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

Timwi wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>> Timwi wrote:
>>> David Gerard wrote:
>>>
>>>> The messing about with archives and the INCREDIBLY AWFUL htdig search
>>>> are causing problems ...
>>> Yeah, I still don't get why you guys are blocking Google from indexing
>>> it.
>> Maybe you should see a doctor about your memory problem? :)
>
> There is no problem with my memory. You just haven't provided any good
> reason for it. All you said is that you're tired of complaints from
> stupid people who post personal information. That is not a good reason
> at all to remove the most useful functionality for all the hundreds of
> people who would use it. I keep saying that and you keep ignoring me.

Ahhhh, so providing a reason you disagree with is the same as not
providing a reason. I see.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFy3LjwRnhpk1wk44RAparAKDDRYdymTY7sjG48lpKUFC0h+7dNgCfZTkr
Hegmo+idwKAcYa2dMUrZuOc=
=ySwt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Category:Jews -> Category:Jewsih people

body:
on 2/8/07 7:21 AM, Cool Cat at wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com wrote:

> Please kill of the flame war bordering nonsense and stay on topic.

Do I sense some need-to-control issues here?

Marc


list: foundation-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Foundation-l] Lack of Image Dumps

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

luke brandt wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
> ..................
>> The worse news is that the dumps would be so huge that no one will
>> actually be able to get or use them anyway. ;)
>
> Care to elaborate?

I believe you can find a detailed explanation on the wiki at:

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

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFy3NFwRnhpk1wk44RApYtAJ9bYHuxM9RO7+ANber7wXESX3vUUgCgsVFb
soxPHw8G3WJfKp2Tg15yztU=
=RRYY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Lack of Image Dumps


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject:
[Foundation-l] Clearing up Wikimedia's media licensing policies
	(some important points)

body:
On 2/8/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure. So we will have maybe 6 covers that are not deleted. This covers
> only a timy percentage of our images. Most are without commentry
> > In any case, it makes more sense in the long run to solve those cases
> > by including some discussion rather than by deleting the images....
> > if the image really is so boring that it deserves no discussion, then
> > I do not think we lose much by deleting it.
> Tried that. The wikiproject albums people had a fit. I don't want to
> try this with the movie people I'm not usre I can afford to be that
> unpopular right now.

Perhaps their position will change now that they see high level
support for being more careful about what we include?  ... This is the
advantage of being somewhat strict about our "big goals": People who
do not care if Wikipedia is free will now help make it more free,
because they must in order to achieve the pretty articles they desire.
:)

It's my view that it's a little counter productive for you to only
point out the negative "We must delete a zillion images" rather than
saying the more useful "We must add a lot of discussion to wikipedia
or remove images" just because you think people will not do it. Have
some confidence in our communities. :)

> > I think your mistake is thinking that they are fine without discussion
> > under US law. Even with a most hopeful reading of the case law in the
> > US it's still clear that our position is stronger when we discuss.
> I know this. I also know that that is a battle I cannot win on en as
> things stand.

I don't know why it's so hard, at least on enwiki  that we must
discuss has long been an established requirement.  This is why enwiki
does not permit fair use galleries.

When you run into these discussions, please invite me.


list: textbook-l

from_name: Karl Wick

subject: [Textbook-l] Offer to upload a book, subject to conditions

body:
This book, if uploaded to Wikibooks, will be able to come up with Google
searches.

However the book will NOT be able to be eternally protected from editing by
other authors.

The donating professor would, in practice, likely be the main or only
author/editor of the online text, but Wikibooks would NOT be able to host a
static text over the long haul.

For a limited time, as a service to an author or group of authors, Wikibooks
could offer edit protection. But that protection would eventually have to be
lifted.

Perhaps the professor would like to host a static version of her work on
another site, then offer the text to Wikibooks to create a "living",
community-editable version.

Karl


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Clearing up Wikimedia's media licensing policies

body:
GerardM wrote:

>I think Erik said "please wait until the official resolution"... So do quote
>only a snippit of what he wrote and do continue theorising what he meant.. I
>think the bit you forgot to copy was.. please WAIT..
>
>
To be more precise:

>Please wait for the official resolution. In my view, there is
>absolutely no reason to delete pictures like logos or album covers.
>
The important point in this is to avoid having people jump to
conclusions.  We have no shortage of people willing to boldly find an
excuse to embark on some kind of deletion campaign.

Ec


body:
on 2/8/07 6:07 AM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge at telus.net wrote:

> All of it.  I do not have a religion, and I find it insulting to suggest
> that I do.  I'm confident that I am not alone in that view.

You are, most emphatically, not alone!

Marc Riddell


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

subject: [WikiEN-l] "About Wikipedia" in navigation sidebar

body:
On 2/8/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sandra (the Foundation communications person) suggested an "About
> Wikipedia" link go in the sidebar, not just at the bottom of each
> page. So I floated it on [[MediaWiki Talk:Sidebar]], got no objections
> and put it in today. This is to be the sort of "about" link lots of
> websites have.
>
> The link goes to [[Wikipedia:About]]. I ask the august embattled
> wikiveterans of this list to hack at said page until it's actually the
> sort of thing a completely fresh visitor would expect to see linked
> from "About Wikipedia." At the moment it strikes me as about twice as
> long as it should be and entirely peppered in caveats ... thoughts
> plz.
>
>
> - 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
>

I'd rather ask people to settle on a final version on meta, so we can
translate it consistently accros projects. Otherwise en: will endup
having a version different from what other wikipedias have.

This is the sort of things that should have the same information
across languages


from_name: Claudio Mastroianni

body:
Il giorno 08/feb/07, alle ore 11:17, Mark Wagner ha scritto:

> Read it again.  Fair use is pemitted for "some works, primarily
> historically important photographs and significant modern artworks,
> that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free
> content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational
> context without including the media itself."  Maybe one fair-use image
> in twenty on the English Wikipedia meets these criteria.  The rest are
> used for simple visual identification of the subject of the article,
> or to make the article look prettier.  It is, for example, quite
> possible to discuss the Beatles' album "Let It Be" without showing the
> cover art, yet the article on En has seven different images of album
> covers.
>
> --
> Mark
> [[en:User:Carnildo]]

The problem is that: stated that clarify once for all what's fair use
and what's not is impossible, fair use are going to remain "vita
natural durante" (forever and ever) on en.wiki.
Are we thinking that every single image is going to be discuss if
"acceptable fair use" or not? Unreal.

Gatto Nero


body:
On 2/8/07, Claudio Mastroianni <gattonero at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's starting to be tiring.

Here we agree.

> I *do* think that is utterly stupid to make a not-existent
> distinction between the freedom of a permission image and a fair use
> image. Cause they're similarly unfree. Worst: it seems that fair use
> images are less free than permission images.

You are incorrect.   For example, If I fork Wikipedia I must instantly
delete every single with permission image, but I would be no worse off
than Wikipedia in keeping fair use images.  Surely someone who so
frequently screams about the foundation can appreciate the importance
of the right to fork? :)   Of course this is only one situation out of
a great many where 'permission' is not as good as a reasonable fair
use claim.

> Second.
> Your references to an italian law was uncorrect.

I am reasonably confident that it is not.

I hope, we will make our decisions based on reasoned thought and
research, and not based on who can scream the loudest.  To that end,
wouldn't it be better if we did as suggested and sought guidance from
experts on how best to set the policy for itwiki?

Please stop to consider for a moment:  In no way does the board only
allowing image which would be fair use/fair dealing preclude itwiki
from getting permission.

Lets assume for a moment that under Italian law, there is no exception
for excerpting for education.  So, itwiki does not permit this
exception.  Instead, itwiki users will go obtain permission.  This is
fine, you can continue to do this, the foundation already said you may
be more restrictive than they require and many projects already are.
However, even with permission you may still only submit images which
the rest of the world, which has the concept of fair dealing, could
use as fair dealing.  This ensures that itwiki are not getting
non-free permission for images which we could easily create as free
works ourselves, and it ensures that the work is maximally free.

Why does this make you mad? What do you think you are losing?

All I can see is itwiki losing images which are non-free and could be
replaced with free ones... and that is a gain for everyone.


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 2/8/07, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Read it again.  Fair use is pemitted for "some works, primarily
> historically important photographs and significant modern artworks,
> that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free
> content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational
> context without including the media itself."  Maybe one fair-use image
> in twenty on the English Wikipedia meets these criteria.

Please wait for the official resolution. In my view, there is
absolutely no reason to delete pictures like logos or album covers.

The Italian Wikipedia, by the way, is free to develop an exemption
policy that resonates with US & Italian law on copyright exemptions.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

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


body:
Claudio Mastroianni wrote:

>Il giorno 08/feb/07, alle ore 11:36, Ray Saintonge ha scritto:
>
>
>>Not at all.  Limited fair use is available for all projects.  If the
>>Italian projects choose not to have fair use that is entirely their
>>choice.  Nobody in any en preject is telling you that you can or can't
>>have fair use.
>>
>>
>Again: fair use is *illegal* in a lot of different countries, Italy
>included.
>It's not "our choice", it's just wa can't.
>
It would not be illegal for a person living in a country that allows
fair use to upload such material to the Italian language Wikipedia.
Families of Italian emigrants (of which there are many in North America)
who retain their love of the language would be completely within their
legal rights to do so.  If they are not now allowed to do so it is
because of your rules, and not because of Italian law.

