Adam points out, readability
and comprehensiveness are at somewhat at odds, so it's not entirely
irrelevant.

As for utility, I think like interestingness, it's a hard one to pin
down because it's more about the reader's reaction. It's also somewhat
in competition. [[Period table]] and the conversion chart on [[Ring
size]] aren't so interesting, but they sure are useful. Personally, I'd
rank utility higher than interestingness as a criterion for article
goodness, with accuracy higher still.

William

--
William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Bot edit rates

body:
Andre Engels wrote:
>
> It's not, but it might be a reason to spend time on other things rather than
> on giving the users X. Developer time is not a commodity we have excess of.

Within the time you and others have spent in this thread trying to argue
against putting the edit count on Special:Contributions, it could have
been put there a million times over.

If nobody wants to do this incredibly trivial thing, do you want me to
do it? (I'm asking because I don't want to spend time on installing
MediaWiki specially for this just to have someone reject it for some
ridiculous reason.)

Timwi


from_name: Sabo, Edmond

subject: [Foundation-l] Thanks Lars

body:
Thanks Lars,
I will try to improve the proposal, addressing your comments.
This proposal is mainly for biologists and Pathologists who struggle with variability, when quantifying biological
shapes, textures, colors and patterns observed in cells and tissues. I have no special interest in any company.
There are some commercial programs from companies who claim they have better algorithms for that. The reality is that all programs fail to accurately perform tissue pattern analysis. This is an unsolved issue. Only a global effort involving expert pathologists (like we are), working toigether with experts in computer vision, may solve these kind of problems. We have ideas but we need to collaborate with software people.
Thanks again,
Edmond

________________________________

From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Lars Aronsson
Sent: Mon 2/26/2007 2:21 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WikiSym 2007 Call for Papers

Sabo, Edmond wrote:

> The link to my suggested project is:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Esabo

I think you can help your chances by describing exactly why this
should be a new project under the Wikimedia Foundation instead of
just another wiki hosted by yourself or a company such as Wikia.
Is there any international/multi-lingual dimension?  Is there any
open content dimension?  How big is it supposed to become?

And why is the Subject of this message "WikiSym 2007"?

I'm not speaking for the foundation.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se <http://aronsson.se/>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


subject: [Foundation-l] Thanks Lars


subject: [WikiEN-l] What makes a good article?

body:
On 2/26/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I tend to think that, of the many things to worry about in an
> article, length is a secondary concern.

As a writer, I endeavor not to waste the reader's time.  If they want to
know more, it's easy to click on a link. Clearly large topics need long
articles, but every word should count.

Most of what I've seen suggests that we have a pretty high number of
> people who browse around and learn new things. We should endeavor to
> teach things that are interesting.

That's what links are for.

Adam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
Don't insult me.

Adam

On 2/26/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You do realize that Wikipedia is NOT PAPER, right?
>
> On 2/26/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > All right, I didn't know that.  But the point stands that experts in
> their
> > fields routinely overestimate the importance of their fields.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > On 2/26/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Feb 26, 2007, at 7:09 PM, T P wrote:
> > >
> > > > Because he's an expert in the field of webcomics
> > >
> > > That's not true. He is clearly an expert on comics in general.
> > >
> > > -Phil
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
You know, I don't feel the need to talk to you anymore.

Adam

On 2/26/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/26/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think assuming that Scout McCloud's POV outweighs mine is bad.
> >
> > I am not claiming that the field is not important.  I am claiming that
> we
> > shouldn't take Scout McCloud's word for it that it is important.
>
> Right, and I'm asking you why we shouldn't, considering that he is one
> of the world's top experts on sequential art.
>
> I'd take Lonnie Thompson's word for what's important with respect to
> glaciology.
>
>
> > This is what "a grain of salt" means, that you should not swallow
> someone's
> > opinion whole.  It doesn't mean that you should ignore their opinion
> > entirely.
>
> Were you being ironically didactic, or do you actually think I didn't
> understand you?
>
> >
> > On 2/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 27/02/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 2/26/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 26, 2007, at 7:09 PM, T P wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Because he's an expert in the field of webcomics
> > >
> > > > > That's not true. He is clearly an expert on comics in general.
> > >
> > > > All right, I didn't know that.  But the point stands that experts in
> > > their
> > > > fields routinely overestimate the importance of their fields.
> > >
> > >
> > > The point also stands that you're clearly assuming that if you don't
> > > know about it (as you just showed you didn't) then it must not be
> > > important or relevant. This is the fundamental stupidity at the heart
> > > of the AFD problem.
> > >
> > >
> > > - d.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Travis Derouin

subject: [Wikitech-l] wikihow firefox toolbar

body:
Hey,

I put together a firefox toolbar to help out our editors, if anyone is
interested:

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-the-wikiHow-Editor%27s-Toolbar

It's pretty basic, but gives a notification when an unpatrolled edit
has been made to a featured article and gives some stats on how many
total unpatrolled edits there are and how many logged in users have
edited in the past 30 minutes. A new talk page message indicator also
lights up when you receive a new talk page message.

