body:
On 1/27/07, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > Cheney Shill wrote:
> > > --- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> > >> In practice, yes, if:
> > >> 1) The information looks likely to be correct; and
> > >
> > > Problem is that's subjective.  How does one determine
> > what
> > > is or is not likely?
> >
> > Subjectivity is not inherently a problem, and for a
>
> 2 more problems.  That's subjective and and it's not
> policy.
>
> > project like this
> > it's bound to happen at some point. In this case one
>
> At some point, we all die, so why wait?  I'm not following
> your logic.
>
> > determines whether
> > it's likely based on whether anyone actually challenges
> > it. If nobody
> > challenges a bit of information then either everyone
> > thinks it's likely
> > to be correct (that's good) or nobody has noticed it (not
> > so good, but
> > also makes the issue not terribly urgent). Or perhaps
>
> Unless lots of people have noticed via external searching
> but no one has changed it and simply accepted it because
> its in an encyclopedia and they AGF.  Have you heard of
> this new fangled concept called a false dilemma?  I just
> heard about it.  Something to do with logic.
>
> > nobody who's read
> > it feels qualified to judge it, but a citation probably
> > wouldn't help in
> > that sort of situation.
>
> Or somebody not only felt qualified, but did judge, changed
> it annonymously, assumed good faith, never bothered to
> check back on it to challenge reversions, only to have it
> changed back by the originator, a troll, vandal, an
> innocent admin, etc.  This false dilemma concept sure puts
> things in perspective.
>
> > >> 2) Even if it isn't, it doesn't matter all that much
> > (not
> > >> potentially  libelous, etc.); and
> > >
> > > So, now we have the same subjectivity as 1) along with
> > a
> > > test:  If it causes legal problems, delete.
> >
> > If nobody has a problem with it then there's no problem
> > with leaving it
> > in. Subjective but still quite useful.
>
> If?  And useful according to who?  Anyone who's content
> with fake information?  Spam?  Pure nonsense?  Having a
> page in a something that calls itself an encyclopedia say
> so?  How is it useful?
>
> > >> 3) It looks likely that a source can be procured in
> > the
> > >> future.
> > >
> > > Back to subjectivity.  How does one determine whether a
> > > source is likely?
> >
> > One just thinks it when one reads the information. eg.,
> > "The article
> > says Mr. Foo died in 1975. I don't have access to a
> > library to check
> > right now but he was pretty famous so there's probably
> > obituaries in the
> > newspapers if nothing else." That's all that's needed,
> > one doesn't have
> > to actually look it up.
>
> Actually, one does "have to" look it up.  Which brings us
> back to the point of this dicussion.  #1 policy NPOV
> states:
> "All [not some, not just those you decide are likely]
> Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must [as
> in "have to", this is not optional] be written from a
> neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and
> without bias all significant views that have been published
> by a reliable source."
>
> Also note the following in the NPOV policy:
> "absolute and non-negotiable."
>
> You may consider Foo famous, but 99.7% of the world may not
> know who he is or where to find any information on him.
> That makes it OR until one provides reliable sources that
> show otherwise.
>
> From the NPOV tutorial:
> "You must also ensure that your assertions about
> alternative uses are both significant and verifiable, using
> appropriate attribution and citation."
>
> Now, applying this new technology of logic instead of that
> common sense thing, if something must have something, yet
> doesn't, should it be allowed to remain?  If so, how long?
> If indefinite (infinite), then that's the same as saying
> that articles do not require NPOV.  Any article can remain
> as long as one likes regardless of what NPOV states.
>
>
> ~~Pro-Lick

We could go on and on about this ad infinitum.

Ultimately, policy and consensus now are that you don't have to cite
every single fact or sentence in every single Wikipedia article, and
that over-citing is harmful.

As I have said elsewhere: this is not the project for those who want
to build an encyclopedia starting and ending with completely verified
sources.  If you want it that badly, fork and create one.