Ec


from_name: Luna

subject: [WikiEN-l] Someone proposed a change to the legal disclaimer

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Legal_disclaimer#Edit_Request_.22articles_-.3E_articles_and_resources.22_.28applies_to_all_disclaimers.2C_not_just_legal_disclaimer.29

This request is specifically motivated by the "reference desk," although I
> am sure there are other categories of WP content that do not constitute
> formal "articles" and are nonetheless subject to the standard disclaimer(s).
> Perhaps an appropriate change would be to replace the first instance of
> "articles" with "articles and resources" and then change all subsequent
> references to "resources." In any event, it seems appropriate to make a
> minor rewording to indicate that WP consists of more than just "articles,"
> and that the appropriate disclaimers apply throughout all WP content.
> dr.ef.tymac <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dreftymac> 16:15, 6
> February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a pretty reasonable request, myself and J.smith have agreed.
Neither of us is too sure about editing the legal disclaimer, though --
obviously we should be careful about editing, if we edit it at all, but are
there any additional policies or concerns which should be considered,
beforehand?

-Luna


body:
On 2/8/07, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> If every ND license is such a failure, we are truly in a horrible state,
> because the text of the GFDL itself is under an ND license, and thus we are
> not allowed to put it on a Wikipedia page, except for the fact that we
> must....

OMG! The wikipedia logo is non-free too!!!!

To every rule there is exceptions, but yet we can still say that a
rule is bad. It is understood by most reasonable people that saying
that something is bad does not imply that every single instance is bad
when considered from all possible perspectives.

... and plus, many people would prefer the FSF licenses were
themselves more permissively licensed. Hopefully in the future we will
advocate to the FSF that they find terms which preserve their interest
(people making an infinite number of confusing license forks is bad),
without denying the world the freedom to modify.


body:
Il giorno 08/feb/07, alle ore 11:28, Erik Moeller ha scritto:

> The Italian Wikipedia, by the way, is free to develop an exemption
> policy that resonates with US & Italian law on copyright exemptions.
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik

We found it (images with permission), WMF told this is not valid. We
have no alternatives. Saying the "the italian is free to develop an
exemption policy", then, is false.

Gatto Nero


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Expandable dablinks

body:
Hi all,
  I wanted to try and implement this myself, but haven't found the
time. So here's my amazing idea:

At the top of a page with a disambig link, you get some text like:

''For other uses, see [[He Said, She Said (disambiguation).]]''.

I think it would be possible, and very desirable, to make that
expandable with some javascript:

''For other uses, see [[He Said, She Said (disambiguation).]]'' [show].

Clicking [show] would replace the template by the actual contents of
the disambiguation page:

--
He Said, She Said may refer to:

    * He Said She Said (song), a single by Ashley Tisdale.
    * He Said, She Said, a 1991 romantic comedy starring Kevin Bacon
and Elizabeth Perkins.
    * He Said, She Said (game show), an American game show hosted by
former baseball great Joe Garagiola.

For the general concept of differing unsubstantiated accounts of an
event, see logical argument.
--
(and the rest of the page [[He Said, She Said]] would appear here).

Since ambiguous titles are so common now with nearly 2 million
articles, navigating to the correct article is taking longer and
longer. I think this would speed that process up. Any takers?

Steve


from_name: Cool Cat

body:
I am not concerned what "Jew" supposed to be, please save me the lecture...
I know its complicated. That is not the point of this inquiry. I am only
concerned at what Jew supposed to be on [[Category:Jews]]. I do not
understand the inclusion criteria and there is no explanation.

Categories should have one and only one purpose: a reliable navigation aid.
So what is [[Category:Jew]] supposed to cover? Ethnicity? Religion? Race?
Type here? It cannot be all/some of the above. Maybe a [[Category:Jew]] and
seperate [[Category:Jewish people]] could be considered.

I'd like to add that I was unaware that we were categorizing people by
religion... It feels kinda redundant... Everybody has a religion and it can
be just as easily mentioned in the article... Why need the category?

    - Cool Cat

On 2/6/07, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
> >>> I do not believe Jews are singled out. Every other ethnicity has
> >>> people
> >>> after them. Jews are the only ethnicity without it.
> >>>   - Cool Cat
> >>>
> >> It's not an ethnicity; it's a religion.
> >>
> >> Ec
> >
> > Old joke:
> >
> > Q: What is a Jew?
> >
> > A: A person who asks, "what is a Jew?"
> >
>
> YYUR
> YYUB
> ICUR
> YY4ME
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: geni

body:
On 2/8/07, Claudio Mastroianni <gattonero at gmail.com> wrote:
> And I'm sorry to say that again: the italian community is the only
> one to be affected by this decision, 'cause nothing will change for
> en.wiki.

We still have a few hundread wikipedia only images to clear out.

> Here again, Foundation is en.centric...
>
> Nice and very fair, again.
> I'll inform my community.
>
> Claudio / Gatto Nero
>

Following def-acto practice. Wikipedias can be as unfre as en bu no more unfree.

--
geni


body:
If people are offended in me calling Jews people, I have nothing to say to
them. I observe the offended people with one raised eyebrow, much like Mr.
Spock.
   - Cool Cat

On 2/5/07, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/5/07, Cool Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps, but changing the manual of style is premature at this point
> IMHO.
> >
> > A good number of the votes were as per  those comments pointed out here,
> > which is rather troublesome of course. But, I think the issue at hand is
> > not
> > the number of uncivil comments directed at me, but the topic at hand.
> >
> > I think it is good practice to toss in "people" after any ethnicity or
> > nationality. Some of the terms can have multiple meanings at that was
> the
> > original reason for this IIRC. What do you guys think?
> >
>
>
> That's the tricky thing, as I see it -- the ethnic categories have a
> strong
> preference to add "people," where the religious categories have a strong
> preference to avoid doing so. Since we've been using "Jew" to refer to
> both
> ethnic and religious aspects, I'm not comfortable saying that either of
> the
> two uses would take a clear precedence over the other.
>
> I'm all in favor of naming consistency. This is unfortunately a case where
> ANY result will break naming consistency -- it's sort've moot, then. With
> that in mind, I turn to the categories main article, [[Jew]], and I think
> I'm comfortable with that. Toss in the number of people who are (for
> reasons
> I don't quite follow, unfortunately) strongly and emotionally opposed to
> the
> move, and my general tendency to avoid intentionally angering good
> contributors likewise tips my scale a bit towards the status quo.
>
> That said, I'm left bewildered by the number of people who seem to be
> offended by what looks to me to have been a good-faith proposal. *shrug*
>
> -Luna
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Robert Scott Horning

body:
Mark Wagner wrote:

>On 2/8/07, Claudio Mastroianni <gattonero at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Il giorno 08/feb/07, alle ore 10:05, Mark Wagner ha scritto:
>>
>>
>>>Nothing will change for en.wiki?  Hardly.  If I'm reading this
>>>correctly, most of the images used under a claim of "fair use" are no
>>>longer allowed
>>>
>>>
>>No, uncorrect. Foundation said that fair use images *should* not be
>>used.
>>The term is important, compared to "need to phased out" used with
>>images with permission.
>>You - en.wiki - as far as I've understood, have the right to choose
>>if allow or not fair use images on your projects.
>>Guess what are you going to choose? :D
>>
>>
>
>Read it again.  Fair use is pemitted for "some works, primarily
>historically important photographs and significant modern artworks,
>that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free
>content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational
>context without including the media itself."  Maybe one fair-use image
>in twenty on the English Wikipedia meets these criteria.
>
>
There are also a fairly substantial number of photos that I've found
which are licensed "for use on Wikipedia only".  These are currently
cataloged and listed under fair-use images, but are not allowed for a
3rd party to use.  I just found a couple of these yesterday, and it sort
of surprised me that they were even there, as the copyright owner has
given the WMF permission to host them on Wikipedia but they are
otherwise unfree for anybody else to use them.

With this new policy, I guess these sort of images would have to be
deleted on en.wikipedia.

--
Robert Scott Horning


body:
I am not responding to the rest of your email right now. Not out of
disrespect but instead because I think we can go much further once one
misunderstanding is cleared up.

On 2/8/07, Claudio Mastroianni <gattonero at gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's repeat.
> Images with permission? Not allowed.
> Fair use images? Allowed.

Images which would be fairuse/dealing in places where that is
permitted (which is far more than 4 or 5 countries) plus permission?
Allowed.

Wikimedia is an international project. Where the laws of nations
differ we must deal with a few hard constraints (the laws of where the
WMF itself legally operates) and otherwise try to strike a balance
which makes the most sense in most of the world.

Yes, the foundation sees permission as more restrictive than fair
dealing, because it is for the foundations larger goals. Itwiki is
still able to accept permission, it only must also make an effort to
make sure these images would be fair use/fair dealing in the places
where these concepts are codified in law.

Again, what do you lose?


body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

>Mark Wagner wrote:
>
>>Nothing will change for en.wiki? Hardly. If I'm reading this
>>
>>correctly, most of the images used under a claim of "fair use" are no
>>longer allowed, and we'll need to figure out how to delete some
>>200,000 images, as well as how to educate thousands of users who are
>>used to uploading those sorts of images.
>>
>>
>>
>Record album covers? book covers?  publicity shots?  These are all used
>to such an extent that the owners can be treated as having abandoned
>copyright
>
>
Unfortunately there is no "statute of limitations" on copyright
infringement.  Unlike trademark and patent laws, copyright can be
enforced retroactively many years, even decades after the infringement
has occured.  It does not require active enforcement if somebody wants
to go in and try to seek damages... even if the image has since passed
into the public domain.  And due to the Berne Convention, there is no
asserted copyright that must be filed first in order to assume
copyright.  All images have complete copyright protections unless you
have explicitly recieved the content via license... hence the need for
something like the GPL and GFDL.

This is relatively recent in terms of American copyright standards,
where you could assume abandonded copyright if it wasn't registered with
the Library of Congress, or if the copyright wasn't renewed.
 Politically, I think that is a much more valid way to address copyright
where only those things that people are willing to say "I want this
copyrighted!" can get that kind of protection, but that isn't current law.