So far the results have been promising, vandalism on featured articles
has been short lived, and the backlog of unpatrolled edits has gone
way down from consistently over 500 to less than 25 on average.

I'm not sure if other wikis could benefit from this functionality or
if a more general toolbar could be made out of it, but I thought I'd
pass it along.

Travis


from_name: Steve

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Translating the Five pillars

body:
I'm not sure I understand the point of your line of questioning.

Is this just slippery slope, or do you feel that Original Research is
absolutely on par with the things you suggest?

-S

On 2/26/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> Would you accept POV Wikipedias ?
> Would you accept Wikipedias that are not Free ?
> Would you accept Wikipedias where articles about the same subject state
> completely contradictory things .. one being in one language the second in
> another language ?
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> On 2/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 26/02/07, Berto 'd Sera <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > Wikipedia might in some way feature such original content
> > > Which ones, for example?
> >
> >
> > There are languages in which their Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia
> > *ever* written in the language.  I can hypothetically imagine such a
> > Wikipedia allowing original research or even signed articles,
> > Britannica-style.
> >
> > ("No ownership of articles" is a rule on en:wp, but I can imagine it
> > not being one on other WMF wikis.)
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Yann Forget

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
Hello,

Casey Brown a ?crit :
>>Is your point that we should remove all "fair use images", causing the
>>articles to be without an image making someone donate a free one?
>>
>>Cbrown1023
>
> Close I would suggest replaceing them with this (click the image):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mamet

Great!

But better still, propose to upload the image to Commons. ;o)

Regards,

Yann


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


subject: [WikiEN-l] What makes a good article?

body:
On 2/26/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
> T P wrote:
>
> > I despise the current FA practice that "everything needs an inline
> > citation".  Basically all you need to pass FA is a lot of citations.

Can we slay this myth once and for all?  Sources are a quick and easy
> way to get junked or lose FA status, but it's not all you need.  My
> first real FA try ended up being twice as long as the article I was
> nominating because of the "brilliant prose" requirement - talk about
> subjective.  I have no hard numbers, but I bet a lot more struggle due
> to that then because of inadequate sourcing.

This is an exaggeration, of course.  What I really mean to say is that all
"I" need to pass FA is a lot of citations (which I hate doing).

Believe me, if I had my way, a lot more articles would fail the "brilliant
prose" requirement.

Adam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
T P wrote:
> On 2/26/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/26/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> All right, I didn't know that.  But the point stands that experts
>>> in their fields routinely overestimate the importance of their fields.
>>>
>> You do realize that Wikipedia is NOT PAPER, right?
> Don't insult me.
>

Although it was poorly put, I think there's a point in there. EB, due to
space limitations, is a general-purpose encyclopedia. But there are
plenty of special-purpose ones out there, too. I'm not immediately
seeing why Wikipedia can't include just EB topics, but every other
special-purpose encyclopedia out there.

Sure, the team who made the Encyclopedia of Polymeric Materials or the
Encylopedia of International Political Economy or the Encyclopedia of
Fashion Accessories (all real, I swear) think that their topic is pretty
important, or they wouldn't have spent years making an encyclopedia. But
why would that matter?

If Scott McCloud were making the Encyclopedia of Sequential Art,
wouldn't we want an entry on every single topic he thought important
enough to include?

William

--
William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri


subject: [WikiEN-l] What makes a good article?

body:
On 2/26/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
> T P wrote:
> > I'm not sure this is the same issue, but I had an argument with someone
> who
> > wanted to include some loosely related material because it "related [the
> > subject] to people's lives".  Frankly I don't think we need to "sell" a
> > topic to the audience.  People look up articles in an encyclopedia
> because
> > they are already interested in the subject, it's not like a magazine
> where
> > you come across the topic randomly.
> >
>
> Yeah, but I have a feeling we're heading in a direction where we're
> going to begin failing at this.  Part of Wikipedia's awesomeness (and
> why I started contributing originally) was because...
>
> a) Wikipedia probably has an article on what you're looking for.
> b) If Wikipedia doesn't have an article on what you're looking for, you
> can probably make it.
>
> If we lose that, we lose our audience.  Long tail, or something.

This was a featured article.  Which passed.

One of the unusual characteristics of Wikipedia is that, as a volunteer
effort, articles are primarily written to satisfy the needs of the writers,
not the readers.  Where those needs overlap (and usually they do) everything
is fine.  But a lot of problems come up when they don't.

Adam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
Sorry, I don't think it's that important.  Certainly not important enough
for me to participate in a conversation where I am being insulted.

