body:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:04:42 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron
<jbsoufron at free.fr> wrote:
> > But when do we say someone can claim that? When they are next to each
> > other? When they are in the same article? When they are both in
> > Wikipedia? When they are both on the Internet?
> >
> Don't troll.
>
> Someone can claim for the copyright when they are in the same article.
> That's enough for us to worry and to define a precise policy.

Right.  We're not worrying about some ignorant policy compiler in the
sky.... The concern is convincing a court of law (i.e. a human or a
few humans) in a climate where increasingly copyright is being
regarded as a very expansive, and infectious, natural right.

You couldn't convince a court that the entirety of wikipedia was
derived from some text in a Nintendo article,  but given a substantial
enough copyvio contribution you could easily argue  that most of the
after-the-fact edits were derived and thus the article is tainted.
The space of possibilities where it might be decided either way is
huge, so the decision would be difficult to make with a programmatic
policy.

So we have two choices, wait for injunction or the criminal charges
(copyright violation is now a criminal matter :( ) and make the
argument in court, arguing fine points that have never been tested
before (how many generations of changes and replacements are needed to
untaint derived text, is any number sufficient), in a court which is
likely unfavorable due to the political climate, and potential lose
years of contributions if we lose the battle. Basically taking a huge
bet that wikipedia will be large enough to generate a large enough
public out-cry on the matter to influence the political situation...

or..

We revert to the post copyvio state in any nontrivial state, lose a
little work, and as a side result encourage more people to be diligent
about finding copyvios sooner rather than later.  Indirectly reminding
everyone of the costs of our current copyright environment, which will
hopefully drive lobbying for an improvement.

Both of these are valid options, but I think we should understand
which one the project is taking so that we are prepared for the
repercussions.

The copyright climate today is a huge burden on our increasingly
information drive society, we can pay the price every edit, or we can
roll the dice and pay it all at once, but it will be paid unless the
laws are changed.

If everyone takes the bet that the laws will change, there will be
little direct incentive for anyone to go and change them.


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Alfio Puglisi

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Congratulations are in order (an overlooked
	milestone)

body:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Andre Engels wrote:

>Is there a place where I can see the current sizes of the various
>languages? The statistics page is still showing the situation of late
>December, and going through about 150 languages by hand is an awful
>lot of work (I use a list of 10, 20, 30, 50, 100 'largest' languages
>for the bot).
>
>Andre Engels

This one is updated every month:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multilingual_statistics

Alfio


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikipedia-l] no need to remove the article nor the chapter

body:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:26:17 +0100, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> The *section* itself would be a derived work. But would the *changes*?
> If that's the case, copyright law is more stupid than I thought. If I
> take a copyrighted work and add my own ending to it, does that mean
> that later I cannot use that ending on an independent work?

It's more stupid than you thought: We have wholly original works (fan
fictions) being ruled as derived works because they use the same
fictional universe.

This type of reasoning isn't applied that often outside of things like
fan fiction because it's very difficult to prove that something was
derived in most cases, but it would be much easier in the case of
wikipedia.

> Some cases are difficult; some are not. No need to throw away all.

I agree but I believe the space of cases that are difficult may be
much larger  and much more difficult to define with precision than you
suspect.


list: wikien-l

from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
>
>Nah, the kooky view is too easy.  A better case would be a passage in a
>scientific article written by one of our inhouse experts that correctly
>states the basic concept of a scientific field, but in a way that hasn't
>been "published" because it is trivial grad student exercise the derive it,
>and all published work is at the bleeding edge of the field.  Imagine
>his/her frustration at being asked
>for a citation for something that is obvious, and not being able to provide
>one, even though he
>can explain it so well that even the arbitrators understand it.
>
>Sorry, no original research,  no insightful explanations and yes, a big
>hole in making the subject
>more accessible.

Another strawman argument against the No original research rule.  Basic
concepts of scientific fields are stated basically and simply in all sorts
of introductory texts.  If they are not stated there, then they are not
basic concepts at all.

Jay.


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
Yes, the problem seems to be: How can a dispute be resolved without using
the dispute resolution process?

Fred

> From: "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 15:21:56 -0500
> To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content
>
> The problem is -- how
> do we enforce it?  Through what mechanism?  Since RJII persists in adding
> this definition and refuses to provide a source, I personally want to block
> him from the article.  But if I do so, I will be accused of abusing my
> admin powers by using them against someone "I am in a dispute with."


list: foundation-l

from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: suggestion for coming fundraising drives

body:
I looked at it, and the points I raised last time (essentially
uncategorized being still too high and and reimbursable category to
create) seem fixed. As far as I am concerned, this document is complete,
informative, and gives me entire happiness :-)

I suggest it be made more public, in particular for information related
to last fundraising. Let's add it to the main page of WMF as well (will
do if no one does it before)

Great work Mav. Thanks. Ant

Daniel Mayer a ?crit:
> --- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Don't forget to remind us of this important point. Do you have links
>>available or is it on your computer ?
>
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bank_history/2004
>
> That document is done as far as I'm concerned.
>
> -- mav
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Tels

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.5 work and general notes

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Moin,

On Sunday 20 March 2005 14:49, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Tels wrote:
> > With Perl v5.8.x there are now fixed release deadlines and they are
> > strictly adhered to, which resulted in quite a bit of released
> > versions - currently 5.8.7 is at the door.
>
> Remember we've been doing two to three major version releases a year,
> which is not absurdly slow. Fashionably 'aggressive' projects like
> Gnome, Fedora Core, etc are generally targetting similar 6-month
> release intervals, which people sometimes complain are too fast. :)
> mediawiki-stable: 2003-08-29
> 1.1.0: 2003-12-08
> 1.2.0: 2004-03-24
> 1.3.0: 2004-08-12
> 1.4.0: 2005-03-20 [approx]
>
> > That's IMHO much better than having v1.4 "nearly ready" since
> > 2004-12-03 :)
>
> Well, I wouldn't say it's been "nearly ready" since December 3. A *lot*
> of important bug fixes got done over the next three months, fixes which
> happened because we rolled it out into use in an environment where it
> would get a lot of stress testing and where we could deploy our fixes
> immediately at a point where we wouldn't dare declare it ready for the
> public. :)
>
> Many people don't keep up with releases well once they've set up their
> sites, so I'm pretty leery about releasing a new 'stable' version too
> early.
>
> However I had hoped to get a formal release out a bit earlier than this
> (and would have done so last month, had I not run into security bugs I
> wanted to do further testing and investigation on; that lead me to put
> out a release candidate instead of a final release). I'll go ahead and
> push out 1.4.0 tomorrow; I'm pretty happy with the current state.

Sorry if I sounded "pushy" - didn't actually want to complain about a slow
releases cycle - /me wanted merely a sort of schedule when 1.4 is
expected (e.g. next day, next week or next year :)

If one knows the next stable release is 6 months away, one can update now
and enjoy the features, if it is due next week, we don't need to bother
to upgrade to RC1 because when the upgrade is done, 1.4final is already
out :o)

I know it is hard to release stuff, because it is never as ready as one
wants it :o)

Thanx again,

Best wishes,

Tels

- --
 Signed on Sun Mar 20 14:51:37 2005 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "Hi, hi, hitotai, space taxi to the sky"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBQj2B43cLPEOTuEwVAQFbrwf+MCvFSSShI7ZaTE8TC1fa5ZGnq46CE9sy
dM1nngdNh4DXTB2u7UDZQMvldR+0/l4DwAFvF0RXh9GumENZnqJtvWM/tbcBoEdr
jZEvFLc8B1G+rxoIHT/GoEzn0cpRe4LfIyoiDZ5Z/iYCOkOSNmlXfYt+uuyep6Jp
PHonak+PIUwax6xT0Z6qCMOGqVeQcWVFRivodtDZZfXgdHRwlIedK8Q6vFI4046S
t5Sftfk6BNW40kEjCg1dVQ557LikW/yc85MYKWxpXwXy6ZQiQt3MKXRz8rZa60O+
gIatnimoK4TNBA7O8f4sqNOMMEFP9P/+xmeDnJ85LPtfBJxTk4DAkg==
=NHEH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Foundation-l] What is de.wikiversity.org?

body:
Sj wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:24:01 +0100, Nicolas Weeger
><nicolas.weeger at laposte.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>The part I don't like is that there is no trace
>>>>
>>>>
>
>It would be a nice optional feature to turn on database-auditing for
>all changes to the database, which would provide a trace for such
>things.   But that doesn't exist yet.  I agree that without such a
>solution, it's most transparent to do such things as a logged-in user
>(with sysop capacity, if neccessary) rather than as a developer.  +sj+
>
Hoi,
Given the large amount of changes to our database, database-auditing
would be expensive in resources and it would be over and above the
current history that we maintain. This might be something that we do not
want as this may also impair the scalability of our application. :)
Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Jean-Baptiste Soufron

body:
When the claim is that the original article was violating some
copyright, then the complete derivative work should be deleted. But...

But "taking some inspiration from" is not violating a copyright. It is
perfectly admissible to get inspiration from some writings, use it to
write an original article. There would be no copyright violation in the
first place. That's a first point.

But when the writing of the original article would be far too similar
with some other text and that theo riginal copyright violation would be
impossible to deny, a second point could be to re-write the article. To
put it simply : there is no need to delete the article, but it is
necessary to write it once again, only taking inspiration from the
original text, and then to add the modifications to follow. That's a
good way to "clean" the copyright on this article. Just writing it from
scractch once more. It can be long under some circumnstances, but it
will never be that difficult.