In the case of most publicity shots (perhaps not book and album covers),
I don't think the people being photographed really care all that much
about copyright.  The photographer, perhaps a little bit, but they are
getting paid for the photos wheither anybody pays royalties or not, and
strong copyright is not their bread and butter for those kind of photos.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Simetrical

body:
On 2/8/07, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think that the idea of this professor wanting to maintain creative control
> over her book is a difficult one to reconcile with Wikibooks, and one that I
> don't think a compromise is going to be found on. the primary goal of
> wikibooks is the collaborative authoring of textbooks, not simply a
> compilation of existing textbooks.

Well, it seems to me that the purpose of Wikibooks is to be "the
open-content textbooks collection", not "the open-content textbooks
collection that anyone can edit".  But perhaps this is a matter that
the Foundation should be consulted on.  I know that Jimbo has stepped
in to reorient the site in the past, with the game guides and so on.

> This point is true, but wikibooks is not supposed to be an advertising
> platform or a personal webhost.

No, but it is supposed to get quality textbooks to as many readers as
possible.  That goal is better served, leaving aside for the moment
how fundamental wiki is to Wikibooks, by accepting a quality textbook
than by refusing one.  In that regard, it benefits everyone more to
allow a good textbook to piggyback on Wikibooks' and Wikipedia's
success.  The issue of wiki or not does remain, of course.

On 2/8/07, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> Honestly, another "alternative" to this perhaps might be Wikiversity.
>  The policies are not quite as firm there, but I would have to say that
> the definition of a textbook on Wikiversity would be much stronger than
> perhaps what you would find on Wikibooks, where more general purpose
> "How-to" books are allowed.  If this could be integrated into a
> Wikiversity "course", there might even be some very real interest in
> having this hosted on Wikiversity.  Certainly this is something to bring
> up on the Wikiversity "Collequium" (the Wikiversity village pump).

That's possible, of course, but I think that the issue of wiki (which
is the point of contention here) would be just as much of an issue
there as here.  And while of course there's some overlap between
Wikiversity and Wikibooks, I think it makes substantially more sense
for Wikibooks to take a textbook than Wikiversity.

> try to find out why she is insisting on maintaining
> control over the word of the book and not opening it up for collaboration.

Well, as I see it, the openness of wiki and the openness of
traditional academia are similar in some ways but not the same.  In
academia, it's common to allow others extensive use of your work for
free (after distribution costs, which are now close to zero with the
advent of the Internet), but to claim credit for the work.  That is,
she wrote this book, and so it goes on her CV.  If it's widely used,
that probably also goes on her CV, along with the publisher and so
forth.  But "Wrote a textbook that other people modified and that is
now used" isn't the sort of thing that's customary among academics, I
don't think.  Coauthorship, yes, but then you coauthored it with a few
defined experts.  The wiki idea of not really claiming credit for the
work doesn't sit well with her, I don't think.

Now, she's perfectly happy for other people to modify it.  She would
be fine if there were two copies, each linking to the other, one
written by her and one editable by anyone.  In her words:

> I'd also be happy to have a version of it
> available for people to revise, so long as that one is clearly marked
> as an open mss and, this is the key point, so long as the one I wrote
> (perhaps revised as per some of the suggestions, as I have with the
> comments of 150 CCNY students and various art historians) remains
> posted, clearly marked as the work I wrote.

Perhaps this would be acceptable?  Possibly the unmodifiable one need
not even be hosted by Wikibooks, just linked to by it, which would
neatly solve all the problems.  I assume that Wikibooks would be happy
to put a prominent link to the original at the top of every module, if
it's available online somewhere.

> Another very real possibility, and something I'm just trying to dig up
> right now, is the Academia Wikia, which you can find at:
>  http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Again, the basic idea here is to get the textbook to a broad
readership, which tying into the WMF sites would do admirably.  If
it's not put at the WMF or some other prominent place, it may as well
go on a personal or college website.


body:
On 2/8/07, Claudio Mastroianni <gattonero at gmail.com> wrote:
> Il giorno 08/feb/07, alle ore 15:40, Andre Engels ha scritto:
>
> > There's been some discussion about this phrase on the Dutch IRC
> > channel.
>
> There are a lot of discussion on #wikipedia-it, #wikimedia, and the
> bar of wikipedia.
> The *totality* of italian people I've read of, for now, totally
> disagree with the decision of WMF.

but is this only because you have misrepresented it to them?

I'd like to understand how you came to represent all of itwiki.

With your loud and abrasive style, you do not appear to be someone I
would have selected to represent me.


body:
On 2/8/07, Claudio Mastroianni <gattonero at gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is that: stated that clarify once for all what's fair use
> and what's not is impossible, fair use are going to remain "vita
> natural durante" (forever and ever) on en.wiki.
> Are we thinking that every single image is going to be discuss if
> "acceptable fair use" or not? Unreal.
>
> Gatto Nero
>

in theory that is already the case. In practice there are various bot
asisted ways to burn through them.

--
geni


from_name: GerardM

body:
Hoi,
I think Erik said "please wait until the official resolution"... So do quote
only a snippit of what he wrote and do continue theorising what he meant.. I
think the bit you forgot to copy was.. please WAIT..
Thanks,
    GerardM

On 2/8/07, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com> wrote:
>
> I think Erik means that the Italian wiki is free to 1) restrict
> acceptable content further than Wikimedia requires, or 2) find ways
> within Italian and U.S. law (combined) to accept material under
> copyright exceptions like fair use. (Yes, I know Italy does not have
> "fair use.")
>
> Content that is non-commercial-use-only or specially licensed to
> Wikipedia or Wikimedia is counter to Wikimedia's mission of free
> knowledge.
>
> Claudio Mastroianni wrote:
> > Il giorno 08/feb/07, alle ore 11:28, Erik Moeller ha scritto:
> >
> >> The Italian Wikipedia, by the way, is free to develop an exemption
> >> policy that resonates with US & Italian law on copyright exemptions.
> >> --
> >> Peace & Love,
> >> Erik
> >
> > We found it (images with permission), WMF told this is not valid. We
> > have no alternatives. Saying the "the italian is free to develop an
> > exemption policy", then, is false.
> >
> > Gatto Nero
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>


body:
Il giorno 08/feb/07, alle ore 11:51, David Strauss ha scritto:

> I think Erik means that the Italian wiki is free to 1) restrict
> acceptable content further than Wikimedia requires, or 2) find ways
> within Italian and U.S. law (combined) to accept material under
> copyright exceptions like fair use. (Yes, I know Italy does not have
> "fair use.")
>
> Content that is non-commercial-use-only or specially licensed to
> Wikipedia or Wikimedia is counter to Wikimedia's mission of free
> knowledge.

I - as many othe wikipedians who are shocked and "a bit angry" about
WMF decision - think that fair use is as counter to wikimedia's
mission as images with permissions.

And I - as other wikipedians who are shocked bla bla bla - think that
saying "You're allowed to do something that's impossible to do" is
just like treat us like fools.

I still can't understand how's been possible to state two
constrasting statement in the same letter, as "we accept only free
media for all users and purposes" and "we accept fair use, who's not
*for all users and purposes*".

Reporting an it.wikipedian's opinion: "Foundation members should work
in politics, if they are so able to do this"


body:
Il giorno 08/feb/07, alle ore 11:58, GerardM ha scritto:

> Hoi,
> I think Erik said "please wait until the official resolution"... So
> do quote
> only a snippit of what he wrote and do continue theorising what he
> meant.. I
> think the bit you forgot to copy was.. please WAIT..
> Thanks,
>     GerardM

Big error, read the signature of the first mail by Kat Walsh:

"Thanks to everyone for your input and hard work.

For the Wikimedia Foundation,
Kat Walsh"

*For the Wikimedia Foundation,"

Gatto Nero


from_name: Mark Ryan

subject: [WikiEN-l] I go away for a few days and all this happens?

body:
I consider this thread now closed. Please, nobody reply to it.

~Mark Ryan


body:
Il giorno 08/feb/07, alle ore 11:36, Ray Saintonge ha scritto:

> Not at all.  Limited fair use is available for all projects.  If the
> Italian projects choose not to have fair use that is entirely their
> choice.  Nobody in any en preject is telling you that you can or can't
> have fair use.
>
> Ec

Again: fair use is *illegal* in a lot of different countries, Italy
included.
It's not "our choice", it's just wa can't.

Gatto Nero


body:
On 2/8/07, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with this view, personally I think it satisfies both the needs
> of being free in the US (because of the fair use) and being acceptable
> in those unfortunate countries where you need permission. But, ehm, in
> the previous email you said that you shouldn't say that the author
> authorizes every ND or NC use, so where are we going to write that we
> have the explicit permission to use that media?

You make a fair point.

Which is why my personal views are my personal views, and they are not
policy. They are sometimes not completely considered.

However, I firmly believe that we should probably avoid getting
permission/nc/nd on most projects (although perhaps not itwiki)
because of the large number of places where we can use fair use and
the risk for making the impression that these limited permissions are
what we want.  If at some point in time someone convinces me that
there is not a parallel to fair use in the effective law (i.e. the
actions of the courts) in a substantial part of the world, then I
would probably change my mind.


from_name: Marco Chiesa

body:
GerardM wrote:

>Hoi,
>When a ND picture qualifies as fair use, the reason why you can maintain the
>existence is that it is fair use. The fact that it is also available as a ND
>is irrelevant and would be a reason for deletion.
>Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
>
>
I think this can be a very important point and possibly the solution for
the projects in languages which are centered in countries which do not
allow fair use. Projects would be able to use less free media if these
are compatible with the fair use policies and still be compliant with
the national laws.