Adam

On 2/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 27/02/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You know, I don't feel the need to talk to you anymore.
>
>
> Or you could, you know, actually address the points raised.
>
> AFD's endemic attitudes and the almost entirely spurious, subjective
> and arbitrary notion of "notability" as it's applied are a major and
> ongoing disaster for relations between Wikipedia and the outside world
> it's supposedly serving, and you can't pretend otherwise. It's spent
> about two years now singularly failing to get its own house in order
> and I think I'll happily start encouraging whatever needs to be done
> to force it to. You can ignore this if you like.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
There's nothing stupid about a prestigious reference work (as Wikipedia has
become) waiting for a field to become significant before writing about it.
If it becomes significant in fifteen years, we can write about it in fifteen
years.  [[WP:MASTODON]]

Adam

On 2/26/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
> T P wrote:
> > I think assuming that Scout McCloud's POV outweighs mine is bad.
>
> I don't.  I stay away from all science discussions because I don't know
> science.  People may be smart to do the same regarding webcomics,
> especially when we have people who DO know webcomics who have more
> significant input.
>
> >
> > I am not claiming that the field is not important.  I am claiming that
> we
> > shouldn't take Scout McCloud's word for it that it is important.
>
> The idea that an "expert" (I put it in quotes for a reason) wouldn't
> better understand the importance of something is somewhat insane, Adam.
>   This isn't our traditional content debate, where we're discussing
> whether something is verifiable - verifiability doesn't really change
> depending on whether a person is an expert or not - but it's a
> discussion as to something's significance in the absence of traditional
> reference.  Maybe in 15 years, people will write books and papers on
> webcomics, and we'll be able to refer to seminal webcomics the way we
> can with seminal emo bands now - bands that were significant 15 years
> ago, but only got written about recently.  Until then, do we look stupid
> and ignore it, or invite input from people who know better than us?  We
> talk about "common sense" here, this seems like a no-brainer to me.
>
> -Jeff
>
>
> --
> Name: Jeff Raymond
> E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
> WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
> IM: badlydrawnjeff
> Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
>         Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
>         - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
There's nothing wrong with taking into account the opinions of people who
know nothing about webcomics.  They have the advantage of objectivity, which
Scout McCloud does not.

Adam

On 2/26/07, Jake Nelson <duskwave at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The problem is that you've made multiple assertions that could be
> described as "Scott McCloud is A, so B", but as has been shown, you
> don't know enough about him to accurately state A, and B does not
> necessarily follow from the A you have stated. [[Scott McCloud]] is a
> good brief summary. I suggest reading it.
>
> I don't think anyone's claimed he has some special power to rate the
> importance of, say, webcomics in relation to the whole of human
> knowledge. He is, however, the single most qualified person I can
> think of to rate the relative importance of topics within the field of
> comics, and among the most qualified in the broader field of
> sequential art. It's up to the community as a whole to determine how
> much importance that field has in Wikipedia. I think you'd find it to
> have a fair amount of support.
>
> -- Jake Nelson
> [[en:User:Jake Nelson]]
>
> On 2/26/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think assuming that Scout McCloud's POV outweighs mine is bad.
> >
> > I am not claiming that the field is not important.  I am claiming that
> we
> > shouldn't take Scout McCloud's word for it that it is important.
> >
> > This is what "a grain of salt" means, that you should not swallow
> someone's
> > opinion whole.  It doesn't mean that you should ignore their opinion
> > entirely.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > On 2/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 27/02/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 2/26/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 26, 2007, at 7:09 PM, T P wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Because he's an expert in the field of webcomics
> > >
> > > > > That's not true. He is clearly an expert on comics in general.
> > >
> > > > All right, I didn't know that.  But the point stands that experts in
> > > their
> > > > fields routinely overestimate the importance of their fields.
> > >
> > >
> > > The point also stands that you're clearly assuming that if you don't
> > > know about it (as you just showed you didn't) then it must not be
> > > important or relevant. This is the fundamental stupidity at the heart
> > > of the AFD problem.
> > >
> > >
> > > - d.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
Not everything in the "Encyclopedia of Sequential Art" belongs in Wikipedia.

Adam

On 2/26/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2007, at 8:10 PM, William Pietri wrote:
>
>
> >
> > If Scott McCloud were making the Encyclopedia of Sequential Art,
> > wouldn't we want an entry on every single topic he thought important
> > enough to include?
>
> Exactly.
>
> -Phil
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
That depends on what we want Wikipedia to be.  If we want it to be the
elaborated union of all existing encyclopedias, no matter how specialized,
fine.  But what we want Wikipedia to be is not to be decided strictly based
on the opinions of experts.  Citizendium is --> that way.