Then you have two lines of defense : first, to claim that there were no
copyright violation in the first place; then to rewrite the article by
making it clear that it is now only taking inspiration from the
original text and nothing else.

Questions ?

Jean-Baptiste Soufron
Intellectual Property and Contracts

Le 20 mars 05, ? 01:40, Mark Williamson a ?crit :

> I don't believe we're referring to existing articles to which
> copyrighted text is added, but rather articles that were 100% copyvio
> but which are edited and thus become "derived works".
>
> Mark
>
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:34:18 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron
> <jbsoufron at free.fr> wrote:
>> I agree with you but not for the same reasons.
>>
>> Inserting a copyrighted text in an article is not creating a
>> derivative
>> work from the insterted text, but a derivative work from the original
>> article.
>>
>> The use of the copyrighted text is prohibited, that's for sure.
>>
>> But the article is not a derivative work of this copyrighted text. It
>> is a derivative work of the original article, including a copyrighted
>> work without proper authorization. This derivative work is not
>> forbidden because it derivates of a copyrighted text, but because it
>> is
>> a derivative work including a copyrighted text.
>> Then, removing this part should be far enough.
>>
>> I will provide some jurisprudence about this when I can.
>>
>>> I disagree with this. Do you really intend to allow that if you add
>>> something to an article that has later found to have a bit of text
>>> that is copyrighted, your text should be removed because it 'could be
>>> derived from the copyrighted work'? But what then with using a
>>> source?
>>> That 'could be derived' too. Wikipedia is very pro-active when there
>>> are copyright violations, and I think rightfully so. But to delete
>>> non-violating pieces of texts because they appear in one article with
>>> violating pieces is a level of destruction that even as a rather
>>> strong deletionist I find abhorrent.
>>
>>>
>>> Now, if I were to *change* a paragraph that later appeared to be a
>>> copyright violation, that's another issue. But adding something
>>> separate or changing another part of the article are changes I don't
>>> think should be undone. We might as well rollback the whole Wikipedia
>>> (what if we consider Wikipedia as a single work, then it is derived
>>> too, right?)
>>>
>>> Andre Engels
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:25:23 -0500, Gregory Maxwell
>>> <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I am concerned that the current handling of copyright problems on
>>>> wikipedia may be insufficient.  As it stands, after detection the
>>>> offending text is completely removed.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, if there has been a long time span since the
>>>> insertion
>>>> of the infringing text there may have been a substantial number of
>>>> valuable contributions to the article. With the way that  most
>>>> content
>>>> grows organically over time, it may be very difficult to say if the
>>>> new text would have been created without the infringing text with
>>>> any
>>>> certainty.
>>>>
>>>> In the United States the recent tendency in court appears to be to
>>>> favor the most expansive definition of a derived work possible.
>>>> Because of this, I suspect that it would be likely that at least
>>>> some
>>>> of the contributions made to an article after the insertion of
>>>> infringing text would be found by a US court to be derived, thus
>>>> placing their ownership in question.  This interpretation of derived
>>>> isn't necessitated by current international treaty, and would likely
>>>> be different (and possibly more sane) in other locations, but I
>>>> suspect that US legality is a substantial concern.
>>>>
>>>> Determining if a piece of text is derived from another, at least in
>>>> the over broad sense favored by US courts, is an intractable
>>>> problem,
>>>> but the policy could do a better job of avoiding these concerns.
>>>> Reverting to the point where a substantial amount of infringing text
>>>> was added, and deleting *all* modifications after that point would
>>>> be
>>>> much more certain to avoid impinging on the intellectual property
>>>> rights of others.
>>>>
>>>> The cost of destroyed improvements might be mitigated by the benefit
>>>> of creating a greater incentive for frequently contributors to
>>>> quickly
>>>> catch and remove violating text.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, none of this is legal advice...
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] [Ticket#: 115103-FW] Just wondering

body:
Sj wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:15:38 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Wikimedia Foundation wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>---- Forwarded message from "O'Neil, David MSER:EX"
>>><Dave.ONeil at gems8.gov.bc.ca> ----
>>>
>>>Date:
>>>From: "O'Neil, David MSER:EX" <Dave.ONeil at gems8.gov.bc.ca>
>>>To: "'board at wikimedia.org'" <board at wikimedia.org>
>>>Cc:
>>>Reply-To:
>>>Subject: [Ticket#: 115103-FW] Just wondering
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hello,
>>>>     Just wondering what the policy on materials that are embedded in
>>>>your pages, when the material is taken from other sites?  I noticed a
>>>>map on
>>>>site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png
>>>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png> )  that
>>>>originally came from our web site
>>>>(http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/maps/rdmap.htm
>>>><http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/maps/rdmap.htm> ).  The real
>>>>source
>>>>of this image really should be BC Stats, Ministry of Management
>>>>Services.
>>>>Descriptive bits were removed from the image, but I don't think it
>>>>removes
>>>>the reality of the actual source of the image.  I'm not that retentive,
>>>>but
>>>>we try to always properly attribute source, to avoid confusion (among
>>>>other
>>>>things).
>>>>
>>>>Cheers
>>>>
>>>>David O'Neil,  Manager
>>>>Population Section, BC Stats
>>>>Service BC
>>>>Ministry of Management Services
>>>>
>>>>email: Dave.ONeil at gems8.gov.bc.ca
>>>>tel: 250-387-0335    fax: 250-387-0329
>>>>www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca <www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>---- End forwarded message ----
>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>Hello,
>>>      Just wondering what the policy on materials that are embedded in
>>>your pages, when the material is taken from other sites?  I noticed a map on
>>>site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png
>>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BCMap-doton-Victoria.png> )  that
>>>originally came from our web site
>>>(http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/maps/rdmap.htm
>>><http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/maps/rdmap.htm> ).  The real source
>>>of this image really should be BC Stats, Ministry of Management Services.
>>>Descriptive bits were removed from the image, but I don't think it removes
>>>the reality of the actual source of the image.  I'm not that retentive, but
>>>we try to always properly attribute source, to avoid confusion (among other
>>>things).
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>David O'Neil,  Manager
>>>Population Section, BC Stats
>>>Service BC
>>>Ministry of Management Services
>>>
>>>email: Dave.ONeil at gems8.gov.bc.ca
>>>tel: 250-387-0335    fax: 250-387-0329
>>>www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca <www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I have some serious doubts about the claims of the BC Government in this
>>regard.
>>    1. It is really unclear whether our contributor copied these maps
>>(and similar ones at other articles that Mr. O'Neill did not mention)
>>from the site in question.  True our version differs in that we do not
>>include the names for the Regional Districts, but we also do not show an
>>inset map from their site that gives greater detail ton the more heavily
>>populated southwestern corner of the province.
>>    2. The Regional Districts are a creation of legislation.  British
>>Columbia does not have counties in the more traditional sense of that
>>term.  These districts when they began to be created in 1965 were in
>>some respects equivalent to the establishment of counties.  In other jurisdictions
>>Mr.O'neil's claim would be tantamount to claiming that a map of the
>>counties there are not in the public domain.
>>    3. It is not clear that legislative provisions can be copyrighted,
>>and it would therefore seem that Mr. O'Neil's claims are ultra vires, no
>>matter what is said ion the BC government website.
>>
>>Ec (a resident of BC)
>>
>>
>
>I hope you're right about this.  However, when I mentioned the
>complaint on the uploader (Denelson83)'s talk page, I received a most
>unpleasant and uninformative response.  It would seem to be easy for
>the uploader to help resolve the issue, rather than ranting about
>it...
>
It looks as if our friend believes himself to be immune from criticism.
:-)

He is not the only one to have used the same map.  See also
[[Image:Bcmap.PNG]].  This one was added by [[User:Earl Andrew]] who
also claims that he created the image.  The end of his talk page has a
cryptic comment about not responding to inquiries about images.

Personally, I believe in a copyright policy where we give ourselves a
significant benefit of the doubt.  However, doing that involves an open
expression of the reasons for doubting a putative claimant's rights.
What irritates me most in this situation, where I believe that we have a
strong argument for keeping the images, is the questionable claim that
these contributors drew the maps themselves.  A copyright argument based
on a misrepresentation is difficult to sustain.  At least one of them
should site his source.  I do not believe that the simple addition of a
red dot implies the creation of a whole new work.

Ec


body:
> Yes, we are talking about an existing article to which a copyvio is
> added. The proposal we are talking about is:
>
> "Reverting to the point where a substantial amount of infringing text
> was added, and deleting *all* modifications after that point..."
>
> That's clearly something for the case where a copyrighted piece is
> *added* to an article. Not that I would agree to it for wholly new
> copyright violations either. I still see no reason for dumping
> additional paragraphs as well.

Because they would qualify as "derivative work" of the copied text.
Just as I said in my previous message, you have two solutions : either
to deny the copyright violation in the first place, or to delete
everything and rewrite from scratch, making it clear that it is now
based on an original content and not on plagiarized one.

