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

Andrew Gray wrote:

> On 16/07/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

[Snip]

> > IIRC didn't King James I grant a perpetual copyright to Oxford for that
> > book?
>
> It's very weird...
>
> Basically, James VI (being a canny - and perpetually bankrupt - Scot)
> wanted to get as much money out of the Authorised Version as he could,
> when it first was published in 1611. So, he took a patent on it - an
> early form of copyright - but arranged to have it vested in the Crown
> not the monarch. (In other words, it passes down the generations).

Well, technically, the creation of the Authorised Version was considered
an act of the Crown, not the Throne, yes; the Crown being, like a
company, a entity separate from the incumbents, it is in continuous
existence (even during the Commonwealth years, legally), but is a person
not a body corporate: the Crown is a 'person' and is still 'alive' (and
has been since 1066). It owns the copyright, and the copyright will
continue to exist until 70 years after the Crown's 'death' (i.e., the
abolition of the British monarchy, if that comes) - the copyright is not
actually perpetual. This is, in its very own weird and warped way,
compatible with current copyright law. It just confuses Americans. :-)

Note also that the other commonly thought of British perpetual
copyright, of Peter Pan on behalf of Great Ormond Street Children's
Hospital, is also not a copyright, but a copyright-like right of
royalty. See the Copyrights, Designs And Patents Act 1988, section 301,
IIRC.

Forgive the floridness of my wording; just saw HIV Part the First last
night, with Part the Second following tonight. :-)

[Snip]

Yours,
- --
James D. Forrester
Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
E-Mail    : james at jdforrester.org
IM (MSN)  : jamesdforrester at hotmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC2N8mkn3kUxZyJx0RAoFuAJ9JQpO8g7Ajn7+ZyL51XcqqGnzp2gCeIRGg
zQv3mB69bJ2QuPnQOmBujmc=
=KEvB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Correspondence relating to the copyright status of
	an image

body:
> On reflection, this may actually be true. The Mona Lisa itself is long
> out of copyright, but if you take a photograph of it, then you hold
> copyright over that specific photographic image. That's how art
> galleries protect their images of the pantings they own. You can't
> just go to the Louvre's website and use their image of the Mona Lisa.

Yes I can. In fact if you look at the [[Mona Lisa]]
page you'll find that this is exactly what Wikipedia
has done. Here's is how it's supposed to work:

Museum: Yo! You're using our stuff!
Wikipedia: Heh. Yeah. We like your stuff.
Museum: FNORD! COPYRIGHT! INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY!
Wikipedia: Bridgeman ruling.
Museum: D'oh.
Wikipedia: Neener.

Regards,
Haukur


list: foundation-l

from_name: Jean-Baptiste Soufron

subject: [Foundation-l] Fair Use and Registered Trademarks

body:
Le 16 juil. 05 ? 01:24, Rowan Collins a ?crit :

> More generally, though, trademarks are always so much more flexible
> than other forms of "intellectual property" that I really don't know
> what you could and couldn't do once Mickey Mouse was no longer
> *copyrighted*, but still considered a *trademark*. [Of course, unlike
> the Encyclopedia Britannica, you couldn't really use an image of
> Mickey Mouse with the trademark removed, since Mickey Mouse *is* the
> trademark]

Wrong... you could use a precise image of Mickey Mouse if this image
is PD !

Once again, trademarks are a commercial system applying to commercial
uses and unable to interfere with more legitimate rights.


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Correspondence relating to the copyright status of an
	image

body:
On 7/16/05, James D. Forrester <james at jdforrester.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Andrew Gray wrote:
>
> > On 16/07/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> > > IIRC didn't King James I grant a perpetual copyright to Oxford for that
> > > book?
> >
> > It's very weird...
> >
> > Basically, James VI (being a canny - and perpetually bankrupt - Scot)
> > wanted to get as much money out of the Authorised Version as he could,
> > when it first was published in 1611. So, he took a patent on it - an
> > early form of copyright - but arranged to have it vested in the Crown
> > not the monarch. (In other words, it passes down the generations).
>
> Well, technically, the creation of the Authorised Version was considered
> an act of the Crown, not the Throne, yes; the Crown being, like a
> company, a entity separate from the incumbents, it is in continuous
> existence (even during the Commonwealth years, legally), but is a person
> not a body corporate: the Crown is a 'person' and is still 'alive' (and
> has been since 1066). It owns the copyright, and the copyright will
> continue to exist until 70 years after the Crown's 'death' (i.e., the
> abolition of the British monarchy, if that comes) - the copyright is not
> actually perpetual. This is, in its very own weird and warped way,
> compatible with current copyright law. It just confuses Americans. :-)
>
> Note also that the other commonly thought of British perpetual
> copyright, of Peter Pan on behalf of Great Ormond Street Children's
> Hospital, is also not a copyright, but a copyright-like right of
> royalty. See the Copyrights, Designs And Patents Act 1988, section 301,
> IIRC.
>
> Forgive the floridness of my wording; just saw HIV Part the First last
> night, with Part the Second following tonight. :-)
>
> [Snip]
>
> Yours,
> - --
> James D. Forrester

Wow, are we getting off-topic or what?

-- gkhan


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] William M. Connoley, admin? (was: Running the asylum)

body:
"Dan Grey" wrote

>"Consensus" can only mean everyone agrees - and when the hell that
does that happen? Next to never.

Consensus may be a slightly fuzzy term, but it doesn't mean that.  In fact
WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does
mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some
who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't
agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly
but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level,
some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'.  You
find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build
on it.

Charles


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Mmmmmm-Hmmmmmm! Smell that 100% Pure Original
	Research!!!

body:
On 7/16/05, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
> [[De facto head of state]] - No sauces, only one cook!
>

It could do with some citation of sources, but it represents the consensus.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Tran The Trung

subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageVi.php

body:
I have translated a LanguageVi.php for Vietnamese version of MediaWiki 1.5.
It's not 100% Vietnamese yet, since the section on "exif" is too long, and
many people donot use it.

Also, MagicWords are left untouched, possibly for compatibility if this is
used with previous database, such as of http://vi.wikipedia.org/

Please include this (see attachement) in future release of MediaWiki 1.5,
once you have verfied it. I myself have been testing it quite a lilte.

I hope to get this being installed in http://vi.wikipedia.org/ as well.

Many thanks,
Trung.

_________________________________________________________________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.com/


from_name: William M Connolley

subject:
Fwd: [WikiEN-l] William M. Connoley, admin? (was: Running the
	asylum)

body:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Fred Bauder wrote:

(quoting me:)
> > "In science, neutrality is presenting the truth, or what the vast
> > majority of scientific opinion (as measured by published papers)
> > believes to be the truth."

(FB's words:)
> >>> any method of arriving at the
> >>> truth though reference to expert editors such as himself presents
> >>> prospects of sustained conflict.

As I said, wiki's NPOV should be based around what the weight of
scientific papers says. The rest of the arbcomm agrees that this is
correct. Quite what FBs objection to it is, I really don't know.

I have never asserted that my opinion alone should be taken as truth - what
counts in most cases is whats in the journals. "Reference to expert editors"
makes sense, though, if you interpret that as "people who know what the science
is". The conflicts arise when people who have no idea what the science is try to
push their POV, based on either nothing but prejudice, some dodgy skeptic
website, or at best a paper that really is out on a limb.

-W.

William M Connolley | wmc at bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | (01223) 221479
If I haven't seen further, it's because giants were standing on my shoulders


from_name: James Gibbon

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Mmmmmm-Hmmmmmm! Smell that 100% Pure Original
	Research!!!

body:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 05:40:56 +1000
Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:

> [[De facto head of state]] - No sauces, only one cook!
>

:D

To be honest I can't see anything wrong with the article at all -
everything of significance in it corresponds to my own understanding
of the term before I saw it, so I don't think it qualifies as
original research, to be fair.

James

--
Dig It : a forum for Euro Beatles fans - http://beatles.dyndns.org/


from_name: Skyring

body:
On 7/16/05, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Wow, are we getting off-topic or what?

I hope someone is putting all this stuff in the right wikispots.

--
Pete, fascinated


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageVi.php

body:
This mailing list strips attachments, please file a new bug at
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ and upload your file to it.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Documenting Wikimania; Help wanted

body:
SJ wrote:
> Wikimania is just around the corner.  I am really looking forward to
> seeing everyone there; you can browse "everyone" here --
> http://wikimania.wikimedia.org/registration/attendees.php

Is there any chance that the foundation could pay a flight ticket
for Mark Williamson?  I think the entire community (and this
mailing list) would benefit from meeting him in person.

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


from_name: Yann Forget

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Case sensitivity on Afrikaans Wiktionary

body:
Hi,

Le Saturday 16 July 2005 15:19, Ray Saintonge a ?crit :
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > As to capitalisation; any paper dictionary does not capitalise the
> > words that are in there unless they are capitalised as a rule. It is
> > due to some unfortunate history that it took so long to change the
> > English wiktionary. There are currently 19 articles in the African
> > wiktionary, Jcwf may want to use the same system of templates that are
> > used in many of the other wiktionaries. To do this it helps to have
> > capitalisation turned off.
> >
> > I second his request to turn capitalisation on the af.wiktionary off.
>
> Personally, I was just passing on a request that appeared on the
> en:wiktionary Beer parlour.  Naturally, I support it just as I supported
> the change in English.  A more important and more general question might
> be what should the default situation be when a new Wiktionary is
> started.  This will even be important for Wiktionaries is scripts where
> capitalization is unknown, since they too will include foreign words.

Yes, I agree with that.
All new Wiktionaries should have capitalization off by default.