I think people are jumping to conclusions about my point.  My point is not
that webcomics should not be included.  My point is that Scout McCloud's
evaluation of notability should not carry more weight than the consensus of
the people writing Wikipedia.  If he wants to change Wikipedia he's welcome
to join us in writing it.

Adam

On 2/26/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
>
> T P wrote:
> > On 2/26/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/26/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> All right, I didn't know that.  But the point stands that experts
> >>> in their fields routinely overestimate the importance of their fields.
> >>>
> >> You do realize that Wikipedia is NOT PAPER, right?
> > Don't insult me.
> >
>
> Although it was poorly put, I think there's a point in there. EB, due to
> space limitations, is a general-purpose encyclopedia. But there are
> plenty of special-purpose ones out there, too. I'm not immediately
> seeing why Wikipedia can't include just EB topics, but every other
> special-purpose encyclopedia out there.
>
> Sure, the team who made the Encyclopedia of Polymeric Materials or the
> Encylopedia of International Political Economy or the Encyclopedia of
> Fashion Accessories (all real, I swear) think that their topic is pretty
> important, or they wouldn't have spent years making an encyclopedia. But
> why would that matter?
>
> If Scott McCloud were making the Encyclopedia of Sequential Art,
> wouldn't we want an entry on every single topic he thought important
> enough to include?
>
> William
>
>
> --
> William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/26/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2007, at 8:19 PM, T P wrote:
>
> > There's nothing wrong with taking into account the opinions of
> > people who
> > know nothing about webcomics.  They have the advantage of
> > objectivity, which
> > Scout McCloud does not.
>
> I tend to think that someone who knows nothing about webcomics is
> just as biased as someone who knows a lot, just in the other direction.
>
> If somebody doesn't know anything about the subject, I'm unconvinced
> they have anything useful to say on the subject beyond, perhaps, some
> attention to style, structure, etc.
>
> This sort of "experts are worse than clueless people" attitude pops
> up occasionally. It is, I think, worth ignoring entirely.
>

I don't have a lot of patience, so I hope you give me credit for trying.

I never said "experts are worse than clueless people" and I never will.

Everybody has biases.  Wikipedia deals with that by forcing people with
different biases to come to consensus.

If you want a project where experts have more say than the rest, go to
Citizendium.

Adam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
Thanks for the insult.

Adam

On 2/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 27/02/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This sort of "experts are worse than clueless people" attitude pops
> > up occasionally. It is, I think, worth ignoring entirely.
>
>
> It verges on policy at AFD and DRV, which is a big problem with those
> areas. Our friend T P typifies the attitude: apparently proud of
> knowing nothing rather than the curse of subject area expertise.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
Hi, Adam. I know you're in a rush to reply to various parties here, but
could you avoid top-posting? It makes it hard on readers, and as a
correspondent it means I have to do more cleanup to reply to one of your
posts.

On to your point.

T P wrote:
>> If Scott McCloud were making the Encyclopedia of Sequential Art,
>> wouldn't we want an entry on every single topic he thought important
>> enough to include?
> Not everything in the "Encyclopedia of Sequential Art" belongs in Wikipedia.
>

Ok.

Would you mind fleshing that out for me? I've just leafed through a
couple special-purpose reference works I have around. I'm not seeing an
obvious dividing line between topics. What would you leave out from
special-purpose encyclopedias? If possible, I'd like a rule that applies
to the Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy just as well as the
Encyclopedia of Fashion Accessories.

It's also be great if you could ground your rule in some practical
reason why it's bad.

Thanks,

William

--
William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri


from_name: Phil Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] What makes a good article?

body:
I think before we can really deal with questions of what should and
shouldn't be sourced, what a good source is, and what is and isn't
worth having articles on, we have to go back to brass tacks and
answer "What is a good article?"

Once we understand what an article should be it becomes easier to
write guidelines that point to that. And I mean this on a more basic
level than what we have at [[Wikipedia:What is a good article?]]

To my mind there are three parts of a good article: it must be
comprehensive, accurate, and interesting.

What do I mean here?

By comprehensive I mean that it covers what it should. We could write
lots of tests for this (several present themselves), but for now,
let's leave it at that. It's not missing anything. Note that NPOV is
an aspect of comprehensiveness. This also covers excluding stupid
trivia, to my mind. It also means that it provides a good start to
research. This includes providing further places to look, i.e. "If
you want to know more about Derrida, go read..."

By accurate I mean that nothing in it is incorrect. Currently we try
to achieve this by sourcing, and in some cases that's obviously going
to be necessary. Where those cases are is something we need to
determine better. Sourcing should be used to back up things a
reasonable reader might doubt.

Interesting is more intangible. We've unfairly demonized
[[WP:ILIKEIT]], but usually what people are trying to say when they
say that they like it is that they learned something from the article
that they think is interesting. That's the point. (Incidentally,
[[WP:INTERESTING]] is total shit. Seriously - somebody nuke that
section stat. Actually, all of arguments to avoid in deletion
discussions is crap - the page gives no sense of what an argument for
keeping could possibly be other than the negative "it doesn't seem
deletable to me.")