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


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] What is the fundamental goal of the project?

body:
On 1/27/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do married persons get to use it too?
>
> No.

Oh, damn.

Which to keep...

Wife...

Wikipedia ...

Wife...

Wikipedia...

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


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

body:
David Monniaux wrote:

>Ray Saintonge a ?crit :
>
>
>>I generally consider the school articles relatively more important than
>>the Pok?mon articles, though the writing on the latter appears more
>>thorough.  Still I would oppose deleting either.  If the school articles
>>contain libel and other sundry vandalism remove the libel and
>>vandalism.  Stop using that asd an excuse for removing material that you
>>don't like.
>>
>>
>I personally don't give a shit about school articles per se.
>
>If you're volunteering to patrol them, be my guest.
>
Perhaps patrolling these articles should be in the hands of WikiProjects
based on a limited geographical area.  They should have a better handle
on schools wihtin their area.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

body:
On 1/27/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > We are a tertiary resource.  If two Wikipedians used different sources
> > to arrive at the same place it makes no difference in the way that it
> > would for a secondary source.  Your argument is just strange.  It seems
> > to make the specific source more important than the information itself.
>
> I'm not making my point very well, sorry. I'll try again:
>
> *Citing* reliable sources isn't very important. What is important is
> *using* reliable sources.  When someone writes something from memory
> and doesn't cite a source, the problem isn't that they haven't cited a
> source, the problem is that they didn't use one.
>
> Citing sources is just the easiest way to confirm that reliable
> sources were used, it's not the important factor, it's just the way we
> confirm the important factor.
>
> Someone writing an article and expecting someone else to find the
> sources is wasting their time, as the person finding the sources will
> be doing all the work. The actual writing of an article is generally
> the easy part, it's finding the information with is difficult. The
> wiki concept is great at copyediting and making things easier to read,
> and that's the only bit a writer that doesn't cite sources does.
>
> Perhaps we should encourage people to start articles with just bullet
> point facts and let the people that don't like research take over from
> there. (Obviously, if someone wants to write the whole thing, no-one
> will stop them, but we should make it clear that just doing the
> research is useful work that can be done independently of the
> writing.)

I've talked before, about the possibility of an alternate free
encyclopedia, starting with the facts (a database, of fact + reference
+ context / connections), with full tracability of all data in the
encyclopedia.

Would be very useful to AI researchers, some of whom have done similar
things in training AI programs and the like, in addition to a useful
public project.

As I keep saying: Wikipedia is not, has not been, and should not
become that project.  If you want to fork off and do it, I'd
contribute, but I will fight / argue to the last breath to keep you
from turning Wikipedia into that project.  Even if it's a good idea to
do it, it's not the same as WP, and it's necessary to have a WP type
project in the world.

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


from_name: Dan Collins

subject: [WikiEN-l] An obscene example of remote loading

body:
Can we make them stop?

--
ST47
Editor, en.wikipedia


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:LAME candidate

body:
Ok, now he says he's reported one of the people reverting him for
vandalism, yet I can't see any report in his contribs... I'm
confused...


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Marco Schuster

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-01-27

body:
brion at pobox.com schrieb:
>       * TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)
Could you please fix this link? it seems it got lost with the mailman
upgrade.

Regards,
Marco


from_name: geni

body:
On 1/27/07, Omegatron <omegatron+wikienl at gmail.com> wrote:
> Should we delete images of money, Nazi insignia, and coats of arms
> because, while free content, they don't meet our subgoal of
> redistributability and usefulness for every purpose?

Most money is protected by copyright.
--
geni


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

body:
On 25 Jan 2007 at 10:41, Omegatron <omegatron+wikienl at gmail.com>
wrote:

>     Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a
>     free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single
>     person on the planet in their own language.

Do married persons get to use it too?

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


from_name: Timwi

subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:LAME candidate

body:
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
>
> Just to make it clear, the interpolation "[Pentode? Are you quite
> sure? - Ed.] Absolutely." appears in the text of the article itself,
> not the discussion page. I don't see where he calls it a "literary
> device," [...]