Jean-Baptiste Soufron
Intellectual Property and Contracts

>
> Andre Engels
>
>
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:40:27 -0700, Mark Williamson
> <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't believe we're referring to existing articles to which
>> copyrighted text is added, but rather articles that were 100% copyvio
>> but which are edited and thus become "derived works".
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:34:18 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron
>> <jbsoufron at free.fr> wrote:
>>> I agree with you but not for the same reasons.
>>>
>>> Inserting a copyrighted text in an article is not creating a
>>> derivative
>>> work from the insterted text, but a derivative work from the original
>>> article.
>>>
>>> The use of the copyrighted text is prohibited, that's for sure.
>>>
>>> But the article is not a derivative work of this copyrighted text. It
>>> is a derivative work of the original article, including a copyrighted
>>> work without proper authorization. This derivative work is not
>>> forbidden because it derivates of a copyrighted text, but because it
>>> is
>>> a derivative work including a copyrighted text.
>>> Then, removing this part should be far enough.
>>>
>>> I will provide some jurisprudence about this when I can.
>>>
>>>> I disagree with this. Do you really intend to allow that if you add
>>>> something to an article that has later found to have a bit of text
>>>> that is copyrighted, your text should be removed because it 'could
>>>> be
>>>> derived from the copyrighted work'? But what then with using a
>>>> source?
>>>> That 'could be derived' too. Wikipedia is very pro-active when there
>>>> are copyright violations, and I think rightfully so. But to delete
>>>> non-violating pieces of texts because they appear in one article
>>>> with
>>>> violating pieces is a level of destruction that even as a rather
>>>> strong deletionist I find abhorrent.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now, if I were to *change* a paragraph that later appeared to be a
>>>> copyright violation, that's another issue. But adding something
>>>> separate or changing another part of the article are changes I don't
>>>> think should be undone. We might as well rollback the whole
>>>> Wikipedia
>>>> (what if we consider Wikipedia as a single work, then it is derived
>>>> too, right?)
>>>>
>>>> Andre Engels
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:25:23 -0500, Gregory Maxwell
>>>> <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I am concerned that the current handling of copyright problems on
>>>>> wikipedia may be insufficient.  As it stands, after detection the
>>>>> offending text is completely removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, if there has been a long time span since the
>>>>> insertion
>>>>> of the infringing text there may have been a substantial number of
>>>>> valuable contributions to the article. With the way that  most
>>>>> content
>>>>> grows organically over time, it may be very difficult to say if the
>>>>> new text would have been created without the infringing text with
>>>>> any
>>>>> certainty.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the United States the recent tendency in court appears to be to
>>>>> favor the most expansive definition of a derived work possible.
>>>>> Because of this, I suspect that it would be likely that at least
>>>>> some
>>>>> of the contributions made to an article after the insertion of
>>>>> infringing text would be found by a US court to be derived, thus
>>>>> placing their ownership in question.  This interpretation of
>>>>> derived
>>>>> isn't necessitated by current international treaty, and would
>>>>> likely
>>>>> be different (and possibly more sane) in other locations, but I
>>>>> suspect that US legality is a substantial concern.
>>>>>
>>>>> Determining if a piece of text is derived from another, at least in
>>>>> the over broad sense favored by US courts, is an intractable
>>>>> problem,
>>>>> but the policy could do a better job of avoiding these concerns.
>>>>> Reverting to the point where a substantial amount of infringing
>>>>> text
>>>>> was added, and deleting *all* modifications after that point would
>>>>> be
>>>>> much more certain to avoid impinging on the intellectual property
>>>>> rights of others.
>>>>>
>>>>> The cost of destroyed improvements might be mitigated by the
>>>>> benefit
>>>>> of creating a greater incentive for frequently contributors to
>>>>> quickly
>>>>> catch and remove violating text.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, none of this is legal advice...
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>>>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: steven l. rubenstein

subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
Silverback wrote:

>Disallowing a particular word order or a dependent clause just because
>someone hasn't used it in a citation before is abusing the rule and
>results in a lot of the awkward language so many complain about in our
>articles.

This is not the first time that SIlverback has misrepresented a conflict in
order to trivialize the importance of content and contents policies.  The
specific issue with RJII is this: he has added -- several times over the
past several weeks, this definition of capitalism -- "private ownership of
capital" and he has claimed, on the talk page and in the edit summary, that
this definition comes from Marx.  I am certain that this definition does
not come from Marx, and is not Marxist, as RJII claims.  So how do we
resolve this dispute?  I asked RJII to tell me where Marx said this or
anything like this, to provide a citation.  I have asked him
repeatedly.  He refuses to provide a citation.

This has nothing to do with word order or grammar, and for Silverback to
insinuate that it does serves no constructive purpose.

Elian was right to say, "Enforce it" (our policy).  The problem is -- how
do we enforce it?  Through what mechanism?  Since RJII persists in adding
this definition and refuses to provide a source, I personally want to block
him from the article.  But if I do so, I will be accused of abusing my
admin powers by using them against someone "I am in a dispute with."  Okay,
I will leave it for others to do something.  But I have to reiterate -- the
problem is not that I am in a dispute with him, the problem is he won't
follow policy.

And it doesn't help that whenever Silverback has an opportunity, he
belittles our policies.  Silverback, your own "definition" of capitalism
only further muddies the waters.  As you should know by now, your own
definition of capitalism (like mine, or RJII's) is irrelevant here.  We are
researching an encyclopedia, and we are committed to NPOV and NOR.  That
means providing different people's definitions of capitalism in a
verifiable way.

Please stop trivializing our project to write a good encyclopedia.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701


from_name: Juanma Barranquero

subject: [Wikitech-l] Patches

body:
What is the right place (list, bug tracker, etc.) to send patches for MediWiki?

Thanks,
                    /L/e/k/t/u


from_name: actionforum at comcast.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
-------------- Original message --------------

> actionforum at comcast.net stated for the record:
>
> > ... all published work is at the bleeding edge of the field.
> >
> > -- Silverback
>
> I suspect that our salvation lies in that phrase. I doubt that the grad
> student exercise that you are suggesting would be hard to include can't
> be found somewhere in print -- in physics, frex, we have the Feynmann
> Lecture Series.

Yes, the Fynmann series is a prized possession and I highly recommended them.

That said, I think I have an example in  Fred's "kooky source" vein, Christiaan, in the [[Depleted uranium]] article has a source that claims outlandish disability figures from the first Gulf war, that I can't confirm from any official source, are unrelated to depleted uranium, and depart substantially and incredibly from the official disability figures from one year earlier.

I haven't succeeded in deleting this information, so I just contrapose the official figures with it.  It would be such a minor thing to bring an arb case on.  Much of wikipedia, is forced to contrapose to achieve NPOV or even mere correctness.

                                       -- Silverback


from_name: Sj

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Retrospective

body:
The retrospective is to commemorate the fourth Wikipedia Day, as well
as the history of the project; so memories from Wikipedia days past,
or from other anniversaries, are also welcome.  Newbies, your memories
count too; just not in the section marked "only old-timers can
edit"...

SJ

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:15:26 +0100, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> We would like to make a retrospective on the most special events of
> these past 4 years on Wikipedia, with a special interest for the first 2
> years.
>
> For doing so, we need oldbies :-)
>
> We would like 10 oldbies (at least 3 years on wikipedia) and ask them to
> cite between 1 to 10 special moments or special persons which they think
> either impacted a lot the direction of the project, or of the community.
> Fun moments, sad moments, critical moments, controversial moments,
> special persons, special citations, still used 3 years later.... OR just
> events which were strange and reflected a certain spirit at some point,
> a spirit perhaps lost now ? Just make us remember...
>
> I invite anyone who have been more than 3 years on the project to
> reflect on his past, and help us to remember. The Quarto team will also
> try to contact some people, which do not necessarily answer
> spontaneously :-) If you think someone needs to be contacted, please ...
> euh... be a denonciator.
>
> A couple of examples I can think of myself (Anthere, which will consider
> herself an oldbie)
>
>      * the letter of resignation of Larry Sanger
>      * the goatse on the english wikipedia
>      * the fork of the spanish project
>      * some citations by The Cunctator
>      * the major server break in december 2003
>      * Lir playing chess on her talk page
>      * the polish cities dispute
>      * Papot'ages on the french wikipedia
>
> Of course, we will all have different special moments to cite :-) This
> is what could make it real fun.
>
> Each point reported could be either
>
>      * a link, which could be self-sustainable or be accompanied with
> one sentence explanation (example : link to Larry Resignation on the
> mailing list. Example : a link to an old version of the project)
>      * an image, with a legend or no legend at all (example : the first
> wikipedia logo. Example : a screen shot of Lir chess game)
>      * a short story (Example : a summary of the spanish fork). This
> could be proposed by the oldbie himself
>      * A citation
>
> Please, make it short, make it patchwork, and make it non politically
> correct if you wish :-) (but stay civil).
>
> -------
>
> See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WQ/Retro
>
> Thank you
>
> Anthere
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
+sj+
 _ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...]


from_name: Elisabeth Bauer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] speakers list nl:Media:Cat-v2.sxi.pdf

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> At this moment the list is only about Wikipedia. There is also a
> presentation about Wiktionary that I gave in the wiki-meet in Rotterdam
> .. Both ppt and OO They can be found here
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary_presentations It may be a good
> idea to include them in the "Presentations" page as well

Oh, never seen that page. I just merged the two pages and added you as
speaker on wiktionary there - we should try to concentrate such infos on
as few pages as possible, Meta is already mess enough and people
complain that they don't find anything.

> Another
> presentation about categorisations also given at the Rotterdam meet can
> be found here nl:Afbeelding:Cat-v2.sxi.pdf. It is a ppt presentation
> with a wrong extension..

Can you add this one, too, please?

> For the record, as I have not had any ack about this. I want to give at
> least two presentations; a workshop on soundrecording for the projects
> (pronunciations) and a presentation about Wiktionary, this will be
> mainly about the Ultimate Wiktionary and how it differs from Wiktionary.