Marco (Cruccone on it.wikipedia)


from_name: Gunnar René Øie

body:
Den 8. feb. 2007 kl. 12.00 skrev Claudio Mastroianni:

>
> I still can't understand how's been possible to state two
> constrasting statement in the same letter, as "we accept only free
> media for all users and purposes" and "we accept fair use, who's not
> *for all users and purposes*".

Because if the fair use claim is valid and strong enough, then
commercial re-users can use those fair-use images. Non-commercial and
"Wikipedia only"? Not so.


body:
Hoi,
If this is the case check the times. Erik wrote some 40 minutes ago. Kat
wrote some 8 hours ago.
Thanks,
    GerardM

On 2/8/07, Claudio Mastroianni <gattonero at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Il giorno 08/feb/07, alle ore 11:58, GerardM ha scritto:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I think Erik said "please wait until the official resolution"... So
> > do quote
> > only a snippit of what he wrote and do continue theorising what he
> > meant.. I
> > think the bit you forgot to copy was.. please WAIT..
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
>
> Big error, read the signature of the first mail by Kat Walsh:
>
> "Thanks to everyone for your input and hard work.
>
> For the Wikimedia Foundation,
> Kat Walsh"
>
>
> *For the Wikimedia Foundation,"
>
>
> Gatto Nero
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: habj

body:
2007/2/8, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
>
>
> Please wait for the official resolution.

Fair enough! I just wonder about the next part of the same message

The Italian Wikipedia, by the way, is free to develop an exemption
> policy that resonates with US & Italian law on copyright exemptions.

When the official resolution comes, I would be very happy if there was
attached or included some kind of explanations as to if and how the laws of
Italy are important for Italian Wikipedia, the laws of Finland matters for
Finnish Wikipedia, etc. The servers are in Florida, so all of the Wikimedia
project have to abide abide by US law - fine. I am a Swedish citizen and so
I have to obey Swedish law if and when I upload stuff, and that is true
regardless if I upload files to Swedish Wikipedia, Japanese Wikipedia, or to
Commons. To me and many others, this does not necessarily imply that Turkish
law is relevant when it comes to what rules Turkish Wikipedia should have.
The degree might vary, but each and every project has users living in
several different countries; after all, the projects are defined according
to language, not nationality or residency. Some guidelines in this matter
would be helpful, as I am sure this is a topic of debate in many projects. I
do know that different projects have taken different stands on the matter -
on what grounds I am not sure.

/habj


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
2007/2/8, Gunnar Ren? ?ie <gunnarre at nvg.ntnu.no>:

> Because if the fair use claim is valid and strong enough, then
> commercial re-users can use those fair-use images. Non-commercial and
> "Wikipedia only"? Not so.
>

Can they? The en-wp fair use rationale states that it is valid fair use
"On the English-language Wikipedia hosted on servers in the United States by
the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation."

And what about ND images? If there is an image that is fair use on a page,
and the rationale is strong enough to allow me to use it, then surely I
would be allowed to use an ND image at the same place.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


body:
2007/2/8, habj <sweetadelaide at gmail.com>:

> When the official resolution comes, I would be very happy if there was
> attached or included some kind of explanations as to if and how the laws
> of
> Italy are important for Italian Wikipedia, the laws of Finland matters for
> Finnish Wikipedia, etc. The servers are in Florida, so all of the
> Wikimedia
> project have to abide abide by US law - fine. I am a Swedish citizen and
> so
> I have to obey Swedish law if and when I upload stuff, and that is true
> regardless if I upload files to Swedish Wikipedia, Japanese Wikipedia, or
> to
> Commons. To me and many others, this does not necessarily imply that
> Turkish
> law is relevant when it comes to what rules Turkish Wikipedia should have.
>

Well, the main idea is that Wikipedia should be re-usable. It is reasonable
to assume that the Turkish Wikipedia is used more in Turkey, and the Swedish
one in Sweden. Therefore, if there is something that is allowed in the US
and Sweden, but not in Turkey, forbidding it on the Turkish Wikipedia but
allowing it on the Swedish does not sound too bad an idea to me.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 2/8/07, Claudio Mastroianni <gattonero at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Images which would be fairuse/dealing in places where that is
> > permitted (which is far more than 4 or 5 countries) plus permission?
> > Allowed.
>
> How are you going to obtain it?

The same way you obtain it now. You ask.

> There's no way for an italian (or other people from other countries
> which don't have fair use/dealing) to upload an image "under fair use".
> The only way to upload these images, is by permission. But permission
> doesn't mean "You have the right to use it in every way you want":
> permission means "You can use it in these precise conditions".
> Then: it's impossible for a "image with permission" to be tagged as
> "fair use", cause a tag like this would not respect the deal who
> brought to the permission.

You can make a tag which says something like:

"The copyright holder of this image has granted permission to use this
image only on Wikipedia. Normally Wikipedia does not accept images
which can only be used on Wikipedia, however, the [[fair dealing]]
laws of some countries make other uses of this image possible. Fair
dealing does not exist in Italy, but because we have both permission
and the possibility for fair dealing outside of Italy we have accepted
the copyright holders permission."

> I'm not sure if I've been clear.
> The way permission works is:
> "Ehy, copyright holder, could we use an image of your *whatever* on
> Wikipedia?"
> "Yes, wikipedian. You can use it ON http://it.wikipedia.org, but no
> printing" (or similar)
> That's why, if I put a "fair use tag" or permitt another one to use a
> "fair use tag", the deal is broken.

I do not follow your leap of reasoning. The fact that an image in an
article would be fair use dealing, say, Canada is a fact which you do
not control.  That you do not admit it today on your image pages does
not make it any less true.

> That's the point. UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and
> Singapore are not "the most of the world".
> Surely we can't allow copyrighted images, that's why we can't allow
> fair use images.

These are by no means the only countries which have the at least a
parallel concept to fair dealing in their practical law.  Where did
you get the idea that only those countries have something like fair
dealing?

> > Yes, the foundation sees permission as more restrictive than fair
> > dealing, because it is for the foundations larger goals.
> Making money in the Commonwealth?
> Distributing information in the Commonwealth, where fair use images
> are legal?

So ... Now we see the real reason that you are upset. You are still
convinced that the foundation is out to exploit you in an evil and
commercial way.

> > Again, what do you lose?
>
> Again, "all media on Wikimedia sites which are used under terms that
> specify non-commercial use only, no-derivatives only, or permission
> for Wikimedia only, need to be be phased out and replaced with media
> that does not have these restrictions"

"Some works that are under licenses we do not accept (such as
non-derivative) may meet these conditions."
"However, no project may have content policies less restrictive, or
that allow licenses other than those allowed on Wikimedia Commons and
limited fair use."

I am completely confident that the foundations statement was in no way
intending to say that you could not seek permission in addition to the
image being accepted under fair dealing law where it exists.  The
foundation allows projects to have more restrictive rules, a fair
dealing claim plus permission is one possibly way of being more
restrictive.


body:
Hoi,
When a ND picture qualifies as fair use, the reason why you can maintain the
existence is that it is fair use. The fact that it is also available as a ND
is irrelevant and would be a reason for deletion.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 2/8/07, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2007/2/8, Gunnar Ren? ?ie <gunnarre at nvg.ntnu.no>:
>
> > Because if the fair use claim is valid and strong enough, then
> > commercial re-users can use those fair-use images. Non-commercial and
> > "Wikipedia only"? Not so.
> >
>
> Can they? The en-wp fair use rationale states that it is valid fair use
> "On the English-language Wikipedia hosted on servers in the United States
> by
> the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation."
>
> And what about ND images? If there is an image that is fair use on a page,
> and the rationale is strong enough to allow me to use it, then surely I
> would be allowed to use an ND image at the same place.
>
>
> --
> Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
> ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
Il giorno 08/feb/07, alle ore 12:08, Gunnar Ren? ?ie ha scritto:

> Because if the fair use claim is valid and strong enough, then
> commercial re-users can use those fair-use images.

Not in Italy, and in other coutries too I think.

Gatto Nero


body:
Den 8. feb. 2007 kl. 12.17 skrev Andre Engels:

> 2007/2/8, Gunnar Ren? ?ie <gunnarre at nvg.ntnu.no>:
>
>> Because if the fair use claim is valid and strong enough, then
>> commercial re-users can use those fair-use images. Non-commercial and
>> "Wikipedia only"? Not so.
>>
>
> Can they? The en-wp fair use rationale states that it is valid fair
> use
> "On the English-language Wikipedia hosted on servers in the United
> States by
> the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation."

And when you hack that part away, and deprecate those templates and
rationales that only apply to Wikipedia and non-commercial enteties,
you're left with those that would apply to all re-users in countries
with a similar fair use doctrine as the US.

> And what about ND images? If there is an image that is fair use on
> a page,
> and the rationale is strong enough to allow me to use it, then
> surely I
> would be allowed to use an ND image at the same place.

I assume you mean non-comm.

Yes, that is true, but then you're tagging it as fair use, not as non-
comm.


from_name: Larry Pieniazek

body:
I'm an OTRS Newbie but I agree with Stephen that this approach is sound, and
that keeping a single point of contact for legal concerns is likely to be
the best approach, and that the OTRS gang does a generally good job of
binning things correctly...

> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 15:51:53 +0000
> From: "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] If you don't object to this, you're consenting
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>,
> "Wikimedia
> 	Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<fbad4e140702080751k3103bde8xf4f4647defe959da at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_er
ror_%28from_enterprise%29
>
> I posted about this to both these lists and have had no
> replies or comment whatsoever so far.
>
> So unless someone comes up with really convincing reasons not
> to push this as the place to send companies with article
> concerns - and I mean as in, sending out a press release -
> then that's precisely what's going to happen.
>
> In particular, are there any OTRS volunteers who can tell me
> if that's the best way to raise a substantial legal concern
> about something on en:wp?
>
>
> - d.

> Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 03:47:59 +1100
> From: "Stephen Bain" <stephen.bain at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] If you don't object to this, you're consenting
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<f30e42de0702080847waed0fa0u76ede54b58fb92ad at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 2/9/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In particular, are there any OTRS volunteers who can tell
> me if that's
> > the best way to raise a substantial legal concern about
> something on
> > en:wp?
>
> Yes, it should (generally) go to OTRS. Volunteers there know
> how to put matters before the right people if necessary, or
> deal with it themselves if it's just some junk in the article.
>
> You might like to also mention pages such as
> [[foundation:designated agent]] where the Foundation contact
> page is mentioned.
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain at gmail.com

Larry Pieniazek
Work mail:   lpieniaz at us.ibm.com
Hobby mail:  lar at miltontrainworks.com


body:
What part of it is nonsense?
   - Cool Cat

On 2/8/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Cool Cat wrote:
>
> >Everybody has a religion ...
> >
> >
> Yhat statement is utter nonsense!
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] An expanded-topic Mailing List

body:
on 2/8/07 5:46 AM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge at telus.net wrote:

> The problem with chat rooms is that they are
> geared toward people with short attention spans who think is one-line
> bites.  The kind of thoughtful discussion that Marc envisions does not
> fit in that kind of environment.  In some cases I prefer to wait a day
> or two to think about my answer before replying.

Exactly!

I'd like to make my thoughts about my proposal as clear as I can.

The sociocultural issues that would be discussed in this new Mailing List
are ones that exist in the world at large, not within the Wikipedia
Community.

I haven't been participating in the WikiEN-L Mailing List all that long, but
in the time that I have I've found the participants to be an interesting-,
diverse- and eclectic-sounding group. Often times in the posts that I read a
person will touch upon, or brush up against, an issue that has larger-world
social or cultural connections, but back off very quickly saying the list
isn't for that. And, they are right, it isn't. That's when it occurred to
me: why not have a Mailing List where persons could express their feelings
and beliefs about such larger social and cultural issues; compare and
contrast their own beliefs and ideas with others; and perhaps learn
something in the process. It would provide a forum to, perhaps most
importantly, question those social and cultural ?absolutes? we take as
gospel because ?that?s the way it is?, or (worse) that?s the way it?s always
been?.

Chat room style formats very often consist of knee-jerk responses that
represent beliefs and opinions learned strictly from other persons; rather
than ones we ourselves have formulated after taking that input, chewing on
it for a while, and coming up with ones that are truly our own.

I admit this could, at times, attract persons who want just to argue for its
own sake; push their own beliefs and agendas; and could (more likely,
probably would) at times, turn into an unproductive shouting match. If these
types of situations did occur, it would also give the other, more
disciplined participants an opportunity to learn how to control such
situations.

I believe if the purpose and goal of the List is set to learn rather than to
merely convince, something positive could come of it.

Marc Riddell


from_name: Aude

body:
Okay... I noticed the addition of "About Wikipedia" in the sidebar and
discussion at [[MediaWiki_talk:Sidebar#Wikipedia:About]], before seeing this
thread on the mailing list.

I'm of the opinion that the [[Wikipedia:About]] page needs to be most
helpful as can be in answering questions people often have about Wikipedia.
This is especially true, since it is linked more prominently.  With that in
mind, I have boldly gone through the page to do copyedits and reorder
sections, as needed.  I may come back later, after giving more about the
most commonly asked questions and issues are, and see that those are
addressed properly in the "About" page.

Your suggestions and feedback would be most helpful, or please go in and
improve the page yourself if you wish.  I don't mind taking the page to meta
and working on a common version.

-Aude

On 2/8/07, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/8/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sandra (the Foundation communications person) suggested an "About
> > Wikipedia" link go in the sidebar, not just at the bottom of each
> > page. So I floated it on [[MediaWiki Talk:Sidebar]], got no objections
> > and put it in today. This is to be the sort of "about" link lots of
> > websites have.
> >
> > The link goes to [[Wikipedia:About]]. I ask the august embattled
> > wikiveterans of this list to hack at said page until it's actually the
> > sort of thing a completely fresh visitor would expect to see linked
> > from "About Wikipedia." At the moment it strikes me as about twice as
> > long as it should be and entirely peppered in caveats ... thoughts
> > plz.
> >
> >
> > - 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
> >
>
> I'd rather ask people to settle on a final version on meta, so we can
> translate it consistently accros projects. Otherwise en: will endup
> having a version different from what other wikipedias have.
>
> This is the sort of things that should have the same information
> across languages
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

--
Aude


subject: [Foundation-l] Lack of Image Dumps

body:
On 2/8/07, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> The worse news is that the dumps would be so huge that no one will
> actually be able to get or use them anyway. ;)

Not true.. Plus it'll be much easier than downloading each of the
images one by one.. especially as long as we still are returning zero
byte content-length replies sometimes.


subject: [Foundation-l] Lack of Image Dumps


from_name: Ruud Koot

subject: [WikiEN-l] Expandable dablinks

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> ...
> It may be possible to do it with some CSS magic, like putting a class
> on the {{dab}} template, and somehow making that class invisible when
> it gets transcluded.
> ...

Which won't work on browsers that don't support CSS. I believe the best
way to do this would be to load the diambiguation page using [[Ajax
(programming)|Ajax]]. This should degrade nicely on browsers without
JS/CSS.

--Ruud


from_name: Kat Walsh

body:
On 2/8/07, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco at gmail.com> wrote:
> Claudio Mastroianni wrote:
>
> >There's no way for an italian (or other people from other countries
> >which don't have fair use/dealing) to upload an image "under fair use".
> >The only way to upload these images, is by permission. But permission
> >doesn't mean "You have the right to use it in every way you want":
> >permission means "You can use it in these precise conditions".
> >Then: it's impossible for a "image with permission" to be tagged as
> >"fair use", cause a tag like this would not respect the deal who
> >brought to the permission.
> >
> >I'm not sure if I've been clear.
> >
> >The way permission works is:
> >"Ehy, copyright holder, could we use an image of your *whatever* on
> >Wikipedia?"
> >"Yes, wikipedian. You can use it ON http://it.wikipedia.org, but no
> >printing" (or similar)
> >
> >That's why, if I put a "fair use tag" or permitt another one to use a
> >"fair use tag", the deal is broken.
> >
> >
>
> Gatto, the point is: an Italian person which will like to reuse that
> media will have to ask the copyright owner: "Hey, I saw this picture on
> Wikipedia, I'd like to use it in Lumacapedia, can I?" An American person
> will be able to use it in Snailpedia and print and sell the Snailpedia
> DVD in the US and some other countries without asking the copyright
> owner. That's it.
>
> Now, I understand there will be guidelines on what fair use is going to
> be allowed in Wikimedia. I guess a low-res reproduction of Guernica by
> Picasso will be allowed on the articles about Guernica by Picasso, while
> probably a promo photograph of Britney Spears will not be allowed. As
> soon as this is clarified, an Italian user may need to ask permission to
> Picasso's heirs to upload the picture of the painting, and say that
> where it applies the image is used under fair use. Plus you have the
> copyright owner's placet, in case you can't claim fair use.
>
> As far as the Italian wikipedia is concerned, I think that many images
> we use with permission will qualify for Wikimedia fair use. Coat of arms
> of communes, paintings in the museums of Florence, maybe comics
> characters. For the copyrighted photos of places, well, a free
> alternative is possible, so it doesn't seem unreasonable not to use them.
>
> Marco (Cruccone)

Ah, good, I was writing a response to that post but it seems better
coming from another Italian. :-)

This is a fair statement, and this sort of discussion is what you
should have on itwiki to determine what you ultimately decide to
allow... it is not perhaps so bad as some are thinking and I don't
know that I am the one to convince you.

-Kat

--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone


from_name: Jon Harald Søby

body:
On 2/8/07, Gunnar Ren? ?ie <gunnarre at nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> Den 8. feb. 2007 kl. 12.00 skrev Claudio Mastroianni:
>
> >
> > I still can't understand how's been possible to state two
> > constrasting statement in the same letter, as "we accept only free
> > media for all users and purposes" and "we accept fair use, who's not
> > *for all users and purposes*".
>
> Because if the fair use claim is valid and strong enough, then
> commercial re-users can use those fair-use images. Non-commercial and
> "Wikipedia only"? Not so.

Wrong. If the fair use claim is valid and strong enough, then
commercial re-users can use those fair-use images IN THE USA. Please
note that 30-33% - or some 111 million people* - of all first-language
users live outside the US, and thus cannot legally freely reuse this
content. If you count second-language speakers as well, this number
rises to 1.5 BILLION PEOPLE who cannot freely reuse Wikipedia
content.* Is that within our scope? I don't think so.

* If I read the Wikipedia article on English correctly.

--
Best regards,
Jon Harald S?by

Website - http://www.alqualonde.com/
Wikipedia - http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Jhs
MSN messenger - jhsoby at gmail.com
Skype - jon.harald.soby


body:
On 2/8/07, Claudio Mastroianni <gattonero at gmail.com> wrote:

> Nice. As far as I've understood, Board decided so:
>
> "With permission? Not admitted.
> Fair use? Ehr... it could be... maybe... it depends... Oh, ok,
> admitted."
>
> Maybe I've understood wrong? Cause if you say that media with
> permission "need to be phased out" (with no expection) and fair use
> media *should* not be used... It seems so.
>
> And I'm sorry to say that again: the italian community is the only
> one to be affected by this decision, 'cause nothing will change for
> en.wiki.
> Here again, Foundation is en.centric...
>
> Nice and very fair, again.
> I'll inform my community.
>
> Claudio / Gatto Nero

While this is a position you have held before and I don't think I will
be able to convince you otherwise, I'd like to clarify that this is
absolutely not the case.