He said that on [[User talk:Romanski]].

Later, on my user talk page ([[User talk:Timwi]]), he said "I don't
really care what you think. [...] The Wikipedia moderators are happy
with it."

On [[User talk:N-true]], he said "I don't give a twopenny toss what you
think. [...] Editing the literary style is plain unnaceptable and
downright rude. I was writting technical books and documents long before
you were in nappies (diapers if you're a yank)."

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] school articles : enough

body:
On 25 Jan 2007 at 15:51, "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>
wrote:

> And as for the foundation dictating such a policy, I think you
> misunderstand what the foundation exists for...

To bring about a Second Galactic Empire, of course.  Creating an
encyclopedia is merely a pretext.  <ref>Asimov, Isaac, [[The
Foundation Trilogy]], 1951</ref>

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>I think the term for what you say is "double standard".  Are Wikipedia
>>editors really that much more prone to Alzheimer's?
>>
>>
>It doesn't take Alzheimer's for someone to make a mistake...
>Britannica is made by employees that went through an interview process
>and had their CVs examined, etc. Wikipedia is made by anyone and
>everyone. Britannica may not be any more accurate, but it is more
>reliable.
>
IOW Britannica is more professional at making mistakes. :-)

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

body:
Mark Clements wrote:

>"Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net> wrote
>
>
>>Mark Williamson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The thing about high schools is that they have alumni. A particularly
>>>large high school could have, I don't know, maybe 50,000 alumni? How
>>>off am I?
>>>
>>>
>>That seems high. If a school has 1,000 graduates each year it would take
>>50 years to reach that number.
>>
>>
>Well, that seems reasonable, in fact in England (where I'm from) I imagine a
>high proportion of schools are older than 50 years.  The two that I know
>about (mine - an
>inner-city comp, founded in the 19th century, and the school my Girlfriend
>teaches at, est. 1917) are significantly older!.
>
>- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
>
It's a valid consideration.  Still a school with a four year programme
would have in excess of 4000 student to graduate 1000, allowing for
dropouts.  That's quite a big school.  For older schools, the long dead
alumni can no longer be considered alumni for the purpose of having
interest in Wikipedia articles about their school.  A more accurate
estimate of the alumni might be obtained by applying actuarial tables at
the age of graduation.

Ec


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Brandchannel claims hi brand marks for WP, YT

body:
SJ wrote:
> Worth a quick read.  Ranked by votes from a few thousand "branding
> professionals and students".
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070126/wr_nm/brands_global_winners_dc

It looks like nobody has noticed this, at least on this list. Brandchannel
took this opportunity to hint to their readers that they might want to
contest Wikipedia's deletion of their article.

"(Incidentally, the brandchannel Wikipedia entry was deleted because it
was declared "[a]n article about a real person, group of people, band,
club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or
significance of its subject." We'd like to think we do, in fact, assert
the important or significance of our subject?and 90,000 subscribers like
yourselves can't be wrong. If you agree, please consider launching what
the site calls a deletion review.)"

http://brandchannel.com/start1.asp?fa_id=352

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Cheney Shill

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Articles that do not cite reliable published
	sources will be deleted."

body:
George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ultimately, policy and consensus now are that you don't
> have to cite
> every single fact or sentence in every single Wikipedia
> article, and
> that over-citing is harmful.

Interesting, but policy is policy, not your opinion or
consensus, both of which you have no NPOV reliable sources
for.  Besides this discussion is with regard to articles
that are completely uncited.  In other words, you're
providing a false dilemma.  It's not about citing every
last fact or deleting the article.  It's about getting
substantial ("significant") reliable sources cited, as is
clearly and repeatedly stated in policy and guidelines.

~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)

--spam may follow--

____________________________________________________________________________________
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091


from_name: Roberto Alfonso

body:
Interestingly, this reminds me of a quote in Daniel Terdiman's article
about his entry's AFD:

<<I asked a friend, Business 2.0 magazine senior editor Chris Taylor,
about his Wikipedia entry, which was created in 2005 when he wrote
about Wikipedia for Time magazine.