Yep, we are currently working out the acceptance procedures and
distribution of the CfP for Wikimania. More info should come soon on the
list here.

> I cannot give a precise outline as it does not exist as such yet.
> Another presentation that I think we should have because of it being new
> is one about Wikidata. Erik will be propably the best person to give
> this presentation/workshop.

So he should send an abstract to himself, since he is in the program
committee ;-)

greetings,
elian


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Retrospective

body:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:04:46 -0500, Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The retrospective is to commemorate the fourth Wikipedia Day, as well
> as the history of the project; so memories from Wikipedia days past,
> or from other anniversaries, are also welcome.  Newbies, your memories
> count too; just not in the section marked "only old-timers can
> edit"...

Mmm, and screenshots of Wikipedia /or other projects/ over time, on
key days, would also be neat :-)  Especially if you remember a
discussion surrounding a design change.  There is a "historical pages"
section on Meta that might be helpful, and the archive.org  image of
"wikipedia.com" from 2001/2002.

SJ


from_name: Matt Brown

body:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:28:35 -0600, Richard Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:

> Denelson83's expressed attitude on his/her talk page seems to be in
> direct contradiction to the Wikipedia policy on
> [[Wikipedia:Civility]].

I would strongly agree, having gone to look at it.  This user does not
answer ANY questions or comments about their behavior or actions,
instead replacing the question with "<Comment deleted - General
violation ("Negative criticism not tolerated")>" and the like, in red.
 They state: "If you are going to post a message on this page, it must
be a positive comment. Any comments that I interpret as destructive
will be disregarded and removed from this page. Thank you."

They also attempt to place conditions on the use of article history:

"n.b. All past revisions of this page are considered to be deleted,
and may not be reviewed. To review past messages, see my archive
subpages."

This is, IMO, completely ridiculous.

-Matt (User:Morven)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: no need to remove the article nor the chapter

body:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:48:51 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Anybody can "claim" anything.  That does not make it so.  The
> information is not copyright.  Only the way of expressing it is
> copyright.  Thus if someone uses all the information from a copyright
> source, but tells it in his own way that work may be derived from the
> original but it is not legally a derivative work.  Rewriting the
> material would be more appropriate.

You misunderstand copyright, it is not longer limited strictly limited
to the specific expression of an idea. If copyright were still
strictly limited to the specific expression than translations would be
nonviolating (or at worse, a grey area) rather than the strict
violation that the law considers them to be today.


body:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:50:42 +0100, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:10:31 -0500, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Unfortunately this isn't the case.... Check out the numerous cases of
> > fan fiction that don't use a single word of the copyrighted work, but
> > have still been ruled to be derived works.
>
> Not because they have been 'contaminated' with the original text once,
> but because they are using characters, situations, etcetera from a
> copyrighted text. When someone starts claiming copyright on
> characters, events etcetera from non-fiction texts Wikipedia can stop
> working anyway.

I guess we should turn off the servers now:

Please see the "Database and Collections of Information
Misappropriation Act of 2003"
(http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat092303.html).

> > Inspired works are now starting to fall under copyright protection.
> > This trend started with the inclusions of translations under the
> > definition of derivative works and has been expanding since then....
>
> So I guess I should never use a copyrighted book to get my information
> for Wikipedia either?

Copyright has also been extended to collections of public information
(phone books, etc). If you refer to a copyrighted list to produce a
"list of eagle scouts" you are indeed in violation of the law.
Without the history feature in wikipedia, it would be very difficult
to prove you copied the information without a verbatim copy, so such
prosecutions are rare (although they do occur).   Revision history
makes showing the taxonomy of a segment of text trivial.

The current political culture in the US is one that rejects the
importance of the public domain, you would be hard pressed to win a
'grey matter' case in court as things stand today.  (For example see
eldridge vs ashcroft)


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [Wikipedia-l] derivative works (Galoob v. Nintendo)

body:
There is a lot of misunderstanding here as to what constitutes a derivative
work.  But one need only look at Galoob v. Nintendo to dispel most of it:

"The examples of derivative works provided by the Act all physically
incorporate the underlying work or works. The Act's legislative history
similarly indicates that 'the infringing work must incorporate a portion of
the copyrighted work in some form.'"

The infringing work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in
some form.  This might be the storyline, as in the case of fan fiction, but
if there is no incoporation of the copyrighted work in the alleged
infringing work, then there is no case, and a jury wouldn't even hear the
case because it would be dismissed by a judge before a jury was even
selected.

Oh yeah, and by the way,  the Database and Collections of Information
Misappropriation Act of 2003 never passed, and phone books are generally
*not* subject to copyright.

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement


from_name: Jonah Bossewitch

subject:
[Wikitech-l] You have lots of money to spend ;
	time to get toit! :-)

body:
This document is often listed in the irc topic on #plone

http://plone.org/documentation/how-to/ask-for-help

As it states, it is intended to be a user-friendly alternative to Eric
Raymond's How to Ask Questions the Smart Way. It might prove a reasonable
starting point. Hope it helps.

/jsb

>
> It seems to me that perhaps we need a "wikidev" equivalent of ESR's essay
> "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way" on one of the wikis, in an
> appropriate location.  Perhaps it could be called "How To Volunteer The
> Smart Way".  A few of the most important points should be these:
>
> * Rather than telling us your qualifications and how you'll change things
> around here, tell us your skills and make it clear that these skills are
> available at the discretion of those who come before.  If that isn't
> acceptable to you, consider that you might not be a good fit for this
> volunteering effort.
>
> * Be humble.  We want helpers, not managers.
>
> * Start by asking questions, rather than issuing recommendations.  Many
> recommendations made by people new to volunteering here have already been
> considered and discarded for entirely sensible, but not immediately
> obvious, reasons.  Many such recommendations are redundant, because we're
> already considering how best to implement them, or whether implementing
> them is feasible at this time.  Many such recommendations have already
> been implemented or are being implemented now, and you just don't know
> about it.
>
> I'm not sure where exactly such a document would go, or I might start
> working on it myself, but if it never surfaces anywhere else I'll at least
> stick it on my Wikipedia page eventually to give people an idea of how to
> approach me, personally, about offering help.
>
> --
> Chad
> [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Extensions for handling geographical coordinates

body:
> Extensions that go into our main CVS should go in the extensions module.
> The MediaWiki distribution bundle is built directly from the phase3
> module and should have a clean, empty extensions subdirectory.

> At some point it would be nice to have more accessible releases of
> individual extensions...

I am still planning on evangalizing the mediawiki-agora
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/mediawiki-agora), as a place where
developers without core cvs access can develop extensions centrally.  If
anyone wants cvs access there, just let me know.

/Jonah


body:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:32:04 -0500, Anthony DiPierro
<anthonydipierro at hotmail.com> wrote:
> There is a lot of misunderstanding here as to what constitutes a derivative
> work.  But one need only look at Galoob v. Nintendo to dispel most of it:

I've seen Galoob v. Nintendo, but I've chosen to ignore it because it
doesn't apply:

> "The examples of derivative works provided by the Act all physically
> incorporate the underlying work or works. The Act's legislative history
> similarly indicates that 'the infringing work must incorporate a portion of
> the copyrighted work in some form.'"

The Galoob case is about the "game genie" (in short a device which
patches a nintendo game as it's loaded)... If you include more of the
courts findings you see that:

"Having paid Nintendo a fair return, the consumer may experiment with
the product and create new variations of play, for personal enjoyment,
without creating a derivative work."

Right. The courts position was that it's not a derivative work for the
purpose of the copyright act because it must be used *with* the
original work.  This is akin to distributing a set of stickys to go on
a licensed copy of an encyclopedia Britannica to make one word changes
to correct it's flaws. The stickys are not a derivative work because
they must be used with the encyclopedia, should the stickys become
useful on their own then we have exceeded the scope of Galoob v.
Nintendo.

> The infringing work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in
> some form.  This might be the storyline, as in the case of fan fiction, but
> if there is no incoporation of the copyrighted work in the alleged
> infringing work, then there is no case, and a jury wouldn't even hear the
> case because it would be dismissed by a judge before a jury was even
> selected.

To be infringing the work must be a derivative, so lets consult the
law for what a derivative is:

"A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a
"derivative work". ( 17 U.S.C. ?101)

Sounds like they are specifically referring to wikipedia with the text
"editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other
modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of
authorship".    The case of reading of text and then being inspired
and writing some new text, ends up being excluded because you can not
easily demonstrate it to be the result of a simple set of
transformations, elaborations, commentations, or other modifications.
The revision control system changes that.

Your description of what is required to infringe would be nice, but
it's at odds with the law.

There is a huge amount of case law that would appear to support the
bulk of wikipedia's activities at face value, for example the classic
"Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc."  but which
completely fail to cover the case where the proof derivative work
status is so easy made by the existence of the revision history.

Please, find some caselaw that saves us from that.... Without it, I
think we need to refer to the specific wording of section 101 which
puts the exact sort of incremental changes done in wikipedia in peril.
 There isn't much caselaw on the fanfiction subject, but just about
*everyone* agrees that true derivatives should be protected, and it's
very clear that the political trends are towards expanding the scope
of copyright and not reducing it...

> Oh yeah, and by the way,  the Database and Collections of Information
> Misappropriation Act of 2003 never passed, and phone books are generally
> *not* subject to copyright.