> Ec

Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux


from_name: Kate

subject: [Wikitech-l] webalizer, or not

body:
well, webalizer is not particularly efficient or scalable, and can't handle
the load from processing our logfiles, so it's disabled now.

i've hacked up a stats package that generates similar information quite a
bit faster (25 mins vs 1.5hrs), and it's running at
http://www2.knams.wikimedia.org/stats/

at the moment it's quite basic, but it'll expand to cover more statistics as
i have time to work on it.

kate.


body:
Fred Bauder wrote

> If the problems William M. Connoley presents were temporary, I would  not
> have objected to Administrator status for him. He believes a  Wikipedia
> article should prominently feature the "truth." While this  sounds ok on
> its face, in practice any method of arriving at the  truth though
> reference to expert editors such as himself presents  prospects of
> sustained conflict. Our references need to be to  reputable published
> information.

One of the odd things about Fred's formulation (WMC is addressing some
others) is this: Nupedia was proposing to give money to experts, qualified
as William is, to write articles on the 'truth' basis (what else?).  There
are the arguments:

(a) ah, but WP articles can come out even better, because the
rough-and-tumble of wiki debate is clarifying;
(b) oh, but then there will be conflicts because you'll get argument from
authority slipped in.

Now both of these would seem to have some sort of general plausibility.  Why
they should be thought particular relevant to the climate change issue is
beyond me.  That is high-profile science with plenty of funding.  I would
think that, as an area, it is a much less plausible case for such arguments
than, say, medecine.

I'm not against the formulation of Fred's final sentence: if one reads it as
'WP articles are survey articles', then that's a solid enough point to make.

Charles


from_name: Michael Turley

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Poll on templates

body:
On 7/16/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's a pretty nasty accusation you've thrown there, Daniel.  (That
> > my opinion is counter to the very goals of the project.)
>
> My point still stands; that our purpose is to create something useful with an
> emphasis on the usefulness part.

Again, I disagree, this time with your definition of useful: I think
my version offers additional useful information for readers and
editors alike.  However, part of our difference is that I won't accuse
you of having motivations contrary to the very mission of Wikipedia
for disagreeing with me.  I hope you will offer me the same courtesy
some day.

> This is the last email I'm sending to you on this.
>
> -- mav

If you change your mind, you're always welcome to email me privately,
if you feel our discussion is distracting to other list members.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


subject: [WikiEN-l] Icelandic "fair use" equivalent

body:
>>"Article 14. It is permitted to quote a published work
>>of literature, including plays and published films
>>and musical compositions, for the purposes of criticism,
>>science, general introduction or for other acceptable
>>purposes, if it is done correctly and within reasonable
>>boundaries.
>>     Under the same conditions it is allowed to
>>publish pictures and drawings of published artworks
>>and files, as per 3rd paragraph of article 1.
>>     If pictures or drawings of two or more works
>>by the same author are published in connection with
>>text relating to a general introduction the author
>>has a right to renumeration."
>
> The prevailing right to use one picture is especially interesting.  In
> many instances that would be more than enough for our purposes.

*Sigh*. Turns out we *do* have to implement the hated
EU directive since we're part of the European Economic
Area. And, sure enough, this perfectly reasonable clause
on fair use of individual pictures will almost certainly
be ruined come autumn with the addition of the words
"for non-commercial purposes only".

Say, I hear Saudi Arabia still has some reasonable
clauses in their copyright code...

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
I don't think that would be fair.

If you're actually serious, though (I think you're being sarcastic,
but then in e-mails it's often difficult to tell), you're welcome to
set up a fund and solicit contributions. Even if I had a ticket
though, I'm not sure I'd come.

Cheers
Mark

On 16/07/05, Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
> SJ wrote:
> > Wikimania is just around the corner.  I am really looking forward to
> > seeing everyone there; you can browse "everyone" here --
> > http://wikimania.wikimedia.org/registration/attendees.php
>
> Is there any chance that the foundation could pay a flight ticket
> for Mark Williamson?  I think the entire community (and this
> mailing list) would benefit from meeting him in person.
>
>
> --
>   Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
>   Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


list: commons-l

from_name: Milton Devadoss

subject: [Commons-l] TO GET THE COMMONS-L MAILING LIST

body:
 PLEASE SEND THE COMMONS-L MAILING LIST . THANK YOU.

---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20050717/fa3c5d26/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Zhuang Wikipedia is not in Zhuang

body:
Hi all,

I'm not sure what language it is in now, but the Zhuang Wikipedia does
not appear to be in Zhuang.

A week or so ago, the user "Jienji VANG" started adding this
apparently fraudulent content.

It appears to be unrelated to any of the major languages of the world.
My freeware language identifier suggests that it is Afrikaans,
Buginese, Kapampangan, or Tagalog although I sincerely doubt this.

Mark

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Funny joke, Gerard

references:
<mailman.0.1120836015.32352.wikien-l@Wikipedia.org>
	<BAY18-F11096A80863D47A2019D9E8DDB0@phx.gbl>
	<db8v5l$dlo$2@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 7/16/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> A. Nony Mouse wrote:
>
> > This is a fucking joke [...]
>
> I vote to put this subscriber on moderation and not to let such e-mails
> through in future. :-p
>

I second.

(I say that knowing full well that someone will take this opportunity
to criticise us for holding a poll.)

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


body:
On 7/16/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
> The reason 70/30 can be a "no" is a core principle of Wikipedia:
> Wikipedia operates on consensus, not majority.
>
> Instead of counting votes, consider the standard to be "serve the
> majority, but don't take any actions that seriously offend a
> significant number of minority members".
>
> If you think of it this way, it becomes much clearer why we don't
> simply count votes, and why a bureaucrat may even use their discretion
> to not promote at 80/20 occasionally.

70/30 in favour of something would probably do on VfD, for example,
but bear in mind that most admins are elected basically unopposed. For
30% of the users who have schlepped all the way to [[WP:RFA]] to vote
against someone is fairly high within that particular context.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: webalizer, or not

body:
Kate wrote:
> well, webalizer is not particularly efficient or scalable, and can't handle
> the load from processing our logfiles, so it's disabled now.
>
> i've hacked up a stats package that generates similar information quite a
> bit faster (25 mins vs 1.5hrs), and it's running at
> http://www2.knams.wikimedia.org/stats/
>
> at the moment it's quite basic, but it'll expand to cover more statistics as
> i have time to work on it.

Looks very good and you coded it very fast. Good job !

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080


from_name: Jack Lynch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this acceptable?


body:
If you want me to come, perhaps you could personally foot the bill?

I highly doubt the Foundation would pay, and besides, I don't think it
would be fair for the Foundation to pay airfare for only one person,
and it would be a waste of funds. After all, the foundation doesn't
even pay airfare for Angela and Anthere (or at least it didn't used to
-- I don't know about now).

So, as I said before, if you want me to come you are welcome to pay my
way yourself.

Mark

On 17/07/05, Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
> > Even if I had a ticket
> > though, I'm not sure I'd come.
>
> I want you to come.  GerardM will come, and board members, and I.
> A meeting face to face would make subsequent e-mail communication
> much more efficient. Don't ask me how that works, but it does, in
> my experience.  By suggesting the foundation could pay your air
> ticket, I wanted to remove one excuse for you to stay home.  You
> seem already to have a lot of time at your hands.
>
> The only irony I can find is that you seem to know everything
> about languages, for which you are rightly admired and very
> welcome in the Wikipedia community, but very little about
> communication between people.
>
>
> --
>   Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
>   Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Funny joke, Gerard

body:
On 7/17/05, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> Stephen Bain stated for the record:
> > On 7/16/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> >>A. Nony Mouse wrote:
> >>
> >>>This is a fucking joke [...]
> >>
> >>I vote to put this subscriber on moderation and not to let such e-mails
> >>through in future. :-p
> >
> > I second.
> >
> > (I say that knowing full well that someone will take this opportunity
> > to criticise us for holding a poll.)
>
> But it isn't a poll, it's an expression of our consensus that A. Nony
> Mouse has forfeited the privilege of freely communicating with us.

Said with a perfectly straight face!

But if one is looking for consensus, add me to it. Some of Mouse's
comments go well beyond what one might hope for. As a moderator on a
similar list, I would have kicked him off long ago and thought nothing
of it.

Mouse should regard himself as being on double secret probation.

--
Pete, assuming the position


body:
Mark Williamson wrote:
> Even if I had a ticket
> though, I'm not sure I'd come.

I want you to come.  GerardM will come, and board members, and I.
A meeting face to face would make subsequent e-mail communication
much more efficient. Don't ask me how that works, but it does, in
my experience.  By suggesting the foundation could pay your air
ticket, I wanted to remove one excuse for you to stay home.  You
seem already to have a lot of time at your hands.

The only irony I can find is that you seem to know everything
about languages, for which you are rightly admired and very
welcome in the Wikipedia community, but very little about
communication between people.

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


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this acceptable?

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

Jack Lynch wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policy_enforcement_log#Sam_Spade

What's not acceptable about it? If you don't like something, it's up to
you to say why you don't like it.

It seems alright to me, but I'm not, in general, a fan of open-air
mediation. It seems similar to what we have already.

Chris

- --
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC2jOBEq6+ijeBrJ8RAv8xAJ4xqt2fUI/VWNQjrmlpj72KvOVIXwCgmQnT
3ZAanW9Ckou79gPX0LW6Jw8=
=Ir8A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Zigger

subject: [Wikitech-l] LanguageVi.php

body:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2143  is an open request
waiting for a patch to be uploaded.

-- Zigger


subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this acceptable?

body:
> Jack Lynch wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policy_enforcement_log#Sam_Spade
>
> What's not acceptable about it? If you don't like something, it's up to
> you to say why you don't like it.