 "It didn't take long to realize why the entry had been made--and the
timing, right after my authorship of the first Time story on
Wikipedia, made sense," Taylor said. "So after the initial feelings of
flattery and suspicion, I was like, Oh, OK, this is my 'reward' from
the Wiki geeks. I wrote about their baby, so I've arrived.">>

 http://news.com.com/To+delete+Wikipedia+entry+or+not+to+delete+-+page+2/2100-1025_3-6149264-2.html

Regards,
RB

On 1/27/07, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Bryan Derksen wrote:
> > Tim Starling wrote:
> >> Tagged {{db-web}} by an anon and speedied by Aaron Brenneman 6.5 hours
> >> later, which was 1.5 hours after Quarl removed the speedy tag,
> >> recommending AfD/prod in his edit summary. I think that counts as
> >> out-of-process deletion. How about I undelete it and clean it up a bit?
> >> Notable or not, the deleted text does have the tone of an advertisement.
> >
> > IMO there's no need to ask in a case as clear as this, just go ahead and
> > do it. I've already started. :)
>
> I sent them an email berating them for the uncritical tone of the original
> article. Ironically, they published a feature this month about dealing
> with negative comment in blogs. Their recommendations about respect,
> candour and the importance of facts could easily be extended to
> astroturfing in Wikipedia articles.
>
> http://brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=348
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Eugene van der Pijll

body:
Cheney Shill schreef:
> Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> > And the very next sentence after that is "Editors should
> > provide a
> > reliable source for material that is challenged or likely
> > to be
> > challenged, or it may be removed." This reduces the scope
> > of the
> > policy's impact rather significantly.
>
> How does that reduce the scope of the policy?

Because it says there is only a problem if the material is doubtful. An
unsourced statement that is not challenged and not likely to be
challenged -- and that is not libelous if untrue, I should add -- is not
to be removed, according to WP:V.

> The question is how long should articles without reliable
> sources be allowed to remain.  Should they be allowed to
> linger indefinitely?

Yes. Unless they have problems that can only be solved by deletion.

Eugene


subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Articles that do not cite reliable
 published	sources will be deleted."

body:
Cheney Shill wrote:

>George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Ultimately, policy and consensus now are that you don't
>>have to cite
>>every single fact or sentence in every single Wikipedia
>>article, and that over-citing is harmful.
>>
>>
>Interesting, but policy is policy, not your opinion or
>consensus, both of which you have no NPOV reliable sources
>for.  Besides this discussion is with regard to articles
>that are completely uncited.  In other words, you're
>providing a false dilemma.  It's not about citing every
>last fact or deleting the article.  It's about getting
>substantial ("significant") reliable sources cited, as is
>clearly and repeatedly stated in policy and guidelines.
>
Oh please!  Consensus guides policy, not the other way around which
would be wikilawyering.

The most valuable editors are the ones who are able to look at a
completely unsourced article and make a personal judgement about whether
the continuing absence of sources is harmful of misleading.  They are
able to evaluate whether it is important to immediately add sources.

There is no dilemma, false or otherwise.

Ec


body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:

>Cheney Shill wrote:
>
>
>>At this point, there seem to be 2 reasonable alternatives:
>>1) Create a time limited deletion warning permitting
>>deletion upon expiration without reliable sources.
>>2) Create an indefinite banner that clearly states that the
>>article/section is in a highly unreliable state should not
>>regarded as accurate.
>>
>>
>I've got no problem with the banner approach, though I think "highly"
>might be overstating the issue.
>
I agree with this and with the same reservation.  "May be unreliable"
would say enough, and leaves open the possibility that there may be
nothing wrong with the article at all, save the lack of sources.