How true, I admit I was off on that one.. I did quite a bit of letter
writing on that matter but assumed it would do no good, as usual.
However, the issue seems to reoccur from time to time... The court
finding in "FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO.,
INC. " is very heartwarming, though I wonder why they didn't use the
same sort of refer to the Constitution principles in eldgerage vs
ashcroft.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Nofollow vote results on en.wikipedi

body:
admin Yellowikis wrote:
> I stumbled across this way to reduce comment spam:
>
> http://www.gadgetopia.com/2005/03/08/PreventingSpamByKeystrokeCounting.html
>
> http://overstated.net/projects/mt-keystrokes/
>
> It's not perfect of course - but might be worth investigating.

It's a neat idea, but there are several serious problems with it,
particularly so for a wiki environment.

Most seriously, it requires client cooperation -- a spambot can simply
send the expected number of bytes along with the request. It can only
therefore be effective against humans doing manual cut-n-paste of spam
text... or real genuine humans cutting and pasting text.

It requires JavaScript, so either it cuts out submissions from humans
with JavaScript disabled or unavailable or it must accept submissions
without the number, making it trivially defeatable by humans...

For wikis, we send out the entire current page text and take back the
entire text with modifications. Determining number of changed characters
is not trivial; think again of cut-n-paste, rearrangement of sections,
deletion of sections, etc. This makes it much harder to get meaningful
information out of such a comparison.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050320/d874c109/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Blair witch-hunting project

body:
Arno M wrote

>This whole affair has been yet another bit of public muckraking sand
>brawling that has resulted in a longterm contributor leaving (how long has
>jdwolff been here?)

I think this was an unfortunate way to start a rumour.  [[User:Jfdwolff]]
has made over 100 edits today, I'm glad to say.

This isn't the first time people have tried to score points on this list by
saying or implying 'X left because ...'.  Could we have a truce on all of
that, please?

Charles


from_name: Rowan Collins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Patches

body:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 15:25:36 +0100, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu at gmail.com> wrote:

> What is the right place (list, bug tracker, etc.) to send patches for MediWiki?

Bug tracker I think: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org - the lists have
been known to filter out all attachments due to virus problems,
although I think that may have been changed.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Geoff Burling

body:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, James D. Forrester wrote:

> On Monday, March 21, 2005 12:10 AM, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:28:35 -0600, Richard Holton
> > <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Denelson83's expressed attitude on his/her talk page seems to be in
> > > direct contradiction to the Wikipedia policy on
> > > [[Wikipedia:Civility]].
> >
> > I would strongly agree, having gone to look at it.  This user does not
> > answer ANY questions or comments about their behavior or actions,
> > instead replacing the question with "<Comment deleted - General
> > violation ("Negative criticism not tolerated")>" and the like, in red.
> >  They state: "If you are going to post a message on this page, it must
> > be a positive comment. Any comments that I interpret as destructive
> > will be disregarded and removed from this page. Thank you."
> >
> > They also attempt to place conditions on the use of article history:
> >
> > "n.b. All past revisions of this page are considered to be deleted,
> > and may not be reviewed. To review past messages, see my archive
> > subpages."
> >
> > This is, IMO, completely ridiculous.
>
> It's not ridiculous, though it is mildly amusing (in a rather sad way).

Actually, I'd say it is either suspicious or imitative. ISTR an incarnation
of [[User:Lir]] doing this many moons ago.

What is Lir's current status, out of curiousity? (I don't pay attention to
this editor's actions at all, so I'm not sure if Lir is banned, rehabilitated,
or quietly making useful & valued contributions.) And if this is isn't one
of Lir's identities, why would this user bother behaving in a manner that
is at best annoying, & at worst self-destructively disfunctional?

Geoff


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
actionforum at comcast.net wrote:

> Nah, the kooky view is too easy.  A better case would be a passage in a scientific article written by one of our inhouse experts that correctly states the basic concept of a scientific field, but in a way that hasn't been "published" because it is trivial grad student exercise the derive it, and all published work is at the bleeding edge of the field.  Imagine his/her frustration at being asked for a citation for something that is obvious, and not being able to provide one, even though he can explain it so well that even the arbitrators understand it.

> Sorry, no original research,  no insightful explanations and yes, a big hole in making the subject more accessible.

Do you have real-life examples of this happening?

I think it's important that it always remain on-topic for someone
to ask, at a given assertion or definition, for a reference for it.

As [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] points out, it may be obvious to
*you*. But if someone comes along in five years and asks, backup
would be a very useful thing.

I've been spreading {{unreferenced}} tags with great (slightly
restrained, after the TFD nomination ;-) glee, and I see others
have taken to it too.

- d.


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Retrospective

body:
We would like to make a retrospective on the most special events of
these past 4 years on Wikipedia, with a special interest for the first 2
years.

For doing so, we need oldbies :-)

We would like 10 oldbies (at least 3 years on wikipedia) and ask them to
cite between 1 to 10 special moments or special persons which they think
either impacted a lot the direction of the project, or of the community.
Fun moments, sad moments, critical moments, controversial moments,
special persons, special citations, still used 3 years later.... OR just
events which were strange and reflected a certain spirit at some point,
a spirit perhaps lost now ? Just make us remember...

I invite anyone who have been more than 3 years on the project to
reflect on his past, and help us to remember. The Quarto team will also
try to contact some people, which do not necessarily answer
spontaneously :-) If you think someone needs to be contacted, please ...
euh... be a denonciator.

A couple of examples I can think of myself (Anthere, which will consider
herself an oldbie)

     * the letter of resignation of Larry Sanger
     * the goatse on the english wikipedia
     * the fork of the spanish project
     * some citations by The Cunctator
     * the major server break in december 2003
     * Lir playing chess on her talk page
     * the polish cities dispute
     * Papot'ages on the french wikipedia

Of course, we will all have different special moments to cite :-) This
is what could make it real fun.

Each point reported could be either

     * a link, which could be self-sustainable or be accompanied with
one sentence explanation (example : link to Larry Resignation on the
mailing list. Example : a link to an old version of the project)
     * an image, with a legend or no legend at all (example : the first
wikipedia logo. Example : a screen shot of Lir chess game)
     * a short story (Example : a summary of the spanish fork). This
could be proposed by the oldbie himself
     * A citation

Please, make it short, make it patchwork, and make it non politically
correct if you wish :-) (but stay civil).

-------

See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WQ/Retro

Thank you

Anthere


subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:
> actionforum at comcast.net stated for the record:

>> ... all published work is at the bleeding edge of the field.

> I suspect that our salvation lies in that phrase.  I doubt that the grad
> student exercise that you are suggesting would be hard to include can't
> be found somewhere in print -- in physics, frex, we have the Feynmann
> Lecture Series.

Yes. Or the expert can refer to the standard textbook they have several
of ... or wrote. (If they want to avoid referring to their own work,
they can note it on talk for another to put on the page.)

I remain utterly unconvinced of this alleged impossibility of reference.

- d.


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 15:18:30 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron
<jbsoufron at free.fr> wrote:
> When the claim is that the original article was violating some
> copyright, then the complete derivative work should be deleted. But...
>
> But "taking some inspiration from" is not violating a copyright. It is
> perfectly admissible to get inspiration from some writings, use it to
> write an original article. There would be no copyright violation in the
> first place. That's a first point.

Right.

> But when the writing of the original article would be far too similar
> with some other text and that theo riginal copyright violation would be
> impossible to deny, a second point could be to re-write the article. To
> put it simply : there is no need to delete the article, but it is
> necessary to write it once again, only taking inspiration from the
> original text, and then to add the modifications to follow. That's a
> good way to "clean" the copyright on this article. Just writing it from
> scractch once more. It can be long under some circumnstances, but it
> will never be that difficult.

Well, you won't find my help there. Writing an article for Wikipedia
is work, and I don't like to hear "Your work might just be considered
a copyright violation, could you please do it all again? Oh, and you
may not derive it from your previous part of course."

And then, those modifications... Either they ARE copyright violations
and then we're NOT allowed to add them, or they ARE NOT copyright
violations, and then there is no reason to remove them first.

If this ever gets to be official policy, remind me to never add more
than one sentence to an existing page. I just don't want to run the
risk of losing my work to something stupid like this.

> Then you have two lines of defense : first, to claim that there were no
> copyright violation in the first place; then to rewrite the article by
> making it clear that it is now only taking inspiration from the
> original text and nothing else.
>
> Questions ?

Yes. What if I get my inspiration from something else than the
original text or the copyright violation. Is that allowed? And what if
I want to use my own text (to which I apparently do not have the
copyright) to make the new text, how are you going to stop me?

Andre Engels


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia hits the big time

body:
csherlock at ljh.com.au wrote:

> You should note that before I left the project, I started this with
> [[Wikipedia:Baseline revision]]. This was designed to have no noticable
> disruptionn of the main article (I directly linked to a proposed
> revision, this was done on a subpage that hangs off the article. The
> discussion of the revision is done on the talk page.) It was my hope
> this could allow for a "stamped" version of a FA page that we could
> proudly state is the most reliable version and guaranteed not to be
> vandalised.

This is of course still sorta possible: anyone can link to chosen good
versions of articles.

The problem is that the selection person/committee won't scale ...

> Regrettably, it looks like my idea has fallen through. I hope that
> Wikipedia can find a credible alternative.

... however, Magnus Manske has announced that he will be getting the
[[m:Article validation feature]] into shape for MediaWiki 1.5. w00t!

This may be useful to supply baseline versions by consensus, with
comparatively very little human tweaking needed afterward for a
distribution.

- d.


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
There was an attempt to pass a bill through congress to protect
databases and collections of information (such as phonebooks... would
it include a dictionary though?) under copyright, but it didn't pass.