Interesting articles will establish context. They should be able to
show why the subject is interesting to someone who isn't already a
fan/scholar/whatever of the subject. I would particualrly note that I
think we'd be in much better shape if we stopped talking about
notability and started talking about interestingness. This would put
us in a position to give more of a pass to well-written, thorough
articles on odd but cool topics. This is good - it has demonstrably
proven itself to be something people expect from Wikipedia. [[Heavy
Metal Umlaut]] anybody?

Are there any problems that people can see with this formulation?

Best,
Phil Sandifer
sandifer at english.ufl.edu

You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a
boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.

 >


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
That may be your point.  By now I no longer care what your point is.

Adam

On 2/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 27/02/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think people are jumping to conclusions about my point.  My point is
> not
> > that webcomics should not be included.  My point is that Scout McCloud's
> > evaluation of notability should not carry more weight than the consensus
> of
> > the people writing Wikipedia.  If he wants to change Wikipedia he's
> welcome
> > to join us in writing it.
>
>
> This again completely dodges the point that the row is between the
> writers on the subject and those who want to discourage them from
> writing on the subject by, apparently, any means necessary.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/26/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
>
> T P wrote:
> > Not everything in the "Encyclopedia of Sequential Art" belongs in
> Wikipedia.
>
> Would you mind fleshing that out for me? I've just leafed through a
> couple special-purpose reference works I have around. I'm not seeing an
> obvious dividing line between topics. What would you leave out from
> special-purpose encyclopedias? If possible, I'd like a rule that applies
> to the Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy just as well as the
> Encyclopedia of Fashion Accessories.
>
> It's also be great if you could ground your rule in some practical
> reason why it's bad.

I should have been more clear that that is my personal opinion.  As I
mentioned in another post, if the Wikipedia community decides, in fact, that
everything included in any encyclopedia belongs in Wikipedia, then that's
fine.

Adam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You appear to be unable to support your attitudes when they are
> described back to you. Perhaps you need to communicate better.
> Particularly having claimed excellence in writing.

You appear to be unable to understand what I say.  If you responded
politely, I would try explaining to you.  Since you choose to respond with
insults, I have no desire to talk to you.

Adam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/26/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That doesn't mean that "what do the experts say" loses its validity
> as a test. It's just that our solution to the problem that our
> coverage of comics (not just webcomics, it should be noted) is crap
> is not to say "Oh, well let's just have Scott McCloud write all the
> articles." It's to say "OK, the experts say we blew this. Let's go
> back and fix it."

I noted elsewhere that, as a volunteeer effort, Wikipedia is primarily
written to satisfiy the needs of the writers.  "Our coverage of comics is
crap" is an opinion.  It may be an expert opinion, but it's still just an
opinion.  Whether that is important or not is still just an opinion.
Practically speaking, what matters is the opinions of the people working on
Wikipedia, because you sure as hell aren't going to "fix" Wikipedia just
because outsiders think it's broken.

Adam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
T P wrote:
> On 2/26/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
>
>> T P wrote:
>>
>>> Not everything in the "Encyclopedia of Sequential Art" belongs in
>>> Wikipedia.
>>>
>>
>> Would you mind fleshing that out for me? I've just leafed through a
>> couple special-purpose reference works I have around. I'm not seeing an
>> obvious dividing line between topics. What would you leave out from
>> special-purpose encyclopedias? If possible, I'd like a rule that applies
>> to the Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy just as well as the
>> Encyclopedia of Fashion Accessories.
>>
>> It's also be great if you could ground your rule in some practical
>> reason why it's bad.
>>
>
>
> I should have been more clear that that is my personal opinion.  As I
> mentioned in another post, if the Wikipedia community decides, in fact, that
> everything included in any encyclopedia belongs in Wikipedia, then that's
> fine.
>

That's great. But the way the community decides is, at least on the good
days, through discussions like these. If you're hoping to have your
opinion affect others, you'd do well to explain what you mean and how it
would work. Maybe you're not ready to do that now, in which case feel
free to start the thread up again when you have a more detailed way to
explain what your opinion is, and how you see Wikipedia working based on it.

William

--
William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri


subject: [Foundation-l] RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution

body:
On 2/21/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Does this implu that the Board ultimately does discourage the use of
> such EDPs? At the moment the Board seems quite neutral on them, or
> even encouraging them to be adopted. I know I am not the only person
> who would like to see the Board *discourage* the adoption of EDPs, and
> even indicate a very slow movement towards banning them. And yes I
> know that gets enWP all huffy... but there are people there who
> dislike fair use too.