1) This is as much to clear it up for en: as any of the number of
other communities we've become aware of over the past several months
that had a different idea of what is and is not allowed. (You may be
interested to know that much of enwiki is upset also!)

2) You are welcome to use fair use if your community decides based on
legal and editorial considerations to allow it. I do not know the laws
of Italy, so I cannot say; surely someone who does know them better
can.

(Unfortunately if it is not the case that you can use it, it is the
laws of Italy and not the policy of WMF that you should be taking
issue with. It seems that it may not be so strictly against it as you
are thinking, but I will leave this to others who are more
knowledgeable about them.)

-Kat

--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 08/02/07, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:

> How does ND exclude and fair use not? What does fair use enable? If done
> well, the same image in the same way can be used in the same article and
> also in changes to the article provided they are not major. If there were
> not a fair use image, but an ND one, you could do that AND MORE.

Define "derivative" for the purposes of "no derivatives." e.g.
Resizing is a derivative. "ND" is deeply flawed.

- d.


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

body:
On 2/8/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> All of it.  I do not have a religion, and I find it insulting to suggest
> that I do.  I'm confident that I am not alone in that view.

You're not.


body:
On 2/8/07, Claudio Mastroianni <gattonero at gmail.com> wrote:
> Gregory - very politely - came to #wikipedia-it on IRC, trying to
> explain something (and then flying away, insulting).

I did not intend to insult. My parting comment was

"gattonero, if you are going to try to turn this yet another fight
about your paranoia about commercial use and Wikipedia, then I will
not participate. Caio Caio"

I already worked my knuckles raw talking to you about your fears of
exploitation by the Wikimedia Foundation last month.  If I have to do
much more if it, I may just kill myself. :)  I recognize that your
position will not change through discussion with me. So I run and
hide, please forgive my weakness.


body:
Den 8. feb. 2007 kl. 13.00 skrev Jon Harald S?by:

> On 2/8/07, Gunnar Ren? ?ie <gunnarre at nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
>>
>> Den 8. feb. 2007 kl. 12.00 skrev Claudio Mastroianni:
>>
>>>
>>> I still can't understand how's been possible to state two
>>> constrasting statement in the same letter, as "we accept only free
>>> media for all users and purposes" and "we accept fair use, who's not
>>> *for all users and purposes*".
>>
>> Because if the fair use claim is valid and strong enough, then
>> commercial re-users can use those fair-use images. Non-commercial and
>> "Wikipedia only"? Not so.
>
> Wrong.

No, not wrong. The statement "There exists commercial re-users who
can use fair use images and there exists no commercial re-user that
can use "non-comm" images outside of fair use" is true, with
exception for those countries that don't enforce copyright law. I
didn't say "all" re-users. Read the statement from Kat again.


from_name: Piero

body:
Waiting for the official resolution, I still do not understand why an
image under fair use should be used in en.wiki (and probably only in
en.wiki) and an image with permission and non-commercial should not be
used on a project where the fair use is "de facto" illegal.
Assuming that both images with permission and fair use images have to be
limited *only* for uses that request necessarily an image and when no
free images are available.
I do not think that even a strong fair use image may be re-used for
commercial purposes.
Moreover considering that images with permission are checked to assure
that they are used only for allowed case (through OTRS), and fair use
images are not.

piero tasso
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:P_tasso


body:
2007/2/8, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>
> Hoi,
> When a ND picture qualifies as fair use, the reason why you can maintain
> the
> existence is that it is fair use. The fact that it is also available as a
> ND
> is irrelevant and would be a reason for deletion.

I know that that's the policy, I'm just trying to show the illogicality of
the reasoning behind the policy. According to the message I was responding
to, fair use was okay partly because it does, when used well enough, not
infringe on the possibilities on reuse. Well, the same holds for ND, but
that is still disallowed.

And in fact I think it IS illogical to say "this image may be used in
unmodified form in any way, but nmay not be modified" is not free, when
"this image in this form may be used in the way we are using it, but we
don't say anything about other uses" is.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


from_name: geni

body:
On 2/8/07, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:

> That's your interpretation, not mine.

It is an issue that has been argued over for some time. For CC:
"Derivative Work"

means any work created by the editing, modification, adaptation or
translation of the Work in any media.

Resizing is a modification So while the intent may not have been to
rule out resizing the text of the licence would appear to do so (why
is it that the legal text of CC licences gets more choppy with every
generation?)

>And anyway, making a derivative work
> from a fair use image is even less possible - I cannot even take it out of
> the page, so resizing is fully impossible.

That would depend on the image and the context.

--
geni


body:
2007/2/8, David Strauss <david at fourkitchens.com>:

> > And what about ND images? If there is an image that is fair use on a
> page,
> > and the rationale is strong enough to allow me to use it, then surely I
> > would be allowed to use an ND image at the same place.
>
> Yes, because fair use is tangential to licensing. If you have a good
> fair-use rationale for an image, then you may use it under fair use.
> Having the additional option of a no-derivatives license does not
> infringe on that right.
>

Sorry, I don't think I made my point clear. What I meant was:
"If there is a Wikipedia page with a fair use image, and the presence of
that fair use image is (because of a strong enough fair use rationale) no
impedence to further copying of the Wikipedia page, then having an ND image
instead of the fair use one would definitely not be an impedence. Yet
including the image as fair use is allowed, but including the ND image is
not.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


body:
On 08/02/07, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2007/2/8, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:
> > On 08/02/07, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:

> > > How does ND exclude and fair use not? What does fair use enable? If done

> > Define "derivative" for the purposes of "no derivatives." e.g.
> > Resizing is a derivative. "ND" is deeply flawed.

> That's your interpretation, not mine.

The text itself is tricky:

    http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/

"#  No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work."

    http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/legalcode

b. "Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work
and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical
arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version,
sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted,
except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be
considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the
avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound
recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a
moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the
purpose of this License.

(Is a resizing an abridgement? A condensation? Is it "any other form"?)

3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License,
Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to
exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:

   1. to reproduce the Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more
Collective Works, and to reproduce the Work as incorporated in the
Collective Works;
   2. to distribute copies or phonorecords of, display publicly,
perform publicly, and perform publicly by means of a digital audio
transmission the Work including as incorporated in Collective Works;

The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now
known or hereafter devised. The above rights include the right to make
such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights
in other media and formats, but otherwise you have no rights to make
Derivative Works. [...]

(2. appears to contradict the definition of derivatives. Is a resizing
technically necessary?)

- d.


body:
On 2/8/07, Claudio Mastroianni <gattonero at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Il giorno 08/feb/07, alle ore 19:09, Gregory Maxwell ha scritto:
>
> > I did not intend to insult. My parting comment was
> >
> > "gattonero, if you are going to try to turn this yet another fight
> > about your paranoia about commercial use and Wikipedia, then I will
> > not participate. Caio Caio"
>
> No, you're right. You've been very kind and polite to come to
> #wikipedia-it, change our topic using *your* point of view, and then
> "flying away" calling me a paranoid as soon as other people but me
> started to not agree with you.
>
> Me silly.

I changed the topic to say that with permission images are allowed iff
they could be claimed to be fair use too... This is a fact, it is not
my opinion.   When I entered the topic implied that the simple fact
that you obtained permission would have meant you had to delete the
image, no matter what other reasons you also had to keep it, this is
not correct.

I also talked for many minutes, but as I said, I will not participate
if you're going to spin this as some evil conspiracy to commercialize
your labor.


body:
2007/2/8, Gunnar Ren? ?ie <gunnarre at nvg.ntnu.no>:

> > And what about ND images? If there is an image that is fair use on
> > a page,
> > and the rationale is strong enough to allow me to use it, then
> > surely I
> > would be allowed to use an ND image at the same place.
>
> I assume you mean non-comm.
>
> Yes, that is true, but then you're tagging it as fair use, not as non-
> comm.
>

No, I meant non-derivative. Why should I tag a use as fair use if it is well
within permissions that I have?

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
jayjg wrote:

>On 2/8/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 2/5/07, Cool Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_2#Category:Jews
>>>
>>>I proposed a rename as per wikipedias categorization scheme, we add "people"
>>>to any ethnicity. There appears to be a number of panic "oppose" votes. What
>>>do you think?
>>>
>>>
>>For what it's worth, I do find the formulations "Jews", "American
>>Jews" etc rather awkward and find they have unfortunate connotations.
>>
>>
>"It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in
>phrases such as 'Jew lawyer' or 'Jew ethics', is both vulgar and
>highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable
>possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this
>construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a
>noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as
>'There are now several Jews on the council', which is unobjectionable,
>the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of
>Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply
>that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun."
>
> The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
>Edition.  2000.
>
>"Jew" is not a dirty word.
>
Excellent analysis.  There are still some situations where Jew might be
used attributively, like "jewfish", but these are mostly uncommon, and
in a context which would be recognized by those concerned.  Using "Jew"
to refer to an ethnicity is dangerous.  That practice has allowed
certain governments to call anyone with a Jewish great-grandparent a
Jew, even if the person has left the Jewish community and converted to
some other faith.

Devising politically correct euphemisms often only serves to exacerbate
the problem.