So currently, I can make my own phonebook using the database from the
phone company, sell it at $1mil each, and not be penalised.

Mark

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:17:25 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron
<jbsoufron at free.fr> wrote:
>
>
> > There is a lot of misunderstanding here as to what constitutes a
> > derivative
> > work.  But one need only look at Galoob v. Nintendo to dispel most of
> > it:
> >
> > "The examples of derivative works provided by the Act all physically
> > incorporate the underlying work or works. The Act's legislative history
> > similarly indicates that 'the infringing work must incorporate a
> > portion of
> > the copyrighted work in some form.'"
> >
> > The infringing work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work
> > in
> > some form.  This might be the storyline, as in the case of fan
> > fiction, but
> > if there is no incoporation of the copyrighted work in the alleged
> > infringing work, then there is no case, and a jury wouldn't even hear
> > the
> > case because it would be dismissed by a judge before a jury was even
> > selected.
> >
> > Oh yeah, and by the way,  the Database and Collections of Information
> > Misappropriation Act of 2003 never passed, and phone books are
> > generally
> > *not* subject to copyright.
>
> Thank you.
>
> To be more precise, phonebooks can be protected. In Europe they are
> protected under the database protection act from 1997 (or 1999?).
> Nothing in the US ?
>
> Jean-Baptiste Soufron
> Intellectual Property and Contracts
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:32:30 -0500, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well that was the issue that I brought up, existing articles where a
> substantial amount of copyvio text is added.
>
> Consider an entirely new section, all copyvio.  I think it's unlikely
> that additions, even fairly substantial ones in that section could be
> considered anything but derived works.

The *section* itself would be a derived work. But would the *changes*?
If that's the case, copyright law is more stupid than I thought. If I
take a copyrighted work and add my own ending to it, does that mean
that later I cannot use that ending on an independent work?

> It becomes difficult to judge which edits are derived works,
> ultimately you can't tell without a court opinion ... and since we'd
> rather not go there, I contend that the only sure course of action
> would be destroy all updates to an article past the point in time a
> copyvio was added.

Some cases are difficult; some are not. No need to throw away all.

Andre Engels


body:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:35:38 +0100, Karl Eichwalder <ke at gnu.franken.de> wrote:
> Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > That's clearly something for the case where a copyrighted piece is
> > *added* to an article. Not that I would agree to it for wholly new
> > copyright violations either. I still see no reason for dumping
> > additional paragraphs as well.
>
> As long as someone can claim the additional paragraphs are "derived"
> from the copyvio, you would better remove the additional paragraphs as
> early as possible.

But when do we say someone can claim that? When they are next to each
other? When they are in the same article? When they are both in
Wikipedia? When they are both on the Internet?

Andre Engels


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Edit speed choking

body:
Sj wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:10:39 -0600, Phil Sandifer
> <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>>What would be the result/problem/whatever of an edit speed throttle on
>>new accounts. I'm thinking an edit a minute for the first 100 edits. I
>>know edit count is a resource intensive query,

> This sounds like a great idea.  It's important precisely because it
> increases the leverage serious contributors have over repeat vandals.
> As to the technical aspect: if a separate table like "user_data" has a
> field "edit_count" that is updated every time the user makes an edit,
> it will not be so expensive to record (on-edit actions are
> comparatively reasonable), and will be cheap to query.  That would not
> even be a particularly difficult database-change to make, since it
> could be a new table, rather than a new column in an old one.

Or the isNewbie() function (I think that's the name) checked before
someone can do a page move. "Is newbie or anon, last edit under 60 seconds
ago? Sorry, please wait a few seconds!"

Probably need some provision for authorised bots.

[cc: to wikitech-l]

- d.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Edit speed choking


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Edit speed choking

body:
Richard Holton wrote:

> As a new user, you might want/need to edit the same page several times
> in succession to get things right. Any edit count based throttling
> should take that into account.

We do have a 'preview' button. I expect it would merely train people to
preview their work more.

(Of course, then their browser will crash and it'll be our fault they
didn't save two hours' intense research and writing ...)

- d.


from_name: Jean-Baptiste Soufron

body:
>
>
>> But when the writing of the original article would be far too similar
>> with some other text and that theo riginal copyright violation would
>> be
>> impossible to deny, a second point could be to re-write the article.
>> To
>> put it simply : there is no need to delete the article, but it is
>> necessary to write it once again, only taking inspiration from the
>> original text, and then to add the modifications to follow. That's a
>> good way to "clean" the copyright on this article. Just writing it
>> from
>> scractch once more. It can be long under some circumnstances, but it
>> will never be that difficult.
>
> Well, you won't find my help there. Writing an article for Wikipedia
> is work, and I don't like to hear "Your work might just be considered
> a copyright violation, could you please do it all again? Oh, and you
> may not derive it from your previous part of course."

Yes but every modifications added to the copyvio article is a copyright
infringing derivative work. There is nothing else to do when you the
original article or any addition is a clear copyright violation.
>
> And then, those modifications... Either they ARE copyright violations
> and then we're NOT allowed to add them, or they ARE NOT copyright
> violations, and then there is no reason to remove them first.

They are, what you need to do is re-write the infringing part of the
article and then re-make the modifications again.

>
> If this ever gets to be official policy, remind me to never add more
> than one sentence to an existing page. I just don't want to run the
> risk of losing my work to something stupid like this.

Your additions are recorded, aren't they ? you just need to spend some
time reviewing the history of the article to choose which additions to
keep.

>
>> Then you have two lines of defense : first, to claim that there were
>> no
>> copyright violation in the first place; then to rewrite the article by
>> making it clear that it is now only taking inspiration from the
>> original text and nothing else.
>>
>> Questions ?
>
> Yes. What if I get my inspiration from something else than the
> original text or the copyright violation. Is that allowed?

Of course

> And what if
> I want to use my own text (to which I apparently do not have the
> copyright) to make the new text, how are you going to stop me?

Nobody can if you do the process once again. That's the trick.


body:
>
> The *section* itself would be a derived work. But would the *changes*?
> If that's the case, copyright law is more stupid than I thought. If I
> take a copyrighted work and add my own ending to it, does that mean
> that later I cannot use that ending on an independent work?

No !

Your own a copyright on your addition. You just can't use the derived
work of the copyrighted text (the copyrighted text + your addition).
Logically, the author of the original text can neither use the derived
work. In fact, nobody can use the derived work without the
authorization of the other author.

You can use your addition by itself if you want. It's not a derived
work in itself, only the combination of the 2 texts is.

Jean-Baptiste Soufron
Intellectual Property and Contracts


body:
> But when do we say someone can claim that? When they are next to each
> other? When they are in the same article? When they are both in
> Wikipedia? When they are both on the Internet?
>
Don't troll.

Someone can claim for the copyright when they are in the same article.
That's enough for us to worry and to define a precise policy.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

body:
David Gerard wrote

> I remain utterly unconvinced of this alleged impossibility of reference.

OTOH - I thought I had a good argument by analogy with knowledge
engineering.  There it is common ground that so-called expert systems, that
can justify arguments step-by-step from rules, do _not_ imitate real
experts, but plodders without a real feel or mastery for a topic.  That is,
if you have a real expert, you distort the expertise by doing that to it.

Then I discovered that [[expert system]] is a POV piece of selling ...

Charles


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Edit speed choking

body:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:33:53 +0000, David Gerard
<fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Richard Holton wrote:
>
> > As a new user, you might want/need to edit the same page several times
> > in succession to get things right. Any edit count based throttling
> > should take that into account.
>
> We do have a 'preview' button. I expect it would merely train people to
> preview their work more.

Perhaps. It could also easily have the effect of getting them
irritated and leave. "Let's make this wonderful article.... Ready,
submit." "Oops, I made a typo... Let's correct it." "You have already
made an edit this minute." "Okay, wait a minute... Let's load this
other website in the meantime." "Ah, finally... Oooh... Another typo."
"You have already made an edit this minute." "Ah well, if they don't
want me, that's their problem. Let's go to that other cool website."

Andre Engels


subject: [Wikitech-l] Patches

body:
> Bug tracker I think: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org

Thanks, I'll use that.

--
                    /L/e/k/t/u


from_name: Jim Cecropia

body:
Blair P. Houghton said:

> I'd just like to add that I wish they'd never named that movie that.
>
> --Blair

They were originally going to call it "The Cecropia Witch Project."

I dodged that bullet.

--C

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


body:
I don't think it was misjudged. Clearly, the appelate court's ruling
was anything but unintentional, and they gave as reason for their
ruling the absence of evidences and "substantial" differences.