Sorry, I thought that was obvious. Since when is contesting an
article's POV in talk a bannable offense?

Jack (Sam Spade)


from_name: Daver5959 at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] 1964 gto

body:
i am trying to find information on all the differences between the 64 lemans
and gto.  i bought a 64 lemans last year and am saving up money to clone it to
a gto and i would like to do it correctly so everything is exactly right.  i
know alot of the differences, but do not know them all.  i stumbled across
your website and thought some one there might know.  any information would be
appreciated.  thanks


from_name: Jesse the man

subject: Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Re: On parents banning their children from Wikipedia

body:
My English teacher at my high school allows us to use Wikipedia. Of
course, I come from a high school, not an elementary school.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Skyring <skyring at gmail.com>
Date: Jul 10, 2005 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: On parents banning their children from Wikipedia
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>

On 7/11/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Finally, if there many great editors (and absolutely all were very very
> very nice to my son), there are also jerks running free. Kids have a lot
> of confidence and trust in adults, I do not think it is a good idea to
> let anyone free to influence them without any control. It is just not safe.

Hear hear!

Of course, this goes for the Internet as a whole - it's not just WP.

Obviously parental (or ILP) control is the way to go for children
using WP. Short of having some sort of volunteer assistant program to
help out identified child users, which would open any number of cans
of worms.

Parents (or teachers etc.) are best placed to assist, instruct, guide
and explain.

And what better Wiki-teacher than an editor? In fact, for some
non-editor parents, I suspect that it might be the kids telling the
parents how to use the technology!

--
Pete, who is beginning to think that his mobile phone is smarter than he is
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Angela

body:
The Foundation isn't directly paying for anyone. Wikimania has some
funding from sponsors for some of the speakers (not all), and some
additional funding was received from OSI to bring some Wikimedians
from the developing world. I don't think it would be at all fair to
ask for funding for someone who had not even submitted a paper or
presentation for the conference.

Angela.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this acceptable?

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

Jack Lynch wrote:
> Sorry, I thought that was obvious. Since when is contesting an
> article's POV in talk a bannable offense?

Ah, I see now. That page is for reporting "people to be banned". It
wasn't really clear, but at the face of it it seems like a heated
argument on a talk page.

Chris

- --
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC2o6yEq6+ijeBrJ8RAkvuAJ9qfHGxZ0bfYajDAXV3KeESoZWtmgCfboKh
NWNNTufw+mZ74ElxhWZpHB0=
=x7HD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Is this acceptable?

body:
Right. My feeling is that this heated argument (wherein I did not use
foul language or engage in personal attacks) should not be grounds for
blocking. I am quite annoyed w having been put there, considering the
circumstances. How can I go about being removed?

Jack (Sam Spade)

> Ah, I see now. That page is for reporting "people to be banned". It
> wasn't really clear, but at the face of it it seems like a heated
> argument on a talk page.
>
> Chris


from_name: Felipe Sanches

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: wiki -> pdf

body:
I wrote this patch to mediawiki-1.4.5 (works for 1.4.6 too) that
integrates wikipdf into mediawiki.
See bug 2852
http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2852

It seems to fix the Commons Images problem since it doesn?t download
the images anymore (wikipdf code is now a mediawiki feature running on
the same server).

Felipe Sanches

PS: Brion noticed that this patch is buggy because shell commands are
not sanitized, I?ll try to fix these problems.


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Google Techtalk

body:
Hi,

I'll be in California from Monday to Friday. I'll be giving a so-called
"TechTalk" at Google's HQ in MountainView. TechTalks are regular
presentations by outside speakers. I approached Google in February with
the goal to give them an idea of the current state of the Wikimedia
projects, and this is what we finally agreed to. From the abstract:

- - - - -

Wikipedia currently contains 2 million articles in 100 languages. With
more than 600,000 articles, the English edition exceeds all previously
existing encyclopedias in size. The Wikipedia website is ranked by
Alexa.com as one of the 100 largest world-wide, and the Wikimedia
servers respond to up to 1,300 requests per second.

This massive growth raises several questions:
* Due to the nature of open editing which is characteristic of wiki
technology, what methods are there to guarantee the validity of an
article a reader is looking at?
* What does it take to successfully apply the wiki principles to other
problem areas the Wikimedia Foundation is tackling, such as the creation
of a media repository or a news site?
* In what other ways could wikis be extended in their reach? Can the
entire web incorporate wiki-like mechanisms?

This presentation will describe the current state of thinking and
research on these questions within the Wikimedia community and introduce
specific technical solutions, such as the article validation system that
is key to Wikimedia's plans for a print edition.

- - - - -

My primary goal is to get Google's engineers intersted in Wikimedia's
software needs. The presentation is unrelated to any discussion about
Google hosting, and will likely not go into hardware/hosting related
issues. It's more a "Future Talk" similar to what I'm going to do at
Wikimania.

The talk will be on Wednesday, if there's some information or ideas that
you want to relay that might be on interest to them, please send it to
me by email ASAP, to this address. Sorry for the short notice.

Best,

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Google Techtalk


subject: [Wikitech-l] Google Techtalk


from_name: Delphine Ménard

subject: [Foundation-l] Google Techtalk

body:
On 7/17/05, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:

> I'll be in California from Monday to Friday. I'll be giving a so-called
> "TechTalk" at Google's HQ in MountainView. TechTalks are regular
> presentations by outside speakers.

Quick question, is this tech-talk thing a five day thing, with many
talks and all, a bit like our Wikimania? If yes, is there a program
somewhere?

Cheers,

Delphine
--
~notafish


subject: [Foundation-l] Google Techtalk


subject: [Foundation-l] Google Techtalk

body:
Delphine M?nard:
> Quick question, is this tech-talk thing a five day thing, with many
> talks and all, a bit like our Wikimania? If yes, is there a program
> somewhere?

No, these are one-hour talks on specific subjects by outside speakers
which happen every few weeks, as I understand it. Every tech talk = one
talk.

Best,

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Google Techtalk


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail

body:
Hello,

Cyrius is a reasonable and informed editor. I am quite certain he only blocks you because you adopt a certain attitude, which you probably should not. Reinserting repeatedly and on purpose links to copyrighted images is a behavior that may grant blocking. Cyrius is not in violation of any rules in doing so.

It also seems clear that the hurricane picture originated from the World Book. You may be the original author of it... but in any cases, you do not hold the copyright. Whether the information should be free to use and people should have or not to pay for it is irrelevant in this case. The World Book has a copyright on this image, so it should not be in wikipedia. If you disagree with World Book holding the copyright on one of your image or graphics, please contact the World Book to discuss the issue directly with them.

Thanks for your understanding.

Anthere

Rickyboy <turbo_benar at hotmail.com> wrote:
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:45:40 GMT
To: Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
From: Rickyboy <turbo_benar at hotmail.com>

Hello,

I have contributed some images under the user name Rickyboy. Unfortunately, another user named Cyrius thinks that they are from the World Book site, so he has blocked me. I created the graphics and took the pictures, and I discussed this issue on my talk page extensively with the user DavidH. Further, Cyrius has blocked me indefinately, which I understand is in violation of Wikipedia rules as well.

Please un-block me as his complaint has been logged on the images and he has no proof that they're from World Book.

Thanks,

Rickyboy

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
 Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour


from_name: SJ

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Image deletion : policies and technology

body:
On 7/15/05, Bovlb <wiki at meninx.com> wrote:
> Timwi <timwi at ...> writes:
> > SJ wrote:
> > > Even as an administrator, whe I go to a deleted page, or try to track
> > > down a deleted image, it is hard to identify who deleted a given page,
> > > and what reason was given -- the list of deleted revisions is not
> > > coordinated with the deletion log.
> >
> > I've asked this before and I can't remember what the answer was. Why
> > don't we just show this right on the page? At least up to 48 hours after
> > the deletion? "This page was deleted by <user> on <date> at <time> for
> > the following reason..."
>
> We could add some text to [[MediaWiki:Nogomatch]] that links to the deletion
> log and WP:VFD.  Could we also make it filter for the page name, or is that
> not available?  If that is possible, then we could also link to the specific
> (possibly non-existent) VfD page.
>
> Bovlb

Yes, those variables are available... along with many, many more:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Variables

SJ


subject: [Foundation-l] elections and other things

body:
Dear all,

Danny just published final results of Wikimedia Foundation board, so it finally close them...

So... first, I would like to thank all those who gave me their trust and hope I will not disappoint them :-)

Second, I'd like to thank our election officials plus Tim, who certainly spent a good deal of time organising all this and did it very well.
I think this year elections were fair to all languages, both for candidates and voters, and I am real glad of this. I hope candidates and editors will agree with me, if not, please add comments on the election meta pages, for any suggestions to improve next elections.

A few more words about the elections themselves.
I wish it had more been an opportunity to discuss big directions, but I guess this can be done any time; I dearly hope that Wikimania, in 2 weeks now, will offer one of these opportunities.
I am happily surprised to see participation is significantly higher than next year (about twice of last year figures)... but I am also a bit perplex that some projects show less participation than their size would have led us to expect. I do not really need to give figures, it is enough to look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Election_results_2005/statistics. It would be interesting to confront these values to the number of very active participants each time... but even without doing so, some participation rates, such as the japanese one are obviously very low. According to Britty, this might have deep cultural roots. Possibly.
Or languages such as it:, which already has a local chapter, could be thought to have more awareness than other languages to Foundation issues. Or possibly not.