Ec


body:
Cool Cat wrote:

>Buddhists should also be named [[Buddhist people]] to be consistent.
>   - Cool Cat
>
I was about to ask if you know any Buddhists who aren't people.
However, if I reflect on the Buddhist doctrine of reincarnation, I find
that there very well may be. ;-)

Ec


from_name: Martin Swift

body:
Hi Simetrical,

I fear there may be a snag in that second condition. As Robert pointed
out, Wikisource might be a better place for this, but I believe they
only host published works which, since your friend is considering a
free license, this book isn't.

On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 09:07:44PM -0500, Simetrical wrote:
> 2) That no one other than her change it (presumably other than
> wikilinking, breaking it into subpages, modifying navigational
> headers, that sort of thing).
>
> Now, obviously both points are largely against wiki principles, but my
> impression is that the basic goal of Wikibooks is to publish quality
> textbooks, and that wiki is just a means to an end here.  Would
> Wikibooks be willing to accept these terms?

Yes, Wikibooks is an open forum for the collaboration to write quality
educational material for public use. The problem is that the framework
of the wiki as a tool for collaboration allows easy modification of
any page to create a derived work which then becomes the new current
version of that page at Wikibooks.

Basically, I see no way, under as free a license as your friend wants
to use (and Wikibooks requires) to ensure that the current version
contents of the book are mostly her original work.

In my view, the best way for her to realise her objective, is to
simply host the book herself somewhere on the web. That will ensure
that she has editorial control of that copy at that location (though
others may choose to modify it elsewhere -- e.g. on Wikibooks).

Sincerely,
Martin Swift

--
\u270C


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Expandable dablinks

body:
On 2/8/07, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> I really like Steve's idea, but will it cause browser issues?

We already use this concept on a number of navigational templates,
such as as [[Template:Capital cities of the European Union]]. It
should be possible to make the template degrade nicely if JavaScript
is not switched on.

There seems to be some documentation on how this works here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NavFrame#Collapsible_tables

I don't know what happens if JavaScript is off, but what we would
probably like is to see just the normal disambig text, without the
transcluded page. As long as that happens, the user is no worse off
without javascript than they are now.

Steve


body:
Brianna Laugher ha scritto:
> On 08/02/07, Piero <pierogra at libero.it> wrote:
>
>> Moreover considering that images with permission are checked to assure
>> that they are used only for allowed case (through OTRS), and fair use
>> images are not.
>>
>
> No, that is not how OTRS permissions work. OTRS checks that the
> copyright-holder has released the media under a free license, not that
> limited-permission media are being used in those limited ways. 'Images
> with permission', if you mean Wikipedia-only permission images, would
> these days be told 'sorry, that's not free enough'.
>
> I thin IT.wp just needs to accept this announcement. Wailing about it
> is not going to make any progress. (And no I'm not a fair use
> apologist. I think we should abolish all fair use, too...)
>
> regards,
> Brianna
> user:pfctdayelise
>
>

I say that for "images with permission" is possible to have a sort of
control, for "fair use images" it's not possible;
I do not think we need absolutely images with permission, we can choose
to cut them off, which is probably the best solution; but I think that
an image with permission is more fair than a "fair use" one.

piero tasso


body:
Cool Cat wrote:

>Was that sarcasm? I am a bit confused. Based on that the usage of the word
>Jew can be used in a vulgar manner, something we clearly want to avoid.
>
A person skilled in the use of language knows how to use any word in a
vulgar manner.

Ec


from_name: Andrew Whitworth

body:
>Well, it seems to me that the purpose of Wikibooks is to be "the
>open-content textbooks collection", not "the open-content textbooks
>collection that anyone can edit".  But perhaps this is a matter that
>the Foundation should be consulted on.  I know that Jimbo has stepped
>in to reorient the site in the past, with the game guides and so on.

It's a little pretentious to think that wikibooks should change itself, or
that it should be changed by the WMF to allow any one particular book. Since
it's inception, Wikibooks (and all WMF projects for that matter) have been
primarily concerned with open content and collaboration. The rejection of
one or both of these ideals is not one that should be encouraged or
accepted.

Even if the professor's motivation is not financial, the desire for
recognition still counts as personal gain. If the selection as wikibooks as
the webhost for the book is made only because of readership traffic, and it
benefits the author more then it benefits the project, then I would
certainly call it an attempt to use Wikibooks as a personal webhost.

> > This point is true, but wikibooks is not supposed to be an advertising
> > platform or a personal webhost.
>
>No, but it is supposed to get quality textbooks to as many readers as
>possible.  That goal is better served, leaving aside for the moment
>how fundamental wiki is to Wikibooks, by accepting a quality textbook
>than by refusing one.

The stated goal of wikibooks is "the creation of open content textbooks". No
part of that statement may be omitted and still have it be truth. We are
more concerned with content creation then content hording, and the books
must be "open content" (and therefore free from unilateral editorial
control). Plenty of quality textbooks have been turned away from wikibooks
in the past, and many will likely be turned away in the future. We are not
currently desperate for new books enough to compromise our policies.

>Now, she's perfectly happy for other people to modify it.  She would
>be fine if there were two copies, each linking to the other, one
>written by her and one editable by anyone.  In her words:
>
> > I'd also be happy to have a version of it
> > available for people to revise, so long as that one is clearly marked
> > as an open mss and, this is the key point, so long as the one I wrote
> > (perhaps revised as per some of the suggestions, as I have with the
> > comments of 150 CCNY students and various art historians) remains
> > posted, clearly marked as the work I wrote.
>
>Perhaps this would be acceptable?  Possibly the unmodifiable one need
>not even be hosted by Wikibooks, just linked to by it, which would
>neatly solve all the problems.  I assume that Wikibooks would be happy
>to put a prominent link to the original at the top of every module, if
>it's available online somewhere.

This would be perfectly acceptable. As has been done in the past, if a book
is donated to wikibooks, prominent links will be displayed to the original
version of the book, and information will be posted about the original
author. If she has a PDF or other version of the book already, that version
could even be uploaded to our server for reference (although we can't make a
guarantee that any files uploaded won't be modified or overwritten, but it
is more difficult).

--Andrew Whitworth

_________________________________________________________________
Get in the mood for Valentine's Day. View photos, recipes and more on your
Live.com page.
http://www.live.com/?addTemplate=ValentinesDay&ocid=T001MSN30A0701


subject: [WikiEN-l] Expandable dablinks

body:
Ok, I did a proof of concept:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stevage/Disambig

Obviously it has graphical issues, but technically it seems pretty simple.

Steve

On 2/8/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/8/07, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I really like Steve's idea, but will it cause browser issues?
>
> We already use this concept on a number of navigational templates,
> such as as [[Template:Capital cities of the European Union]]. It
> should be possible to make the template degrade nicely if JavaScript
> is not switched on.
>
> There seems to be some documentation on how this works here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NavFrame#Collapsible_tables
>
> I don't know what happens if JavaScript is off, but what we would
> probably like is to see just the normal disambig text, without the
> transcluded page. As long as that happens, the user is no worse off
> without javascript than they are now.
>
> Steve
>


list: commons-l

from_name: Jonathan Buck

subject: [Commons-l] Can't get extended toolbar

body:
My toolbar only shows the standard 11 buttons.  I have seen examples in the
mediawiki help pages with a larger toolbar allowing tables and other
features to be added easily.  As I am looking for the tabling functionality,
how can I get the rest of the buttons?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20070208/b63e4c69/attachment.htm


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Andre Engels schreef:
> 2007/2/8, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hoi,
>> When a ND picture qualifies as fair use, the reason why you can maintain
>> the
>> existence is that it is fair use. The fact that it is also available as a
>> ND
>> is irrelevant and would be a reason for deletion.
>>
>
>
> I know that that's the policy, I'm just trying to show the illogicality of
> the reasoning behind the policy. According to the message I was responding
> to, fair use was okay partly because it does, when used well enough, not
> infringe on the possibilities on reuse. Well, the same holds for ND, but
> that is still disallowed.
>
> And in fact I think it IS illogical to say "this image may be used in
> unmodified form in any way, but nmay not be modified" is not free, when
> "this image in this form may be used in the way we are using it, but we
> don't say anything about other uses" is.
Hoi,
The ND does exclude. Fair use though  a complicated concept does allow
reuse for all on the same basis. These two have never been the same thing.
Thanks,
   GerardM


from_name: jayjg

body:
On 2/8/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/5/07, Cool Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_2#Category:Jews
> >
> > I proposed a rename as per wikipedias categorization scheme, we add "people"
> > to any ethnicity. There appears to be a number of panic "oppose" votes. What
> > do you think?
>
> For what it's worth, I do find the formulations "Jews", "American
> Jews" etc rather awkward and find they have unfortunate connotations.

"It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in
phrases such as 'Jew lawyer' or 'Jew ethics', is both vulgar and
highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable
possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this
construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a
noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as
'There are now several Jews on the council', which is unobjectionable,
the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of
Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply
that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun."

 The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
Edition.  2000.

"Jew" is not a dirty word.

Jay.


body:
Cool Cat wrote:

>You might want to stay away from the mailing lists if you are that fragile.
>The point of the mailing list is to discuss wikipedia related stuff, not
>your personal beliefs or whatever.
>
Sorry, but I thought that you had started this thread to push your own
beliefs.

>Just to satisfy you, I want to amend my comment. "Almost anyone has a
>religion".
>
:-P

>[[Category:People who do not have a religion]] is just as bad as
>[[Category:People who do  have a religion]]/[[Category:People who are from
>'type religion here']] in any case.
>
The logical conclusion from that is tht we should not have religious
categories at all.  If that's the case why are we even bpthering with
any distinction between Jews and Jewish people.  We could be deleting both.

Ec


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:11:31 +1100, "Steve Bennett"
<stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

>For what it's worth, I do find the formulations "Jews", "American
>Jews" etc rather awkward and find they have unfortunate connotations.
>Is it preferable to have "Jewish people" inconsistent with
>"Buddhists"? I don't know.