Mark

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 03:54:28 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron
<jbsoufron at free.fr> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:26:24 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron
> > <jbsoufron at free.fr> wrote:
> >> That's not what they said. They don't link the exclusion of copyright
> >> infringement to the fact that you must use the item with the original
> >> work. That's just a description of the way it works and it has nothing
> >> to do with obiter dictum in this case.
> >
> > No, it's another argument in the case as to why the game genie isn't
> > create a derrivitive work.  If you take the part Anthony quoted out of
> > context you'd think that you actually had to have some of the
> > copyrighted text in order to be violating.. But this is clearly not
> > the case because there have been cases where not a single word of the
> > orignal work was taken  (see the superman/wonderman case, or the
> > fanfic case)... Sure, *ideas* were taken, but you keep arguing that
> > copyright is still bound to a specific embodyment of an idea, and that
> > is clearly not the case anymore.
>
> These cases are "dramatization" works, arent' they ?
>
> A fanfic is an adaptation.
>
> An article is not an adaptation but a combination of different works.
>
> >
> >>> "A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting
> >>> works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
> >>> fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
> >>> reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
> >>> work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
> >>> editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other
> >>> modifications
> >>> which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a
> >>> "derivative work". ( 17 U.S.C. ?101)
> >>>
> > [snip]
> >> Being inspired is authorized !
> >
> > Sure is... however, making a new work via "revisions, annotations,
> > elaborations, or other modifications"  produces a derivative work.
>
> But these revisions, annotations, elaborations or others are original
> piece of works. You still have one derivative work and 2 original works
> (minimum) : "which, as a whole, represent an original work of
> authorship"
>
> >
> >> What is not is to base your work upon a preexisting one. The second
> >> part of 17 U.S.C simply means that the article A+B+C is a derivative
> >> work and that A, B and C are original works as a whole.
> >
> > We'll assume that X is the copyrighted work, and through revision, etc
> > you create original Y.  Work Y is a derrivitive work. Y containing X
> > any more appears to be immaterial since Y was made by modifying X.   I
> > don't see how seperating Y into A+B+C makes A,B,C any less infringing
> > so long as they can be shown to have been created via "revisions,
> > annotations, elaborations, or other modifications"
>
> Because they are not derivative works. The combination of them is a
> derivative work but each of them is an original work.
>
> >
> >> It's not. Every addition is an original work and the article is a
> >> derivative work.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> There is a huge amount of case law that would appear to support the
> >>> bulk of wikipedia's activities at face value, for example the classic
> >>> "Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc."  but which
> >>> completely fail to cover the case where the proof derivative work
> >>> status is so easy made by the existence of the revision history.
> >>
> >> There is not need to proof anything. It's case law : I can find cases
> >> in any contradictory sense you want. There is even a french girl who
> >> completely plagiarized "Gone With The Wind" but was ruled free of
> >> charges... ("la bicyclette bleue" for my fellow french companions)
> >
> > I'm specifically concerned with US caselaw as we're at the forfront of
> > eroding rights on these matters. I said in my first post that it's
> > likely the the law in other countries is more sane.  Even in the "la
> > bicyclette bleue" case the final decision was an appeal, the orignal
> > decision was that it infringed.
>
> Of course since it was a complete plagiat...
>
> > The appealat court made decided that
> > in abscence of the evidence of it being directly derrived from the
> > other work the differences were substantial enough to judge it as an
> > entirely different work.
>
> Sure but nobody were able to understand the criterias of substantial
> difference. The reality is that this case is misdjudged. It's an error.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.4.0 released

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

MediaWiki 1.4.0 is the first official stable release in the 1.4 series.
All new installations are highly recommended to use 1.4.0 instead of
1.3.x; 1.3.x users should consider upgrading for bug fixes and new features.

1.4 beta or release candidate users should upgrade to this release.

See the release notes (link below) for a fuller list of changes from the
previous 1.3.x series and installation notes.

Changes since 1.4rc1:

* (bug 65) Fix broken interwiki link encoding on Latin-1 wikis;
~  force to UTF-8
* (bug 563) Fix UTF-8 interwiki URL redirects via Latin-1 wikis
* (bug 1536) Fix page info
* Support os (Ossetic) as language code, using Russian localization base
* (bug 1610) Support non (Old Norse) as language code, using Icelandic
~  localization base
* (bug 1618) Properly list custom namespaces in Special:Allpages
* (bug 1622) Remove trailing' >' when using category browser
* (bug 1570) Fix php 4.2.x error on conflict merging
* (bug 1585) Fix page title on post-login redirection page
* Run UTF-8 validation on old text in Recentchanges RSS diffs
* (bug 1642) fix a mime type typo in img_auth.php
* Automated interwiki redirects only for local interwikis
* Respect read-only mode on block removals
* Trim old illegal characters from syndication feeds
* Reduce message cache outage recovery delay from 1 day to 5 minutes
* (bug 1403) Update Finnish localization
* (bug 1478) Punjabi localization
* (bug 1667) Update script 5 second countdown.
* (bug 1057) Fix logging table encoding (error on MySQL 4.1)
* (bug 1680) Fix linktrail for fo
* (bug 1653) Removing hardcoded messages in Special:Allmessages
* (bug 1594) Render a hyphen in a formula as − in HTML
* (bug 1495) Fall back to default language MediaWiki: for custom
~  messages
* (bug 1617) Show different error messages for "user does not
~  exist" and "wrong password" when using AuthPlugin
* (bug 1532), (bug 1544) Changed language names for
~  'bn', 'bo', 'dv', 'dz', 'ht', 'ii', 'li', 'lo', 'ng', 'or', 'pa',
~  'si', 'ti', 've'
* Fix editing on non-Esperanto wiki with user language pref set to
~  Esperanto
* Make conversion table for zh-sg default to zh-cn, and zh-hk
~  default to zh-tw
* Fix PHP notice in MonoBook when counters disabled
* (bug 1696) Update namespaces, dates in uk localization
* (bug 551) Installer warns about magic_quotes_runtime and
~  magic_quotes_sybase instead of trying to install with corrupt
~  table files
* Installer no longer tries to move non-default MediaWiki: pages
~  into Template:
* User-to-user email disabled by default ($wgEnableUserEmail)

Release notes:
http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=314389

Download:
http://prdownloads.sf.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.4.0.tar.gz?download

Low-traffic release announcements mailing list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce

Wiki admin help mailing list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

Bug report system:
http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/

Play "stump the developers" live on IRC:
#mediawiki on irc.freenode.net

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCPkvUwRnhpk1wk44RAgyEAJ9MK0EHelAD2pnSOXaDH5rsQNCsuACgm4ya
ynEocb9E0RH1LGHfdCAxcOQ=
=D5gr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Paul Youlten

body:
Just an idea:

Would it be worth approaching a major EMS (electronics manufacturing service) like Celestica (was part of IBM) to see if we could leverage the Wikipedia/MediaWiki brand to create our own Wikimedia Server box? I was looking at  Google's Search Appliance ( http://www.google.com/enterprise/ ) and thought that maybe we could do something similar with MediaWiki + LAMP + Debian + some consulting as a package.

My expertise is in sales and marketing - anyone else want to kick this idea around?

Paul Youlten

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chad Perrin" <perrin at apotheon.com>
To: "Wikimedia developers" <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] You have lots of money to spend ; time to get toit! :-)

> Sj wrote:
>> Doors keep slamming of late...  Alex, you were less abrasive and far
>> more helpful than a lot of people who troll the mailing lists, but it
>> did feel as though you were trolling for a while there.
>>
>> Don't have such a thin skin!  I'm not a dev, but I was excited to see
>> your energetic input.  There are many people who are thinking about
>> ways to improve the site's performance -- people who spend hours a day
>> doing exactly that.  If you make your suggestions politely, especially
>> if you do so on-wiki where they will outlive temporary local disputes,
>> they will be heard loud and clear.
>>
>
> It seems to me that perhaps we need a "wikidev" equivalent of ESR's
> essay "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way" on one of the wikis, in an
> appropriate location.  Perhaps it could be called "How To Volunteer The
> Smart Way".  A few of the most important points should be these:
>
> * Rather than telling us your qualifications and how you'll change
> things around here, tell us your skills and make it clear that these
> skills are available at the discretion of those who come before.  If
> that isn't acceptable to you, consider that you might not be a good fit
> for this volunteering effort.
>
> * Be humble.  We want helpers, not managers.
>
> * Start by asking questions, rather than issuing recommendations.  Many
> recommendations made by people new to volunteering here have already
> been considered and discarded for entirely sensible, but not immediately
> obvious, reasons.  Many such recommendations are redundant, because
> we're already considering how best to implement them, or whether
> implementing them is feasible at this time.  Many such recommendations
> have already been implemented or are being implemented now, and you just
> don't know about it.
>
> I'm not sure where exactly such a document would go, or I might start
> working on it myself, but if it never surfaces anywhere else I'll at
> least stick it on my Wikipedia page eventually to give people an idea of
> how to approach me, personally, about offering help.
>
> --
> Chad
> [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Retrospective

body:
The most notable difference, at least to me, between the archive.org
version and the nostalgia version, is that the Nostalgia version
doesn't appear to allow for browsing of non-English Wikipedias.

Mark

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:45:16 -0800, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Sj wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:04:46 -0500, Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The retrospective is to commemorate the fourth Wikipedia Day, as well
> >>as the history of the project; so memories from Wikipedia days past,
> >>or from other anniversaries, are also welcome.  Newbies, your memories
> >>count too; just not in the section marked "only old-timers can
> >>edit"...
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Mmm, and screenshots of Wikipedia /or other projects/ over time, on
> >key days, would also be neat :-)  Especially if you remember a
> >discussion surrounding a design change.  There is a "historical pages"
> >section on Meta that might be helpful, and the archive.org  image of
> >"wikipedia.com" from 2001/2002.
> >
> >
> There's a whole historical mirror of Wikipedia (though it's not really a
> wiki any more since it's completely frozen):
> http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/HomePage
> from December 20 <http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_20>,
> 2001, when we were proudly proclaiming over 19,000 articles. How many
> days does it take us to add 19,000 articles now? :)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Retrospective

body:
Sj wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:04:46 -0500, Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The retrospective is to commemorate the fourth Wikipedia Day, as well
>>as the history of the project; so memories from Wikipedia days past,
>>or from other anniversaries, are also welcome.  Newbies, your memories
>>count too; just not in the section marked "only old-timers can
>>edit"...
>>
>>
>
>Mmm, and screenshots of Wikipedia /or other projects/ over time, on
>key days, would also be neat :-)  Especially if you remember a
>discussion surrounding a design change.  There is a "historical pages"
>section on Meta that might be helpful, and the archive.org  image of
>"wikipedia.com" from 2001/2002.
>
>
There's a whole historical mirror of Wikipedia (though it's not really a
wiki any more since it's completely frozen):
http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/HomePage
from December 20 <http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_20>,
2001, when we were proudly proclaiming over 19,000 articles. How many
days does it take us to add 19,000 articles now? :)


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] speakers list

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

Lee Daniel Crocker schrieb:
> To quash the exaggerated rumors of my death, I'll point out that
> I have recently arranged my life to have more time to get back into
> to fray here (including resubscribing to Wikitech--I'm currently
> reading up on the current hardware setup--miles away from when I
> installed everything on Pliny and Larousse).