I have been wondering if that matters.
On one hand, I wish that more people feel involved, feel they have a right to be informed, would like to give a hand... feel implicated.
But on the other hand, I suppose most people are perfectly happy not giving too many thoughts on the matter, and do what is most important, create free content, and do not feel concerned *as long as everything is working*.

Still, I think I will work on a small and very readable FAQ, to clarify what the foundation is about. From discussions here and there, I feel there is great confusion about what it is and great confusion about the differences and relationships between Foundation and local chapters. I hope some people will help me on that FAQ :-)

My next point will be about evolution.
Three huge differences between this year and a year ago are
* We are much bigger (which means more requests, more legal issues to deal with, more financial needs but also more offers of collaboration, more projects and more editors to take care of)
* Jimmy is much more busy outside than he was a year ago. It must be very tiring (and very exciting) for him, but it also means more delays to deal with some issues (in particular paperwork...)
* Angela and I had a lot to discover last year and I think we have found our place better this year.

I think we can try to deal with growth by several means, such as more organisation, dividing work much more between us and delegating much more. We already started, I am confident it will improve, with the officers and possibly with the wikicouncil (which I hope we can discuss at Wikimania). The main point I fear right now is related to communication. Within the board, with officers, with editors. I hope that anyone will feel free to make suggestions so that we can improve all this. Right now, we frequently observe information was not passed along, or was passed with so many intermediaries it was unfortunately distorted. Thus resulting in misunderstandings, upsets and just plain mistakes. Please help us find solutions if you want us to keep happy and efficient :-)

Yet another point. Most of the board or officers (or semi-officers, because some people just spend most of their time on Foundation issues, even if they have no title, let's not forget this), do work which is not visible. And these might be the most precious people.
Just as the communities on each projects, the Foundation community has its own rules, its own very friendly relationships and its own inimities (which might not be english... right, I mean some people just do not get along well). It is a small community but it has a separate existence (and boy, is it a lively group !).
Please do not confuse it with a set of people of different languages living near one another. These people constitute a group on its own, and as in many groups, there are those who do most of the silent work and those who make a lot of noise but little work and get all the cheers. Please try to see beneath the appareances so as to make it possible for the group to work in harmony.

Last point.
Given all the pressure around Wikimania, it is unlikely much will seem to be done on the Foundation side in the next few weeks. But if you come to Frankfurt, let us take the opportunity to talk all together.
All other issues will probably be in sleep till september. On the agenda are issues such as a fundraising (probably necessary soon), a policy on logo use, fixing the bylaws, trademarks, big update on the sponsors, new servers, starting a new Quarto etc...
We would also like to have several and frequent open board meetings to start the year. Please do not hesitate to suggest topics of discussion you think are necessary.

Greetings

Ant

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Consensus

body:
> From: "Charles Matthews" <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
>
> "Dan Grey" wrote
>
>> "Consensus" can only mean everyone agrees - and when the hell that
>> does that happen? Next to never.
>
> Consensus may be a slightly fuzzy term, but it doesn't mean that.
> In fact
> WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of
> what it does
> mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely
> agreed, some
> who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those
> who don't
> agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree
> strongly
> but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that
> level,
> some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the
> law'.  You
> find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try
> to build
> on it.
>
> Charles

Well said!

--
Jean is going to be bicycling 83 miles in the Pan Mass Challenge in
August, raising money for cancer research. Her profile is at http://
www.pmc.org/mypmc/profiles.asp?Section=story&eGiftID=JS0417


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject:
Fwd: [WikiEN-l] William M. Connoley,
	admin? (was: Running theasylum)

body:
I agree with much of what Dr. Connolley says, with one key exception.

We must take into account the possibilty of POLITICAL bias on the part
of journal editors. Since scientists and those who publish their
findings are human beings, there is at least the theoretical possibility
that they have human failings. One of these is the desire to be
"considered right". Another is the desire to keep a steady paycheck
coming in. Then there's always the desire to use science to advance
certain causes.

The system of publishing results in referreed journals is by and large
an excellent one, but we would do the entire world a dis-service if we
were to ENDORSE the process as incapable of error or bias.

There have been enough cases of both of these problems to justify
holding off on such an endorsement, even if OBJECTIVITY were Wikipedia's
only concern.

Topics such as total world annihilation via an all-out nuclear way
between superpowers - or destruction of the environment (via
over-heating the atmosphere - are naturally of concern to scientists.
They are not mere automatons, nor are they mere disinterested seekers,
seeking to satisfy their curiosity. Science is also done on purpose to
affect technology and policy.

"If I say this, the policymakers will choose that." Who can resist such
a temptation? Is there any evidence that scientists better than the rest
of us, and immune to ordinary human failings? (And is Wikipedia prepare
to amend its NPOV policy to endorse this view of scientific objectivity
and infallability?)

I think we should stick to our original commitment. Just say that
"certain scientists" say X about Y. And don't try to endorse any
particular view on current scientific controversies as "representing a
consensus" which Wikipedia then is committing to endorsing.

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
Bureaucrat
Member of Mediation Committee
Self-described "chief exponent and defender of NPOV policy"


from_name: Laura Scudder

subject: [WikiEN-l] MathDaily site

body:
I love when sites like that stick "all rights reserved" copyright
notices on the bottom of every page out of sheer habit (or maybe it is
malice - the Terms of Use page says it again way bigger at the top
above the GFDL info).

Laura Scudder

On 7/18/05, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I wrote
>
> >  Pleasant enough reading some of my stuff there, but they make no
> > reference I can see to WP or GFDL.
>
> I see that reference to the source is in fact buried in their Terms of Use
> page
>
> http://www.mathdaily.com/copyright.html.
>
> Charles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Skyring

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: On parents banning their children from Wikipedia

body:
On 7/18/05, Jesse the man <viciouskatana.man at gmail.com> wrote:
> My English teacher at my high school allows us to use Wikipedia. Of
> course, I come from a high school, not an elementary school.

And here we have the question of just when children can be expected to
act in a responsible and unsupervised manner. Do children all reach
such a point at eighteen years of age? Any other arbitrary point?

My experience is that chidren become responsible at different ages,
and at the risk of gross generalisation, it seems to me that girls
grow up a lot earlier than boys.

Having a teacher decide whether students are adult enough to use (and
edit) Wikipedia on their own sounds reasonable to me. In fact many
high school students display breathtaking intelligence and insight and
would be valued contributors.

It could equally be said that many adults should be supervised by
someone responsible, judging by the sort of behaviour we so often see.
--
Peter in Canberra


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Rowan Collins wrote:

>>>I really don't know
>>>what you could and couldn't do once Mickey Mouse was no longer
>>>*copyrighted*, but still considered a *trademark*.
>>>
>>>
>In other words: I plead ignorance, your honour. I *don't know* in what
>circumstances the trademark status would come into play. But I very
>much doubt that a trademark expires completely and incontrovertibly as
>soon as something containing that trademark enters the public domain.
>
You would do well to look at just what trademark infringement is.  The
following is from http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/infringe.html

    In a nutshell, a plaintiff in a trademark case has the burden of
    proving that the defendant's use of a mark has created a
    likelihood-of-confusion about the origin of the defendant's goods or
    services. To do this, the plaintiff should first show that it has
    developed a protectable trademark right in a trademark. The
    plaintiff then must show that the defendant is using a confusingly
    similar mark in such a way that it creates a likelihood of
    confusion, mistake and/or deception with the consuming public. The
    confusion created can be that the defendant's products are the same
    as that of the plaintiff, or that the defendant is somehow
    associated, affiliated, connected, approved, authorized or sponsored
    by plaintiff.

When the matter arises we need to analyse the situation in those terms.
Thus for the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica:

1. We acknowledge that EB has a protectable trademark.
2. The reference to the name may seem "confusingly similar".
3..We are aware of the likelihood for confusion and deception, but we
can dispel this likelihood by a properly place disclaimer.
4. Like them we are in the encyclopedia business, and we continue to
show the Wikipedia is a completely different publication from theirs.
Our publication of the 1911 material is in a distinct project that is
still associated with Wikipedia, and is still a part of the Wikimedia
family.
5. We do our utmost to show that we are not in any way "associated,
affiliated, connected, approved, authorized or sponsored" by EB.
6. We are prepared to negotiate with the trademark holders to insure
that no confusion arises.

Being in Alexa's top 100 means that we are no longer a bit player.
Analyzing these situations like a bit player may not be effective.
When everybody goes to the track and bets the longshot they need to
realize that such a collective effort can turn the longshot into the
favorite.  I think that it's important that we become aware of our
effect on the marketplace.

Ec


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] A Missing Policy

body:
Maybe this is an example of how I can't find subjects on Wikipedia,
but I'd rather be proved clueless than right in this case.

I just stumbled across a copyvio notice on the article
[[1868 Expedition to Abyssinia]] which, after examining the
evidence with care, I felt was a case of an editor paraphrasing
the text of a source far enough to argue that copyright no longer
applied; however, the question whether this was plagiarism
remained.

So, attempting to be a good little editor, I began to track
down what Wikipedia's policy about plagiarism was (beyond my
assumption that it was bad), & after a good-faith search
(primarily looking at links to [[Plagiarism]] from articles in
the Wikipedia namespace -- which is where policy statements
usually live) discovered only two mentions about plagiarism:

* [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]], where it is discussed in a way to
suggest it is not a copyright violation; &
* [[Wikipedia:Your first article]], where it is mentioned
in a discussion of providing one's sources.

While this may appear to some as a case of Wikilawyering or
[[instruction creep]], I feel it is a serious omission in our
list of policies. I hope I'm not alone in saying that I don't
want to find any instances of plagiarism in Wikipedia. However,
I don't want to find this sort of thing creeping into Wikipedia
under the defense "It's not a copyright violation, it's plagiarism",
nor do I want unattributed paraphrases of sources being sent to
VfD, either speedy or regular, when a simple acknowledgement of
sources might solve the problem. And this is a case clearly
different than the "Cite sources" policy currently is, which is
intended to handle things like adding controversial material
without attributing them to a source.