Any tiny bit of Jewish heritage allows notable individuals to be
claimed - they don't need to be Jews, just a bit Jew/ish/.

OK, I am a cynic.  Certainly in respect of groupings like these,
anyway.

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


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
2007/2/8, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:

> The ND does exclude. Fair use though  a complicated concept does allow
> reuse for all on the same basis. These two have never been the same thing.
>

How does ND exclude and fair use not? What does fair use enable? If done
well, the same image in the same way can be used in the same article and
also in changes to the article provided they are not major. If there were
not a fair use image, but an ND one, you could do that AND MORE.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] Complimentary vandalism?

body:
On 2/7/07, Mark Clements <gmane at kennel17.co.uk> wrote:
> The similarities are that the pages titles always contain index.php?title=xx
> (with various depths of /w or /wiki) and that the message is congratulating
> us on our site.  The user is always an anon, but without being able to

I think spambots use thes "congratulatory" messages to maximise their
chances of staying on the site. Which of these would you[1] delete:

Check out my site! http://...

You have an awesome site! I spent a while here and it's really
fantastic. The quality of information is amazing. Would you be
interested in checking out my site? http://

Steve
[1] Ok, not "you", but...


from_name: Frieda Brioschi

body:
2007/2/8, Erik Moeller <erik a wikimedia.org>:
> The Italian Wikipedia, by the way, is free to develop an exemption
> policy that resonates with US & Italian law on copyright exemptions.

Italian community is not a lawyer. But WMF is free to pay a lawyer to
find an acceptable compromise, isn't it?

Ciao,
Frieda
___________________________________________
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Frieda


body:
2007/2/8, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
> The Italian Wikipedia, by the way, is free to develop an exemption
> policy that resonates with US & Italian law on copyright exemptions.

Italian community is not a lawyer. But WMF is free to pay a lawyer to
find an acceptable compromise, isn't it?

Ciao,
Frieda
___________________________________________
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Frieda


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 2/8/07, Frieda Brioschi <ubifrieda at gmail.com> wrote:
> Italian community is not a lawyer. But WMF is free to pay a lawyer to
> find an acceptable compromise, isn't it?

That would be worth considering. The Italian chapter could play a
coordinating role in such a project. A similar legal expertise was
funded by the German chapter a while ago.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

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


from_name: Nick Jenkins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Bandwidth usage

body:
> > Just from a quick check of
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/main.css?55, removing all the
> > possible white space will reduce it in size from 30882 bytes to 23411 bytes,
> > saving 7471 bytes (24%).  That's a drastic change in size, and if done would
> > save a ton of bandwidth (over time).
>
> It's small compared to actual compression, though.

Exactly. To quantify with mod_deflate :

------------------------------------
root at bling:/var/www/hosts/mediawiki/wiki# curl --silent --include --head http://192.168.0.64/wiki/skins/monobook/main.css?55
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 01:20:04 GMT
Server: Apache
Last-Modified: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:57:09 GMT
ETag: "709d-428c37389ff40"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 28829
Vary: Accept-Encoding,User-Agent
Cache-Control: max-age=2592000, public
Content-Type: text/css

root at bling:/var/www/hosts/mediawiki/wiki# curl --silent --include --head --header "Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate"
http://192.168.0.64/wiki/skins/monobook/main.css?55
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 01:20:12 GMT
Server: Apache
Last-Modified: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:57:09 GMT
ETag: "709d-428c37389ff40"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Vary: Accept-Encoding,User-Agent
Content-Encoding: gzip
Cache-Control: max-age=2592000, public
Content-Length: 7763
Content-Type: text/css

root at bling:/var/www/hosts/mediawiki/wiki#
------------------------------------

I.e. 28829 bytes reduced to 7763 bytes saves 21066 bytes,
which means a saving of 73%.

And you don't have shadow versions of files, and the version that gets sent to
clients is still legible (and it's the same one that developers know and are
familiar with).

[P.s. please ignore the "public" directive in the cache-control line above,
      it's not there by default, I've just manually overridden it to test
      stuff. ]

All the best,
Nick.


from_name: Cool Cat

body:
You might want to stay away from the mailing lists if you are that fragile.
The point of the mailing list is to discuss wikipedia related stuff, not
your personal beliefs or whatever.

Just to satisfy you, I want to amend my comment. "Almost anyone has a
religion".

[[Category:People who do not have a religion]] is just as bad as
[[Category:People who do  have a religion]]/[[Category:People who are from
'type religion here']] in any case.

   Cool Cat

On 2/8/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Cool Cat wrote:
>
> >What part of it is nonsense?
> >   - Cool Cat
> >
> >On 2/8/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Cool Cat wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Everybody has a religion ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Yhat statement is utter nonsense!
> >>
> >>Ec
> >>
> All of it.  I do not have a religion, and I find it insulting to suggest
> that I do.  I'm confident that I am not alone in that view.
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Kat Walsh

body:
On 2/8/07, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco at gmail.com> wrote:
> Kat Walsh wrote:

> Thanks Kat. Of course the itwiki community is not just composed by Gatto
> Nero and me, and to be honest I haven't read yet what's going on on our
> Village Pump. Here I'm just representing myself.Also, I'm looking
> forward to see the Board decision on the limits of the
> Wikimedia-accepted fair use, with possibly some estimate on how many
> fairuse images on en.wiki will be deleted because of this decision.
>
> The
> Italian community may find the policy more acceptable if they're made
> aware that, say, 50% of the images tagged as fair use on en.wiki won't
> be accepted any more. When Jimbo recently wrote that we should get rid
> of  non-free material, many a voice was saying: "Hey, why shouldn't we
> used stuff we worked hard to get permission when en.wiki uses
> {{fairuse}} for the same purpose?"

I'm afraid you may be disappointed if you are expecting something
quite so specific; there are so many individual cases and
circumstances that it would simply be impossible to say in detail
"this kind is allowed, this kind is not" in such a way that everyone
would know. For the most part it is up to the informed and reasonable
members of the community to come to these decisions for their
projects.

It is definitely the case that there are a lot of images being used on
enwiki that shouldn't be. Partially because it is a divisive issue and
partially because many people simply do not know what the rules are.
Estimating how many those are would be nearly impossible... but it is
enough to keep a large group of people busy for quite some time.

(Side note, as I think from previous experience that I need to make
this clear: this is not license to be a jerk when deleting images, and
on the flip side you do not have license to accuse someone deleting
these images of doing so to be a jerk. Treat each other with courtesy
and understanding, darn it.)

The hardest part about a message like this is knowing how much trouble
some people have gone to. (I have asked people to release things under
free content licenses myself  and sometimes it is very difficult to
explain...) It may help somewhat to know there are many people in the
enwiki community who are upset at how restrictive this is even as some
others are complaining how much enwiki is permitted to do...

Enwiki went through something similar when the with-permission,
non-commercial, and non-derivative images that were permitted (or at
last tolerated) early on became speedy deletion candidates... many
people upset at the loss of their hard work, and no one is ever happy
about making that happen even where the ends are something we want.

-Kat

--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone


body:
2007/2/8, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:
>
> On 08/02/07, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How does ND exclude and fair use not? What does fair use enable? If done
> > well, the same image in the same way can be used in the same article and
> > also in changes to the article provided they are not major. If there
> were
> > not a fair use image, but an ND one, you could do that AND MORE.
>
>
> Define "derivative" for the purposes of "no derivatives." e.g.
> Resizing is a derivative. "ND" is deeply flawed.
>

That's your interpretation, not mine. And anyway, making a derivative work
from a fair use image is even less possible - I cannot even take it out of
the page, so resizing is fully impossible.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


subject: [WikiEN-l] - category clutter on biographical articles

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 21:16:49 +0200, "Cool Cat" wrote:
>
>
>>So do you have a suggestion to tackle/quick attack the problem? CfD is a
>>slow and inefficient procedure to get rid of nonsense. Too many
>>panic/contradictory "Keep" votes just pile up in almost an instant.
>>
>>
>No way forward other than to gain consensus.  Without a solid body of
>the community behind the change you will be accused of robbing people
>of their Jewish / black / gay / unicyclist identity.  Quite how
>removing a cat from a Wikipedia article robs someone of their identity
>I don't know, but that is what is asserted.  First stop the Village
>Pump, I guess.
>
While it's easy to agree that there are a lot of useless and lame
categories, it's also the case that campaigns to purge these categories
do more to create friction than to solve problems.  With patience those
with an identity crisis will eventually go away at which time the
pointless categories can be removed without much fuss.

BTW, Methylated Wesletarian (who are dead) need to be distinguished from
Ethylated Wesletarians, who are merely drunk.  This must be divided into
two categories. :-)

Ec


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject:
[Foundation-l] Clearing up Wikimedia's media licensing policies
 (some important points)

body:
Kat Walsh wrote:

> It is definitely the case that there are a lot of images being used on
> enwiki that shouldn't be. Partially because it is a divisive issue and
> partially because many people simply do not know what the rules are.
> Estimating how many those are would be nearly impossible... but it is
> enough to keep a large group of people busy for quite some time.
>
> (Side note, as I think from previous experience that I need to make
> this clear: this is not license to be a jerk when deleting images, and
> on the flip side you do not have license to accuse someone deleting
> these images of doing so to be a jerk. Treat each other with courtesy
> and understanding, darn it.)

This is what I'm personally concerned about.  I recall the "call to arms"
about our "spam issue" that resulted in 40-something articles on cookies
being deleted on en and causing a protracted situation that could have
easily been avoided.  I'm hoping the Foundation can keep the inevitable
reactions of some people on BOTH sides of the issue in mind when crafting
this final statement, or whatever it ends up being.

-Jeff