I think the recent example of the English Wikipedia using a "No free
image" template is exactly the direction we should go:

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

(Incidentally, a very similar system is used by the IMDB, except of
course they do not care if their images are freely licensed.)

I am willing to support a licensing policy that is more strict than
the current draft, i.e., which explicitly rules out the use of EDPs
for purposes such as portrait photos, and limits them essentially to:
- media about significant historical events
- "identifying media" such as logos, jingles, etc.
- excerpts of contemporary copyrighted works (low quality versions of
comic book characters, album covers, music samples, screenshots etc.)

I think we need to also have a vague "reasonable expectation" clause
in the resolution that clarifies that, if we can reasonably _expect_
that a free work will be made available, then a non-free one shouldn't
be used. This allows us to, over time, shift out more of the above
(especially the historical stuff, which I think we can definitely get
under free licenses in the not too distant future).

On the other hand, as long as copyrighted works are dominant in the
information society, EDPs are the main method by which we can
illustrate and excerpt contemporary cultural works. I do think this is
a significant part of the mission of the WMF, and that we should make
use of the few exemptions to copyright law that there are in order to
do it.

Characters from contemporary films or cartoons, for example, are not
going to become "free content" anytime soon. Even if we could
"liberate" them, this would hardly be our first priority. Those that
scoff at Pokemon or Star Wars screenshots should acknowledge that, if
we were to ban any such material from being illustrated, it would also
exclude the great masters of film, music and painting from most of the
20th century. We should not even try to discriminate here between that
which is "worthy" and that which is not; if the work is notable enough
to be described in an encyclopedia, it is notable enough to be
illustrated.

Moreover, experience has shown that trying to ban non-free content
completely tends to only lead to workarounds which are even worse
(e.g. people photographing 3D toys of a cartoon character, carefully
cropping out all the background, and proudly proclaiming that they now
have created a "free work"; logos being flatly claimed to not be
"copyrightable", etc.). So while I think we should promote free
culture as much as possible, and while I can support a licensing
policy which allows us a gradual shift towards that goal, I don't
expect it to be fully achievable unless there are radical changes in
copyright law throughout the world.

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

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

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/26/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've read David's replies, and honestly, I don't think he's insulting
> you. I think he has no respect for your viewpoint as it's presented
> thus far. That's a valid response, albeit one that you're probably
> not that fond of.
>
> Truth be told, I can't find many points in your last few e-mails that
> I agree with on any level either.

He clearly has no respect for me.  But it is possible to disagree on things
while still respecting each other.  That is precisely what you are doing,
and it is why I am still talking to you.

Adam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/26/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
>
> T P wrote:
> > I should have been more clear that that is my personal opinion.  As I
> > mentioned in another post, if the Wikipedia community decides, in fact,
> that
> > everything included in any encyclopedia belongs in Wikipedia, then
> that's
> > fine.
> >
>
> That's great. But the way the community decides is, at least on the good
> days, through discussions like these. If you're hoping to have your
> opinion affect others, you'd do well to explain what you mean and how it
> would work. Maybe you're not ready to do that now, in which case feel
> free to start the thread up again when you have a more detailed way to
> explain what your opinion is, and how you see Wikipedia working based on
> it.

In my case it's not such a strongly held opinion that I want to spend a lot
of time explaining it.  But if I think of anything I'll let you know.

Adam


from_name: Josh Gordon

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
And a reading of his books (well, at least his first and third) shows
he's an expert in communication and media and the arts in general; it
takes a significant degree of expertise to create a language of
discourse for an art form.

On 2/26/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2007, at 7:09 PM, T P wrote:
>
> > Because he's an expert in the field of webcomics
>
> That's not true. He is clearly an expert on comics in general.
>
> -Phil
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
--jpgordon ????


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 27/02/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Although I expect you won't answer, I'm now wondering what the hell
> you thought the point of participating so avidly in this thread was.

I participated in this thread for the same reason I participate in IRC.

And I think it's about as important.

Adam


list: textbook-l

from_name: percy tiglao

subject: [Textbook-l] Textbook-l Digest, Vol 33, Issue 8

body:
On 2/20/07, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Garrett entirely. Even if we do continue to allow fair use, we
> should certainly put on some restrictions, especially considering the legal
> issues that fair use bring. Fair use media certainly may be helpful to
> textbook writers such as ourselves, but it does nothing but create
> unnecessary complications among textbook printers and readers (who are the
> majority of our wikibooks audience).
>
> A fair use image should never be used when an acceptable copyleft or PD
> image is available, or when an acceptable image can be created and released
> under such a license.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth

I agree entirely. While an outright ban may be too difficult, I think we
should avoid copyright images, even if they are within fair use. There
are just too many issues to bring up.