It'd be nice to have some kind of Cleanup tag applied to force
the contributor to improve the language &/or supply the source
for the text -- but articles have languished on Cleanup for
months or years without being fixed.

But I'm willing to live with whatever the consensus is to
handle this problem -- even if it is to treat all suspected cases
as a copyvio. It's not that I'm asking for an easy solution here
(the issue of how much paraphrase is needed in this case clearly
pre-empts that), but a sense of what the community consensus is
when (& sadly, not "if") I have to fight this problem.

Geoff


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] MathDaily site

body:
I happened on this site

http://www.mathdaily.com/

using Wiki-en mathematics articles.  Pleasant enough reading some of my
stuff there, but they make no reference I can see to WP or GFDL.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] MathDaily site

body:
I wrote

>  Pleasant enough reading some of my stuff there, but they make no
> reference I can see to WP or GFDL.

I see that reference to the source is in fact buried in their Terms of Use
page

http://www.mathdaily.com/copyright.html.

Charles


from_name: Arwel Parry

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail

body:
In message <200507180947.j6I9l67R006666 at srv20.pmtpa.wmnet>, Rickyboy
<turbo_benar at hotmail.com> writes
>
>Hello,
>
>I have contributed some images under the user name Rickyboy.
>Unfortunately, another user named Cyrius thinks that they are from the
>World Book site, so he has blocked me. I created the graphics and took
>the pictures, and I discussed this issue on my talk page extensively
>with the user DavidH. Further, Cyrius has blocked me indefinately,
>which I understand is in violation of Wikipedia rules as well.
>
>Please un-block me as his complaint has been logged on the images and
>he has no proof that they're from World Book.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Rickyboy

Sorry, I have reviewed some of your images, particularly Image:Where
hurricanes strike.gif against the World Book illustrations, and frankly
I find your claim to have created the graphics to be incredible, unless
you claim to have created them for World Book in which case we would
require to see authorisation from World Book that they can be
republished. The attitude toward copyright which you display on your
talk page fatally undermines any inclination to give you the benefit of
the doubt. So, sorry, I think Cyrius acted properly in defence of
Wikipedia, and I'm not going to lift your ban.

Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/

In message <20050718104548.25940.qmail at web32914.mail.mud.yahoo.com>,
Anthere <anthere9-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> writes
>Hello,
>
>Cyrius is a reasonable and informed editor. I am quite certain he only
>blocks you because you adopt a certain attitude, which you probably
>should not. Reinserting repeatedly and on purpose links to copyrighted
>images is a behavior that may grant blocking. Cyrius is not in
>violation of any rules in doing so.
>
>It also seems clear that the hurricane picture originated from the
>World Book. You may be the original author of it... but in any cases,
>you do not hold the copyright. Whether the information should be free
>to use and people should have or not to pay for it is irrelevant in
>this case. The World Book has a copyright on this image, so it should
>not be in wikipedia. If you disagree with World Book holding the
>copyright on one of your image or graphics, please contact the World
>Book to discuss the issue directly with them.
>
>Thanks for your understanding.
>
>Anthere
>
>
>
>Rickyboy <turbo_benar-PkbjNfxxIARBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:45:40 GMT
>To: Anthere <anthere9-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>
>Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
>From: Rickyboy <turbo_benar-PkbjNfxxIARBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org>
>
>
>Hello,
>
>I have contributed some images under the user name Rickyboy.
>Unfortunately, another user named Cyrius thinks that they are from the
>World Book site, so he has blocked me. I created the graphics and took
>the pictures, and I discussed this issue on my talk page extensively
>with the user DavidH. Further, Cyrius has blocked me indefinately,
>which I understand is in violation of Wikipedia rules as well.
>
>Please un-block me as his complaint has been logged on the images and
>he has no proof that they're from World Book.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Rickyboy
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Yahoo! Mail
> Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/


subject: [WikiEN-l] A Missing Policy

body:
Geoff Burling wrote:

>I just stumbled across a copyvio notice on the article
>[[1868 Expedition to Abyssinia]] which, after examining the
>evidence with care, I felt was a case of an editor paraphrasing
>the text of a source far enough to argue that copyright no longer
>applied; however, the question whether this was plagiarism
>remained.
>
>While this may appear to some as a case of Wikilawyering or
>[[instruction creep]], I feel it is a serious omission in our
>list of policies. I hope I'm not alone in saying that I don't
>want to find any instances of plagiarism in Wikipedia. However,
>I don't want to find this sort of thing creeping into Wikipedia
>under the defense "It's not a copyright violation, it's plagiarism",
>nor do I want unattributed paraphrases of sources being sent to
>VfD, either speedy or regular, when a simple acknowledgement of
>sources might solve the problem. And this is a case clearly
>different than the "Cite sources" policy currently is, which is
>intended to handle things like adding controversial material
>without attributing them to a source.
>
The pagiarism defence is a bit like denying a murder because you were
busy robbing a bank on the other side of town at the time of the
murder.  I don't think that citing sources should be limited to
controversial subjects.  I don't see much modern controversy in an 1868
expedition, but readers should still have the opportunity to find more
information.  In some cases you may want to know whether the information
is real or from the contributor's imagination.  In Wiktionary this often
takes the form of looking for verification that there really is such a
word, especially when the word is described as some sort of sexual slang

I think that even fewer people understand the concept of plagiarism than
understand the concept of copyright infringment.  Notwithstanding the
numerous arguments that we have on the subject, infringement is far more
susceptible to being expressed clearly than plagiarism.  Plagiarism is
often just a matter of poor research habits.

>It'd be nice to have some kind of Cleanup tag applied to force
>the contributor to improve the language &/or supply the source
>for the text -- but articles have languished on Cleanup for
>months or years without being fixed.
>
The only problem with cleanup tags is that nobody ever wants to
cleanup.  When they languish there's a good chance that the contributor
who could have answered our question is no longer here.  Perhaps we need
a variation of Mav's wikikarma.  If you add a clean up tag, you should
clean up a different one in a more familiar subject.

>But I'm willing to live with whatever the consensus is to
>handle this problem -- even if it is to treat all suspected cases
>as a copyvio. It's not that I'm asking for an easy solution here
>(the issue of how much paraphrase is needed in this case clearly
>pre-empts that), but a sense of what the community consensus is
>when (& sadly, not "if") I have to fight this problem.
>
If the question of copyvio can be overcome we should feel free to add
references that will back up the information, and strenghthen the claim
that it is not original research.

Ec


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Plagiarism Policy, was A Missing Policy

body:
Plagiarism is use of paraphrased or quoted material without
acknowledgment of the source. We welcome and expect paraphrasing,
which is simply use of information. As you note, we have failed to
make an explicit policy regarding plagiarism, which should be done so
confabulation of plagiarism and copyright violations does not occur.

Fred

On Jul 18, 2005, at 12:42 PM, Geoff Burling wrote:

> Maybe this is an example of how I can't find subjects on Wikipedia,
> but I'd rather be proved clueless than right in this case.
>
> I just stumbled across a copyvio notice on the article
> [[1868 Expedition to Abyssinia]] which, after examining the
> evidence with care, I felt was a case of an editor paraphrasing
> the text of a source far enough to argue that copyright no longer
> applied; however, the question whether this was plagiarism
> remained.
>
> So, attempting to be a good little editor, I began to track
> down what Wikipedia's policy about plagiarism was (beyond my
> assumption that it was bad), & after a good-faith search
> (primarily looking at links to [[Plagiarism]] from articles in
> the Wikipedia namespace -- which is where policy statements
> usually live) discovered only two mentions about plagiarism:
>
> * [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]], where it is discussed in a way to
> suggest it is not a copyright violation; &
> * [[Wikipedia:Your first article]], where it is mentioned
> in a discussion of providing one's sources.
>
> While this may appear to some as a case of Wikilawyering or
> [[instruction creep]], I feel it is a serious omission in our
> list of policies. I hope I'm not alone in saying that I don't
> want to find any instances of plagiarism in Wikipedia. However,
> I don't want to find this sort of thing creeping into Wikipedia
> under the defense "It's not a copyright violation, it's plagiarism",
> nor do I want unattributed paraphrases of sources being sent to
> VfD, either speedy or regular, when a simple acknowledgement of
> sources might solve the problem. And this is a case clearly
> different than the "Cite sources" policy currently is, which is
> intended to handle things like adding controversial material
> without attributing them to a source.
>
> It'd be nice to have some kind of Cleanup tag applied to force
> the contributor to improve the language &/or supply the source
> for the text -- but articles have languished on Cleanup for
> months or years without being fixed.
>
> But I'm willing to live with whatever the consensus is to
> handle this problem -- even if it is to treat all suspected cases
> as a copyvio. It's not that I'm asking for an easy solution here
> (the issue of how much paraphrase is needed in this case clearly
> pre-empts that), but a sense of what the community consensus is
> when (& sadly, not "if") I have to fight this problem.
>
> Geoff
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Fair Use and Registered Trademarks

body:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:

> To this end, in regards to the 1911 Encyclop?dia Britannica, I have
> created a specific disclaimer for this project:
>
> http://wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica%3AProject_Disclaimer
>
>
> I feel a little awkward trying to write such a disclaimer, but I think
> it covers most of the points listed above.  The one thing that I may
> be going over the top on is claiming Wikimedia Foundation liability on
> trademark infringement.  It is not my intention to speak for the
> board, but rather note that legal issues about Wikimedia content
> should involve the board at some point.  What mechanism the board
> wants to have on that issue is beyond my call.
>
> I'm certainly not going to make it easy for a lawyer to file a lawsuit
> against me, but at the same time I do want somebody to know that there
> is an organization behind these websites, and we take trademark
> infringement seriously... wheither we as a community inadvertantly do
> it or it is done against us.  It is also not our intention to pretend
> we are something that we are not.