Those were the days :-)

Great to "see" you again!

Magnus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCPduMCZKBJbEFcz0RAuwiAJ9jjaALnbE/Z4dp4LCYdBQoGiBWEwCeLHrM
5xKH7JF01FY77SgU51eWPs4=
=t7+f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:15:08 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron
<jbsoufron at free.fr> wrote:
> He misundertands nothing. Translations are considered to be a
> derivative work because judges assume that they are done word by word
> from transforming the original work one sentence at a time and so on.
> Dynamically speaking the translation was derivated from the original
> text even if it gives birth to a completely different one.

I'd agree here if you'd tweak your position a little... Judges are not
(all) idiots, it's clear that no useable translation is constructed
'word by word'. No good translation is created without basically
rewriting the text, translating tone, flow, slang and sometimes even
cultural attitudes so that the spirit of the text is understood in the
target language.

Translations are derivative works because they are created by
modifying the original text, through a sequence of change, revisions,
substitutions, expansions... Quite literally a translated text is
derived from the original text. This is the sort of stuff we do when
editing an article on wikipedia.  ...

We do not consider an inspired but original work to be derived because
it has passed completely through the mind of the author... The law
regards the mind working alone as something entirely different than it
regards a process of mechanical derivations... This distinction is
necessary in a strong/expansive copyright world because we would
otherwise find ourselves in the odd situation of having our very
thoughts owned by others.  The distinction is silly because the law
makers also wish to close the loophole of using a mind as a pass
through to bypass copyright.

The result is a minefield to say the least.


from_name: Craig Franklin

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re:WikiIndex (idea)

body:
Scr?obh Bryan Derksen:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jews
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Writers
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1945_deaths
> The only one missing is "females" :)

Well, consider me schooled ;-)

But to show how this is inadequate, can you produce me a list of... say...
Polish-born Jewish authors who died in the United Kingdom in 1897?  That's
what I feel this tool would be really useful for, and the existing
categories system is pretty much inadequate for that (I suppose if you
looked at all of the relevant categories and returned a list of links that
appeared in EVERY one that'd work, but there's currently no tool for this,
and I imagine that it'd be fairly expensive in terms of CPU cycles.

I suppose that adding a tool that would do what I proposed above would be an
acceptable compromise, but I figure if we're going to do such a thing, then
we may as well do it properly ;-)

Scr?obh Gregory Maxwell:

> Thats why it's a wiki...  "ordinary" user writes the page.. Omits the
> metadata, because they don't understand it, aren't aware of it, or
> just don't care.
>
> Someone else notices the missing metadata and adds it, ... and since
> they apparently care about metadata they probably known enough to do
> it right, even if the system turns out to be fairly complicated.
>
> The metadata for an article will likely change very slowly, if at all,
> so keeping the metadata accurate should be a non-issue.

Oh, I didn't mean it in the sense of "we should invent our own metadata
tagging scheme".  Such a thing would be overkill.  I think the best solution
would be to have a relatively simple tagging scheme like this:

[{Died: 1945}]
[{Nationality: Dutch}]
[{Religion: Jew}]
[{Profession: Author}]

...and then automagically convert that into RDF, or some other mutually
agreed-upon metadata scheme.  That way casual writers don't have to worry
about the intricate details of such a system, and anyone who wants to get at
the actual real RDF can, presumably through a direct database call of some
description.  Of course, I know very little about RDF or how it works, so I
don't know how much of a problem automated translation like this would be.

Your post also brings up another interesting point - the metadata will have
to be almost or totally complete to be useful.  There's little point in
doing searches on "Author" if only 20% of the authors in the database are
tagged as such.  How we can quickly go through a half-million articles
quickly and tag them is beyond me.

Regards,
- Craig Franklin

-------------------
Craig Franklin
PO Box 764
Ashgrove, Q, 4060
Australia
http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art,
and Culture.


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

Brion Vibber schrieb:
> extensions/geo currently holds some experimental stuff Magnus was
> working on; I'm not sure if this is current.

Egil has kindly taken over the whole maps/coordinates department, of
which my geo/wikimaps thing will (hopefully) be a part. This gave me the
time to overhaul the validation feature.

My "geo" extension is working nicely; Egil has improved it, but you can
still see a slightly older version at [1]. There's also a howto about
SVG-enabling your Windows-Firefox :-)

Magnus

[1] http://magnusmanske.de/wikimaps/index.php/Main_Page
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCPd3hCZKBJbEFcz0RAr/UAJ42WlZ8OBrEpE2hBXthLL+3ZdQtgQCdF50w
F5Lm4nhD/fbnl1p3H2jED5Q=
=oQTZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:25:43 -0500, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> So we have two choices, wait for injunction or the criminal charges
> (copyright violation is now a criminal matter :( ) and make the
> argument in court, arguing fine points that have never been tested
> before (how many generations of changes and replacements are needed to
> untaint derived text, is any number sufficient), in a court which is
> likely unfavorable due to the political climate, and potential lose
> years of contributions if we lose the battle. Basically taking a huge
> bet that wikipedia will be large enough to generate a large enough
> public out-cry on the matter to influence the political situation...

Come on!!!! That's not a "huge bet", that's being ridiculous on the
face of it. Basically, if I write something and add it to another
text, does that make my text a copyright violation. NO. There's no
issue about 1, 10 or 100 changes, there's an issue about DIFFERENT
TEXTS!!!!!

> The copyright climate today is a huge burden on our increasingly
> information drive society, we can pay the price every edit, or we can
> roll the dice and pay it all at once, but it will be paid unless the
> laws are changed.

Or until people stop worrying about every little interpretation that
someone could make of the law.

> If everyone takes the bet that the laws will change, there will be
> little direct incentive for anyone to go and change them.

So you want to go and petition to the House "Please change your
copyright laws, because there are people who might argue that they
could be explained in some way." They will write back "That's not how
they are intended" and we're back at square one.

Andre Engels


body:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:10:31 -0500, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:03:06 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron
> <jbsoufron at free.fr> wrote:
> > You can use your addition by itself if you want. It's not a derived
> > work in itself, only the combination of the 2 texts is.
>
> Unfortunately this isn't the case.... Check out the numerous cases of
> fan fiction that don't use a single word of the copyrighted work, but
> have still been ruled to be derived works.

Not because they have been 'contaminated' with the original text once,
but because they are using characters, situations, etcetera from a
copyrighted text. When someone starts claiming copyright on
characters, events etcetera from non-fiction texts Wikipedia can stop
working anyway.

> Inspired works are now starting to fall under copyright protection.
> This trend started with the inclusions of translations under the
> definition of derivative works and has been expanding since then....

So I guess I should never use a copyrighted book to get my information
for Wikipedia either?

Andre Engels


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki nearing 100,000 downloads

body:
According to

http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/?group_id=34373

MediaWiki is nearing 100,000 file downloads (this should include only
files from the Releases section, according to someone on
irc.slashnet.org's #sourceforge channel). The SourceForge project itself
is almost 4 years old now. Would it be a good idea to put out a press
release when we hit a 100K milestone? SF warns that the numbers may be
inaccurate, but then again, it's just PR anyway, so I don't know how
much that matters.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Boris Lohnzweiger

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Setting up a Scots Wikipedia

body:
Good idea and quite a promising one, given the high number of speakers. On top of that, it's always fine when people who request new Wikipedias are willing and able to do some start-up work. Good luck !

Boris

wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org schrieb am 20.03.05 08:37:31:

>I'd like to request that a Scots language Wikipedia be set up.  There are estimated to be around 1.6 million Scots speakers together with at >least another 2 million Scots who passively understand the language to some extent.  This must make it one of the largest European languages >for which we do not have a Wiki. The 3 letter language code for Scots is sco so the URL should be http://sco.wikipedia.org/ since there is no >two letter code. I am a native speaker and am more than willing to start the necessary translation and configuration work once the initial site >has been created.

>Cheers

Derek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Derek_Ross

---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

__________________________________________________________
Mit WEB.DE FreePhone mit hoechster Qualitaet ab 0 Ct./Min.
weltweit telefonieren! http://freephone.web.de/?mc=021201


from_name: Marc O'Morain

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re:WikiIndex (idea)

body:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 13:18:32 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>[[Category:d1945]] would be better than [[Died:1945]]

I disagree. I think it would be better to have the page 1945 marked as
[[Category:Year]],  and have a relation YearOfDeath that maps a
[[Category:Person]] to a [[Category:Year]]:

[[YearOfDeath:1945]]

--
Marc O'Morain