--Dragontamer


subject: [WikiEN-l] Presentation to readers

body:
On 2/26/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

> What if we replaced all of our problem tags with something generic -
> {{notverygood}} or something. I'm thinking wording along the lines of:
>
> "This article isn't very good yet. If you came here to learn about
> this topic, we apologize that we aren't able to help you as well as
> we'd like. If you know a bit about this topic already, please feel
> free to help to fix it. Some concerns people have are probably
> located on the talk page."
>
> And then the mass of other stuff - {{npov}}, {{unverified}},
> {{notability}}, etc could all move to the talk page. This puts a
> reader-friendly face forward, while retaining the information about
> what's wrong for editors.

I think this is a very good idea.

Adam


body:
On 2/26/07, Berto 'd Sera <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> I'm shocked :) Anyway, I can only welcome reality and reality says it's
> Independence Day. I quit monitoring eastern wikis as there can't be any
> violation where there's no rule.

It's not that simple. The Board can, and has, encouraged intervention
when key principles have been violated. Just because a rule is not yet
written does not mean that it is not a rule. We can, and in my opinion
will, be explicit about these principles. In the meantime, another
unwritten global rule to follow is "Don't disrupt Wikimedia to make a
point." :-)
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

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

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


from_name: Domas Mituzas

subject: [Wikitech-l] Is wikipedia using MogileFS?

body:
Hi!

> I found a php class in the SVN which is MogileFS client, so it that
> mean wikipedia is using MogileFS?

we're not using it.

In theory it could be nice, but in reality not that many people here
speak that kind of Perl. ;-)

--
Domas Mituzas -- http://dammit.lt/ -- [[user:midom]]


from_name: John Vandenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/26/07, Sage Ross <sage.ross at yale.edu> wrote:
> On 2/25/07, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw at armory.com> writes:
> >
> > > On Sunday 25 February 2007 03:18, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > >
> > >> Not long ago there was a proposal to relocate the items that appear on
> > >> AfD to the various WikiProjects so that the requests could be looked at
> > >> by people who have some understanding of the issue.  As usual that got
> > >> nowhaere.

This is already happening to a certain degree with the Deletion
sorting project, but that effort is sporadic, probably due to the
excessive number of articles being listed on Afd.

A simpler solution would be to require that any Afd that does not meet
CSD must be listed on a deletion sorting list for 5 days before
closure to ensure adequate exposure and time to resolve issues.

> > > Yup.  I was the one who made that proposal (unless someone else proposed the
> > > same thing independently).  As I recall, the primary objection to it was that
> > > it was a bad idea because "the author of this proposal [me] is an extreme
> > > inclusionist"--true, but irrelevant.
> > > --
> > > Kurt Weber
> > > <kmw at armory.com>
> >
> > I remember the objections being more along the lines of asserting that
> > such a change would allow the inmates to run the asylum - fancruft is
> > kept in check by nonfans, and if deletion debates are dominated (by
> > policy and not merely by practice) by fans/members of the relevant
> > Wikiproject, that check would be removed.
>
> If there is agreement about the value and neutrality of content among
> a wide enough group of fans for there to be a WikiProject, that seems
> like a good place to invoke "Wiki is not paper".  The nonfans should
> keep such articles in perspective and correct for the systematic
> biases of fans, but if a WikiProject wants an article and is willing
> to invest the effort to correct for blatant POV and COI, why not let
> 'em have it?

This sounds like it would improve how subject matter experts view
Wikipedia; their contributions would not be initially subjected to
Afds conducted by random people, and project members could spot new
contributors more readily and ensure they are treated more
respectfully.

It would be nice to see Afd headers on the articles replaced with
pretty subject specific alerts that indicate to the reader that the
article is currently "under review".

If Afds at the project level are being called into question or are not
timely, the review could then be relisted on each project up the
hierarchy of projects in search of consensus before needing to end up
on the top level Afd.  This would probably result in more action on
DRV, but at least the DRV would have more carefully considered
comments on the review discussion.

While it is possible that some projects may end up like an asylum run
by inmates, other parts of Wikipedia can and will take on the added
responsibility and use it appropriately.

--
John (aka Jayvdb)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Presentation to readers

body:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2007, at 9:35 PM, William Pietri wrote:
>
>
>> I'm looking at the various maintenance
>> templates [...] wouldn't we
>> want to hide more of the plumbing where the average reader never
>> sees it unless the go looking?
>>
>
> Another thought on this topic.
>
> What if we replaced all of our problem tags with something generic -
> {{notverygood}} or something. I'm thinking wording along the lines of:
>
> "This article isn't very good yet. If you came here to learn about
> this topic, we apologize that we aren't able to help you as well as
> we'd like. If you know a bit about this topic already, please feel
> free to help to fix it. Some concerns people have are probably
> located on the talk page."
>
> And then the mass of other stuff - {{npov}}, {{unverified}},
> {{notability}}, etc could all move to the talk page. This puts a
> reader-friendly face forward, while retaining the information about
> what's wrong for editors.
>

Nice. That's even better. I'd probably make {{notverygood}} less
visually intrusive than some of the existing templates. Perhaps a paler
blue with no border and italic text rather than roman.