The one subtle change that I would make is to have "Reference to the
trademark" rather than "Use of the trademark".  We aren't really "using"
the trademark.

Ec


from_name: Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum

subject: [Wikitech-l] PHP warning on de.wikipedia.org

body:
Hello,

today i got the following (reproducible) PHP warning:

Warning: rename(/mnt/wikipedia/htdocs/commons/upload/thumb/b/b3/250px-429px-Vitruvian.jpg,/mnt/wikipedia/htdocs/commons/upload/thumb/1/10/429px-Vitruvian.jpg/250px-429px-Vitruvian.jpg): Not a directory in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Image.php on line 956

The site in question was:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menschen

Kind regards

--
				Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
 (Ferenc Mantfeld)


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

body:
Rowan Collins wrote:

>>>I really don't know
>>>what you could and couldn't do once Mickey Mouse was no longer
>>>*copyrighted*, but still considered a *trademark*.
>>>
>>>
>
>In other words: I plead ignorance, your honour. I *don't know* in what
>circumstances the trademark status would come into play. But I very
>much doubt that a trademark expires completely and incontrovertibly as
>soon as something containing that trademark enters the public domain.
>
>
I think that this is precisely the reason Disney is worried about the
copyright on "Steamboat Willie" passing into the public domain:  The
rules are a lot more loose on what you can and can't do with the
content.  In legal circles there is an unwritten rule that every time
this movie is threatened with copyright expiration, Disney bribes a few
more Senators and congressmen (really, that is only a campaign
contribution, your honor) to extend the copyright another 30 years or
so.  Essentially it has been in perpetual copyright, and was one of the
items mentioned in Eldred vs. Ashcroft (although in a minority opinion).
 If and when this copyright expiration does occur, the use of the Micky
Mouse logo is going to be a subject of considerable contention legal
debate as Disney is likely going to defend its use in materials that it
doesn't specifically authorize.  Basically this is going to be a wait
and see issue in the upcoming decade.

--
Robert Scott Horning
218 Sunstone Circle
Logan, UT 84321
(435) 753-3330
robert_horning at netzero.net


body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> When the matter arises we need to analyse the situation in those
> terms. Thus for the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica:
>
> 1. We acknowledge that EB has a protectable trademark.
> 2. The reference to the name may seem "confusingly similar".
> 3..We are aware of the likelihood for confusion and deception, but we
> can dispel this likelihood by a properly place disclaimer.
> 4. Like them we are in the encyclopedia business, and we continue to
> show the Wikipedia is a completely different publication from theirs.
> Our publication of the 1911 material is in a distinct project that is
> still associated with Wikipedia, and is still a part of the Wikimedia
> family. 5. We do our utmost to show that we are not in any way
> "associated, affiliated, connected, approved, authorized or sponsored"
> by EB.
> 6. We are prepared to negotiate with the trademark holders to insure
> that no confusion arises.
>
> Being in Alexa's top 100 means that we are no longer a bit player.
> Analyzing these situations like a bit player may not be effective.
> When everybody goes to the track and bets the longshot they need to
> realize that such a collective effort can turn the longshot into the
> favorite.  I think that it's important that we become aware of our
> effect on the marketplace.
>
> Ec

To this end, in regards to the 1911 Encyclop?dia Britannica, I have
created a specific disclaimer for this project:

http://wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica%3AProject_Disclaimer

I feel a little awkward trying to write such a disclaimer, but I think it covers most of the points listed above.  The one thing that I may be going over the top on is claiming Wikimedia Foundation liability on trademark infringement.  It is not my intention to speak for the board, but rather note that legal issues about Wikimedia content should involve the board at some point.  What mechanism the board wants to have on that issue is beyond my call.

I'm certainly not going to make it easy for a lawyer to file a lawsuit against me, but at the same time I do want somebody to know that there is an organization behind these websites, and we take trademark infringement seriously... wheither we as a community inadvertantly do it or it is done against us.  It is also not our intention to pretend we are something that we are not.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Jack

subject: [WikiEN-l] 1964 gto

body:
Ewwww.... What exactly is he refering to, when he says clones?

On 7/18/05, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/18/05, Daver5959 at aol.com <Daver5959 at aol.com> wrote:
> > i am trying to find information on all the differences between the 64
> lemans
> > and gto. i bought a 64 lemans last year and am saving up money to clone
> it to
> > a gto and i would like to do it correctly so everything is exactly
> right. i
> > know alot of the differences, but do not know them all. i stumbled
> across
> > your website and thought some one there might know. any information
> would be
> > appreciated. thanks
>
> Awwwright, who's the moderator who let this one through?
>
> Then again, knowing this list, there's probably someone who knows all
> the details.
>
> --
> Pete, who doesn't
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Worldtraveller

subject: [WikiEN-l] The wikification of thought

body:
Just chanced across this - thought it was quite funny...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patronymic&diff=1309628&oldid=1186339

WT


from_name: Samuel Klein

subject: [Foundation-l] External site using Wikinews logo

body:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Dan Grey wrote:

> To be honest, what I am angling for here is for
> something approximating a polite "cease and desist"
> message from the board to the operator of the site.

That seems rather uncalled for.  The idea of such a network continues to
have some support (although I must confess at this point that I am one of
those who thinks it is a fine idea) --
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Audio_Wikinews is still being
updated, for instance -- and it was founded entirely by wikinewsies, to
supplement the foundation's hardware options.

Has there been other continued discussion on wikinews about whether to
attempt such a project?

SJ


from_name: Jan Schaffer

subject: [WikiEN-l] J.Wales-Keynoter for Batten Awards for Innovations??

body:
Hi Folks -

This is a copy of an email I sent Jimmy earlier today. I love it if you
could give me  a read as to whether his schedule would even permit his
accepting this invitation:

Hi Jimmy -

    I enjoyed sitting next to you at the Harvard blogging conference. I'm
circling back to see if I could woo you to be the keynote speaker at this
year's Batten Awards for Innovations in Journalism Symposium
(http://www.j-lab.org/batten.html)?

    My Advisory Board just finished meeting and selecting this year's award
winners and you were the favorite recommendation for a  keynoter.

    The date is Monday, Sept. 12.  The event is at the National Press Club
in Washington, DC.  The keynote address is given at a luncheon of about
80-100 people -- many of whom will be D.C. journalists, not always known for
innovation. And probably only distantly aware of wikis.

    With  Wiki launching a news site, the LA Times experimenting on its
editorial page, the robust give-and-take on the Harvard listserv, and your
own experience of having journalism "done" to  you, you'd have a lot of
insights to offer. The winners of this years award's will be announced at
the symposium as well.

    J-Lab could cover your travel and lodging costs -- with a grant from the
Knight Foundation that supports the awards.

    I've admired your work for a long time and I'd love to have you if it
would fit into your schedule.

Best,
Jan

--
Jan Schaffer
Executive Director
J-Lab: The Institute for Interactive Journalism
7100 Baltimore Ave., Suite 101
College Park, MD 20740
Ph: 301-985-4020
Fx: 301-985-4021
jans at j-lab.org
Www.J-Lab.org
Www.J-NewVoices.org


body:
> > That seems rather uncalled for.
> Protecting copyright is uncalled for?

Considering the origins of that site, and the people using it, your
reaction is a bit on the touchy side.

> I'm not sure how that justifies a private site using a
> copyrighted Wikimedia logo without permission.

Private in the loosest possible sense.  And what does it mean for a
project people are still working on to be 'dead in the water'?  In any
case, I would feel better about this thread if it had been started by
someone with no private bone to pick with said site operator; but you
don't like him at all.  Perhaps you can find someone else to help you
advocate your points.

SJ


from_name: Bovlb

body:
SJ <2.718281828 at ...> writes:
> On 7/15/05, Bovlb <wiki at ...> wrote:
> > We could add some text to [[MediaWiki:Nogomatch]] that links to the deletion
> > log and WP:VFD.  Could we also make it filter for the page name, or is that
> > not available?  If that is possible, then we could also link to the specific
> > (possibly non-existent) VfD page.
>
> Yes, those variables are available... along with many, many more:
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Variables

Yes, I knew about those, but ... Aha!  From looking at the source of
[[MediaWiki:Nogomatch]], I see that $1 is set to the "Go" string.  I'll add my
suggestion to the talk page.

Bovlb


body:
Inviting an author to participate is good idea in many cases, but we
are still missing an important policy area.

I have been working on Texas congressional bios lately, which involves
much summarizing of the Congressional Bioguide and the Handbook of
Texas Online, and have often felt myself a little unsure of exactly
how much paraphrasing and referencing I need to do when some of the
bios mostly consist of a list of facts.  A clear policy page would be
very helpful in these sorts of cases.