Cons:

    * More manual labor when tagging and untagging articles
    * Possibility for main page and talk page to be out of sync
    * Easier to forget to remove a tag after cleaning things up
    * Won't work well with in-section warnings

Pros:

    * Less cruft for readers to deal with
    * Less confusion and upset when something is inappropriately tagged
    * Draws concerned parties into the talk page rather than arguing
      through templates

Another possibility that occurs to me. Could we do a little stylesheet
and JavaScript magic to hide the specific warning templates unless
people click on something in the {{notverygood}} box? That would let us
keep them as part of the main article, but make them invisible to casual
readers. Further magic would make them by default available to logged-in
editors.

William


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Hoi,
So how do you make a point. Would you say that the Wikimedia Foundation
cares enough that a point can be made without disruption, without
ruffled feathers by some, without many people being against ??

Do you argue that the WMF can make a point without creating some
disruption??

Thanks,
    GerardM

Erik Moeller schreef:
> On 2/26/07, Berto 'd Sera <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm shocked :) Anyway, I can only welcome reality and reality says it's
>> Independence Day. I quit monitoring eastern wikis as there can't be any
>> violation where there's no rule.
>>
>
> It's not that simple. The Board can, and has, encouraged intervention
> when key principles have been violated. Just because a rule is not yet
> written does not mean that it is not a rule. We can, and in my opinion
> will, be explicit about these principles. In the meantime, another
> unwritten global rule to follow is "Don't disrupt Wikimedia to make a
> point." :-)
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

body:
On 2/26/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 2007, at 8:40 PM, T P wrote:
> >> I noted elsewhere that, as a volunteeer effort, Wikipedia is primarily
> >> written to satisfiy the needs of the writers.
> >
> > and
> >
> >> Practically speaking, what matters is the opinions of the people
> >> working on
> >> Wikipedia, because you sure as hell aren't going to "fix" Wikipedia
> >> just
> >> because outsiders think it's broken.
>
> on 2/26/07 8:44 PM, Phil Sandifer at Snowspinner at gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > There's not much to say here. Both of these statements are, I think,
> > 100% wrong. They are the polar opposite of how Wikipedia should work.

> They represent the exact instinct that causes many of the problems

> I've been describing here. I think it is vital that we do everything
> > we can to resist these attitudes on every conceivable level.

I think you need to distinguish between the way Wikipedia works and the way
you think it should work.  My comments relate to the former.  Yours relate
to the latter.

If you can think of a way to make a volunteer organization like Wikipedia
work the way you think it should work, more power to you.

Adam


from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!

body:
I personally have pictures of many Thai moviestars, comedians and
singers (I perform as a comedian almost everyday myself and meet them,
live in tv-shows and when I play in movies), and it would be easy for me
to make pictures on request (especially of all Thai comedians) as I know
where to find many of them. But what makes me hesitating from uploading
to commons is a couple of things ....

1) Non Thai people will not know them so they will probably be deleted
from commons in no time, it would take time for the Thai and other
communities to write articles on them as info on them is scarce and in
English virtually non existing. (of most I wouldn't even be able to give
their names, I know they are on tv regularly though)
2) I have seen people "upgrade" pictures resulting in horrible colours
on paintings and other pictures. Usually this means imho pictures get
maimed.
3) I do not want these pictures to be used commercially (although I
could solve this by uploading low quality small pictures)

I also have pictures of Indian moviestars: Dharmendra Deol, Bobby Deol ,
Sunny Deol, Shilpa Shetty and a lot of others with whom I played in the
movie Apne. But the above reason keeps me from uploading to commons. I
feel that many people have pictures of stars but they hesitate to upload
them for some of the same reasons.

Waerth


subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 26/02/07, Berto 'd Sera <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Just because a rule is not yet written does not mean that it is not
> > a rule.
> No, sorry. A rule is a rule when it's clearly expressed and people are aware
> of it. A rule that is not written is... a desire, a convention if you wish.
> Whatever you'll call it, but not a rule. Otherwise there cannot be any
> warranty for anyone. Applying unwritten rules depending on judges' mood is
> the ABC of dictatorial states. I acknowledge that it's done for a good
> cause, yet it cannot be accepted anyway.

To the extent that online communities resemble any judicial system,
they tend to more resemble common law than civil law ones. I don't
feel that Not Writing Every Rule Down From Day One is automatically a
failure of that system, though I agree we could be doing more to
emphasise what is fundamental principles and what is administrative
stuff.

[You can take the common-law analogy a lot further, but I'll refrain.]

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