Laura Scudder

On 7/18/05, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/19/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> > Plagiarism is use of paraphrased or quoted material without
> > acknowledgment of the source. We welcome and expect paraphrasing,
> > which is simply use of information. As you note, we have failed to
> > make an explicit policy regarding plagiarism, which should be done so
> > confabulation of plagiarism and copyright violations does not occur.
>
> Sometimes sources of information are limited, or the information
> itself is limited and there are only so many ways to paraphrase it.
> But plagiarism is easy in this age of cut and paste and we need to
> guard against it as WP becomes ever more widely accepted, because the
> authors of original material will doubtless turn to WP to see what we
> have to say on their specialist topic, and if they see their own words
> quoted without attribution, then they are:
> A) not going to be happy and
> B) dismissive of WP as a whole.
>
> WP isn't a mainstream encyclopaedia and we editors aren't a select
> club (except by self-selection), so may I suggest that instead of
> cutting and pasting at worst or paraphrasing at best, we make it
> policy to ask third-party authors if they would like to contribute to
> an article?
>
> My feeling is that if they have gone to the trouble of researching a
> subject and writing something that we feel is good enough for
> inclusion, then they would be honoured by a request to contribute
> directly, and they would make a better contribution on a specialist
> topic than anything we "generalists" could do by paraphrasing.
>
> --
> Peter in Canberra
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Ed Poor wrote

>I agree with much of what Dr. Connolley says, with one key exception.

>We must take into account the possibilty of POLITICAL bias on the part
of journal editors. Since scientists and those who publish their
findings are human beings, there is at least the theoretical possibility
that they have human failings. One of these is the desire to be
"considered right". Another is the desire to keep a steady paycheck
coming in. Then there's always the desire to use science to advance
certain causes.

>The system of publishing results in referreed journals is by and large
an excellent one, but we would do the entire world a dis-service if we
were to ENDORSE the process as incapable of error or bias.

Point (i): OK, there are arguments for a form of rather pure scepticism,
which are hard to refute absolutely, a position that I think has been
accepted by many European thinkers for the past 250 years at least.

Point (ii): This discussion of Ed's doesn't make much sense to me, other
than by outlining how a radically sceptical argument about science could go.
Wikipedia doesn't particularly 'endorse' the Journal of X by quoting it in
articles relating to scientific topic of X.  (WP doesn't 'endorse' a
government news agency of nation N by quoting it, does it?  Caveat lector
still holds.)  If the article [[Journal of X]] said what it printed was
always 100% gospel truth, that would not only be a bad article, but would
show a big misunderstanding of the common understanding of science.  In the
worst cases (Lysenko) you can get a whole system of academic publishing
that's corrupt.  The fact that that could happen doesn't mean that when
quoting on WP highly respected journals in the scientific field there has to
be an automatic qualification written in.

Charles


from_name: Jeannet Sant

subject: [WikiEN-l] hello

body:
To  Whom It May Concern,
                                      I am Jeannette Grealdine Sant from Malta, I wish if it is possible for you to find me the names of the Banks in England because my uncle Spiridione Sant, has died without the will, and we don't know where they are.He has been dead for four years now and he had money in the english banks.Just to see in which bank they are.I appreciate it if you send me an email of the Names of the Banks on this email : jesline_sant at hotmail.com. Thank you .
                                                                                From:
                                                                                Jeannette Sant


subject: [WikiEN-l] 1964 gto

body:
On 7/18/05, Daver5959 at aol.com <Daver5959 at aol.com> wrote:
> i am trying to find information on all the differences between the 64 lemans
> and gto.  i bought a 64 lemans last year and am saving up money to clone it to
> a gto and i would like to do it correctly so everything is exactly right.  i
> know alot of the differences, but do not know them all.  i stumbled across
> your website and thought some one there might know.  any information would be
> appreciated.  thanks

Awwwright, who's the moderator who let this one through?

Then again, knowing this list, there's probably someone who knows all
the details.

--
Pete, who doesn't


from_name: Ant   Sons LLC

subject: [WikiEN-l] Contributing content to Wikipedia

body:
My website (http://www.antandsons.com ) consits of a lot of
informational content on the financial world that I believe could be of
interest to wiki searchers who are looking for this kind of
information.  I originally tried to add a few links to some articles
that we have written to the external links section in some articles
where applicable, but someone said that I could not do this.  However,
I think this content is very relevant and want to contribute to
wikipedia with "approval."  How can I do this?

I would appreciate the feedback.

Thank you


from_name: Dan Grey

body:
There's a private site using the Wikinews logo here:
http://wnn.fm8x.net/index.php/Main_Page

I understand that permission was "sought" in some way
from the board for this. I'd really like that
clarified, if possible.

Personally, I object strongly to the site using the
Wikinews logo. As you can see, the logo is rendered
very weirdly and the rest of the site is broken. With
the Wikinews "brand" gaining some measure of respect
at the moment I don't like seeing us being
"associated" with rubbish like this.

Dan

___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Rowan Collins

body:
> [I wrote:]
> > [Of course, unlike
> > the Encyclopedia Britannica, you couldn't really use an image of
> > Mickey Mouse with the trademark removed, since Mickey Mouse *is* the
> > trademark]

Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:
> Wrong... you could use a precise image of Mickey Mouse if this image
> is PD !

I think you misunderstood that sentence: I didn't say "You couldn't
use an image of Mickey Mouse." I said "You couldn't remove the
trademark [i.e. Mickey Mouse] from a picture of Mickey Mouse." I was
just pointing out that, if there *were* any possibility of a trademark
conflict, the Encyclopedia Britannica can be printed with the words
"Encyclopedia Britannica" removed to avoid that possibility; in
contrast, *if there were a need to* it would be impossible to use an
image of Mickey Mouse without it containing an image of Mickey Mouse.

> Once again, trademarks are a commercial system applying to commercial
> uses and unable to interfere with more legitimate rights.

This doesn't make much sense to me - what are "more legitimate rights"
exactly? By its very existence, a legal enforcement of trademarks
removes the rights of one party in favour of another - it loses me the
right to market software as "Microsoft", for example - which without
trademark law would be perfectly "legitimate".

However, taking the gist of what I think you were saying, I will
defend my position by quoting myself:

> > I really don't know
> > what you could and couldn't do once Mickey Mouse was no longer
> > *copyrighted*, but still considered a *trademark*.

In other words: I plead ignorance, your honour. I *don't know* in what
circumstances the trademark status would come into play. But I very
much doubt that a trademark expires completely and incontrovertibly as
soon as something containing that trademark enters the public domain.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


body:
On 18/07/05, Dan Grey <dangrey101 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> There's a private site using the Wikinews logo here:
> http://wnn.fm8x.net/index.php/Main_Page

I don't know anything about this, but I think it worth pointing out
that this isn't *exactly* a "private" site - it's a kind of proposed
sub-project of Wikinews. The brokenness on some parts of the site is
probably more to do with "teething troubles" than someone trying to
associate "rubbish" with the Wikinews "brand".

Like I say, I don't know anything about it, but I think a bit of
"assume good faith" could be applied here...

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


body:
On 18/07/05, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/07/05, Dan Grey <dangrey101 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > There's a private site using the Wikinews logo here:
> > http://wnn.fm8x.net/index.php/Main_Page
>
> I don't know anything about this, but I think it worth pointing out
> that this isn't *exactly* a "private" site - it's a kind of proposed
> sub-project of Wikinews.

Oops, sorry to reply to myself, but I meant to include the URL to what
I found on Wikinews itself about this:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/WNN:About (and, indeed,
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/WNN:Proposal).

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: mm

subject: [Wikitech-l] tests need php cli, please help with cli

body:
I am trying to rim tests from mediawiki scripts.
On my fedora core 3 php is CGI.
No cli PHP binary to download.
Now I am tired an asking for help if anyone can do this for me.
Thanks,
mm


body:
You need to clearly identify the source of your material whether you
quote from it or not. If the information comes from it, cite it.

Paraphrasing is strange work. There are many ways to say something,
but sometimes the language used in the original is simply the only
good way to say something.

Fred

On Jul 18, 2005, at 3:35 PM, Laura Scudder wrote:

> Inviting an author to participate is good idea in many cases, but we
> are still missing an important policy area.
>
> I have been working on Texas congressional bios lately, which involves
> much summarizing of the Congressional Bioguide and the Handbook of
> Texas Online, and have often felt myself a little unsure of exactly
> how much paraphrasing and referencing I need to do when some of the
> bios mostly consist of a list of facts.  A clear policy page would be
> very helpful in these sorts of cases.
>
> Laura Scudder
>
> On 7/18/05, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/19/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Plagiarism is use of paraphrased or quoted material without
>>> acknowledgment of the source. We welcome and expect paraphrasing,
>>> which is simply use of information. As you note, we have failed to
>>> make an explicit policy regarding plagiarism, which should be
>>> done so
>>> confabulation of plagiarism and copyright violations does not occur.
>>>
>>
>> Sometimes sources of information are limited, or the information
>> itself is limited and there are only so many ways to paraphrase it.
>> But plagiarism is easy in this age of cut and paste and we need to
>> guard against it as WP becomes ever more widely accepted, because the
>> authors of original material will doubtless turn to WP to see what we
>> have to say on their specialist topic, and if they see their own
>> words
>> quoted without attribution, then they are:
>> A) not going to be happy and
>> B) dismissive of WP as a whole.
>>
>> WP isn't a mainstream encyclopaedia and we editors aren't a select
>> club (except by self-selection), so may I suggest that instead of
>> cutting and pasting at worst or paraphrasing at best, we make it
>> policy to ask third-party authors if they would like to contribute to
>> an article?
>>
>> My feeling is that if they have gone to the trouble of researching a
>> subject and writing something that we feel is good enough for
>> inclusion, then they would be honoured by a request to contribute
>> directly, and they would make a better contribution on a specialist
>> topic than anything we "generalists" could do by paraphrasing.
>>
>> --
>> Peter in Canberra
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Laura Scudder

subject: [WikiEN-l] MathDaily site

body:
On 7/18/05, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/18/05, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > I wrote
> >
> > >  Pleasant enough reading some of my stuff there, but they make no
> > > reference I can see to WP or GFDL.
> >
> > I see that reference to the source is in fact buried in their Terms of Use
> > page
> >
> > http://www.mathdaily.com/copyright.html.
> >
>
> Also notice that the notice at the bottom of every page just says
> "Copyright 2005 MathDaily.com", without mentioning the GFDL. Obviously
> they're entitled to hold copyright over their headers and sidebars,
> but are reusers allowed to bury the GFDL notice like that?
>

Take a look at [[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks]] and
[[Wikipedia:Copyrights]], which recommends a small notice and link
back to both the wikipedia article and a copy of the GFDL on every
article.  I guess the link back satisfies the requirement for author
attribution.

[[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/GFDL Compliance]] makes it look like no
one has sent a first letter to MathDaily.

Laura


from_name: Angela

body:
On 7/18/05, Dan Grey <dangrey101 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> There's a private site using the Wikinews logo here:
> http://wnn.fm8x.net/index.php/Main_Page
>
> I understand that permission was "sought" in some way
> from the board for this. I'd really like that
> clarified, if possible.

Permission was not granted (nor sought) for the logo. I said on the
Wikinews and Foundation mailing lists last month that this should not
even be called "Wikinews Network" if it were not an official Wikimedia
project. Unfortunately, no one ever made any comment in that thread as
to whether this should or should not be an official part of Wikinews
or an official Wikimedia project.

Angela.


from_name: James Gibbon

subject: GMail's threading (was Re: [WikiEN-l] A plea)

body:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:19:15 +1000
Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just in case people didn't know, GMail will automatically remember the
> addresses of anyone you have sent mail to or replied to. Just type "w"
> in the "to" field and <wikien-l at wikipedia.org> should be there,
> presuming you've sent a message to the list before.
>

Strictly speaking it's your browser, not GMail, that remembers the
text you type into particular fields - and some browsers may not do
this.

James


body:
--- Rowan Collins <rowan.collins at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't know anything about this, but I think it
> worth pointing out
> that this isn't *exactly* a "private" site - it's a
> kind of proposed
> sub-project of Wikinews. The brokenness on some
> parts of the site is
> probably more to do with "teething troubles" than
> someone trying to
> associate "rubbish" with the Wikinews "brand".
>
> Like I say, I don't know anything about it, but I
> think a bit of
> "assume good faith" could be applied here...
>

Oh yeah, I'm not trying to imply anything about the
motivation behind the site. But it is very broken, it
*is* private (not on Wikimedia servers), and I still
don't think it reflects well on Wikinews.

To be honest, what I am angling for here is for
something approximating a polite "cease and desist"
message from the board to the operator of the site.

Dan

___________________________________________________________
Does your mail provider give you FREE antivirus protection?
Get Yahoo! Mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com


body:
On 18/07/05, James Gibbon <wikipedia at jamesgibbon.com> wrote:
> Strictly speaking it's your browser, not GMail, that remembers the
> text you type into particular fields - and some browsers may not do
> this.

No, GMail has a built-in auto-complete from its internal address book.
You have to remember that GMail is so heavily JavaScripted that it's
more like a mail client in its own right that just happens to run
inside your web browser - a genuine "web application", I guess,
although that term is so full of hype it makes me cringe to use it.

It's actually got some quite interesting UI features, like the "stack
of cards" conversation display, and the way the spell-check works. [Of
course, you can also view it in "basic HTML" or connect to your inbox
over POP3, but the normal interface is part of what makes it stand
out]

(If you want to try it out for yourself and see what I mean, drop me a
line and I'll "invite" you)
--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


body:
--- Samuel Klein <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That seems rather uncalled for.

Protecting copyright is uncalled for?

> The idea of such a
> network continues to
> have some support (although I must confess at this
> point that I am one of
> those who thinks it is a fine idea)
> --
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Audio_Wikinews
> is still being
> updated, for instance -- and it was founded entirely
> by wikinewsies, to
> supplement the foundation's hardware options.
>

I'm not sure how that justifies a private site using a
copyrighted Wikimedia logo without permission.

> Has there been other continued discussion on
> wikinews about whether to
> attempt such a project?

No, the idea is dead in the water.

Dan

___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Skyring

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Consensus

body:
On 7/18/05, Daniel P. B. Smith <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:

> > You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try
> > to build on it.
> >
> > Charles
>
> Well said!

Hear, hear!

--
Peter in Canberra, the home of consensus


subject: [Foundation-l] Google Techtalk

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> Erik Moeller:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'll be in California from Monday to Friday.
>
>
> So much for that idea - turns out I didn't have the machine readable
> passport required by the United States and couldn't board my flight. I
> do now, and we're trying to reschedule. I'll post an update if and
> when something does happen.
>
> Erik

I apologize on behalf of most ordinary Americans that you have to deal
with an incredibly paranoid government that is currently in power.  I'll
leave the rest of the politics where it lays right now.  I hope that
your experience when you get here is better once you get away from the
DMZ that most airports have become.

--
Robert Scott Horning


subject: [Foundation-l] Google Techtalk


from_name: Matt Brown

body:
Plagiarism is simply the use of a source without attribution; passing
others' work and ideas off as one's own.  But on Wikipedia, we should
not be passing off ANYTHING as our own (No original research).  Thus
it can be seen the Wikipedia goal is different than that of an
academic paper or suchlike.  In academia, the crime is one of claiming
credit to oneself that deserves to go to another.  On Wikipedia, we're
not writing for individual credit.

Thus, it is unsurprising that Wikipedia has no explicit plagiarism
policies; it is subsumed under WP:NOR and WP:CITE.  Although, as Fred
Bauder says, we probably should have a page on it in policy anyway, so
as not to confuse people coming from outside.

In general, if a Wikipedia article (or a section of it) is a
paraphrase of another work, that may mean that insufficient sources
were used in its writing.  That can be corrected.

-Matt (User:Morven)


body:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:46:14 +0100
Rowan Collins <rowan.collins at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 18/07/05, James Gibbon <wikipedia at jamesgibbon.com> wrote:
> > Strictly speaking it's your browser, not GMail, that remembers the
> > text you type into particular fields - and some browsers may not do
> > this.
>
> No, GMail has a built-in auto-complete from its internal address book.
> You have to remember that GMail is so heavily JavaScripted that it's
> more like a mail client in its own right that just happens to run
> inside your web browser - a genuine "web application", I guess,
> although that term is so full of hype it makes me cringe to use it.

Ah! Forgive my assumption, then. I'm quite attached to Sylpheed - a Linux
mailer that works with MH folders, so I imagine that converting existing
mail might be a bit painful - but I must admit I'm sufficiently intrigued
to give it a go, if poss.

James


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
Just in case people didn't know, GMail will automatically remember the
addresses of anyone you have sent mail to or replied to. Just type "w"
in the "to" field and <wikien-l at wikipedia.org> should be there,
presuming you've sent a message to the list before.

That's just as easy as replying to some other message.

On 7/16/05, James Gibbon <wikipedia at jamesgibbon.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 05:46:47 +1000
> Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 7/15/05, James Gibbon <wikipedia at jamesgibbon.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:02:16 +0100
> > > Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, not that I want to start moaning about gmail, but if the
> > > > way it works is not in line with existing email clients and
> > > > email servers, which it does, as it ignores the in-reply-to
> > > > header, I wouldn't really call it "very good". :)
> > >
> > > Agreed, was thinking the same thing myself! "Rather poor" is
> > > probably a better description if that's the case.
> >
> > It depends if you are talking about using it for viewing threads,
> > which is what I was doing, or discussing compatibility with other
> > browsers, which is what you two are doing!
> >
>
> Personally, I was talking about its compatibility with accepted
> standards for handling threads :D
>
> James
>
> --
> Dig It : a forum for European Beatles fans - http://beatles.dyndns.org/
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Google Techtalk

body:
Erik Moeller:
> Hi,
>
> I'll be in California from Monday to Friday.

So much for that idea - turns out I didn't have the machine readable
passport required by the United States and couldn't board my flight. I
do now, and we're trying to reschedule. I'll post an update if and when
something does happen.

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Google Techtalk


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Google Techtalk


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

> You need to clearly identify the source of your material whether you
> quote from it or not. If the information comes from it, cite it.
>
> Paraphrasing is strange work. There are many ways to say something,
> but sometimes the language used in the original is simply the only
> good way to say something.

In some cases of dictionary definitions it may not just be the only good
way, but the only way.  Such things may not be copyrightable.  For
scientific terms in particular precision is required.  If you vary too
much from the source to avoid copyvios the science that results may be
completely different.

Ec


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] wapipedia

body:
Anyone heard of Wapipedia ? www.wapipedia.org ?

Here is the type of results they give after a search : http://www.wapipedia.org/wikipedia/mobiletopic.aspx?cur_title=Agriculture

My problem : the link provided for the wikipedia article is totally broken and seem to lead to random articles. And there is no contact link anywhere on their site.

Ant

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
This information seems useful, but should not be used on Wikipedia
unless you can cite your sources. It would be inappropriate to put
the content on Wikipedia, with links back to your website for your
own original research, see [[Wikipedia:Original research]].

Fred

On Jul 18, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Ant Sons LLC wrote:

> My website (http://www.antandsons.com ) consits of a lot of
> informational content on the financial world that I believe could
> be of
> interest to wiki searchers who are looking for this kind of
> information.  I originally tried to add a few links to some articles
> that we have written to the external links section in some articles
> where applicable, but someone said that I could not do this.  However,
> I think this content is very relevant and want to contribute to
> wikipedia with "approval."  How can I do this?
>
> I would appreciate the feedback.
>
> Thank you
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>