Ec


from_name: K P

subject: [WikiEN-l] Preloading template in new articles

body:
I think this preloading template would turn new users off more than AfD.
I've never had an article I created put up for AfD, even my first new
article ever, which I posted without any references, and which was one of my
earliest edits.

Making it clear to newcomers how the site works would be a good start.
There are many things that I'll probably never figure out, like how to get
to a WikiProject page, how to find the citations templates, how to find the
vandalism templates (the first time I posted one without having to look at
it up two editors jumped me for assuming the guy was a vandal, so I up up
patrolling vandalism), how to insert a date into a reference, the code for
references (today I tried {{references /}}, {{references/}, {{/
references}}, and {references /} before giving up), and which policies I
should, as a newcomer, follow, and which ones will get me bitten or
ridiculed.  It's too convoluted looking things up on Wikipedia, and most of
it is designed (it being the resources you need to know about to follow
policies) for the computer savvy and heavy net user.

Making it easier for newcomers would be better than loading a new template
that only applies to newcomers.

Oh, and I still can't figure out how to start a new article, so newcomers
who do that are either starting new articles that return no search items
from Wikipedia, which have a high chance of AfD, or they're not so new, I
suspect.

KP


body:
Cheney Shill schreef:
> > Because it says there is only a problem if the material
> > is doubtful. An
> > unsourced statement that is not challenged and not likely
> > to be
> > challenged -- and that is not libelous if untrue, I
> > should add -- is not
> > to be removed, according to WP:V.
>
> That makes it highly subjective.

Subjective, yes. Don't know about highly subjective; as soon as there is
any significant difference of opinion if something should be sourced, it
is likely to be challenged.

>  What determines if it is
> doubtful or or likely to be challenged?

Common sense. Most people have this, or it would not be common.

> Submit whatever you like without sources.  It gets to stay if not
> challenged.  And if the challenge gets to stay if it's not
> challeneged.

No, as soon as there is a challenge, the statement (and the
counter-statement) should be sourced. That's what WP:V says: challenged
information should be sourced.

> So Wikipedia is a collection of unsourced
> opinions and unsourced counter challenges.  Long live the
> edit wars.

Ehm, no. The point is, that 90% of the information on wikipedia is
unsourced but not the subject of edit wars. It is this information that
I'm talking about.

Eugene


body:
Cheney Shill wrote:

>Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
>
>
>>Cheney Shill schreef:
>>
>>
>>>Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And the very next sentence after that is "Editors should
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>provide a
>>>>reliable source for material that is challenged or likely
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>to be
>>>>challenged, or it may be removed." This reduces the scope
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>of the policy's impact rather significantly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>How does that reduce the scope of the policy?
>>>
>>>
>>Because it says there is only a problem if the material
>>is doubtful. An
>>unsourced statement that is not challenged and not likely
>>to be
>>challenged -- and that is not libelous if untrue, I
>>should add -- is not to be removed, according to WP:V.
>>
>>
>That makes it highly subjective.  What determines if it is
>doubtful or or likely to be challenged?  To interpret WP:V
>this way is basically to say its not policy.  There's no
>point for it, not to mention it violates NPOV, so now we
>have a pointless policy that violates NPOV.  Submit
>whatever you like without sources.  It gets to stay if not
>challenged.  And if the challenge gets to stay if it's not
>challeneged.  So Wikipedia is a collection of unsourced
>opinions and unsourced counter challenges.  Long live the
>edit wars.
>
>
I subscribe to the notion that _every_ first draft article follows
NPOV.  It is the product of one editor, and none of its information has
been challenged.  It's all downhill from there.   The half life of this
NPOV could be measured as the time between the original and second
edit.  The NPOV of a particularly contentious subject will have a very
short half-life.  We all, at least in theory, strive to follow NPOV, but
we may not have all the information to put the opposing view correctly,
if we even know it exists.  It is perfecly reasonable to wait until
proponents of an alternative view can put that forward; they can do it
so much better.  With good faith on both sides, a consensus can be
achieved.  It only becomes a series of challenges and counter-challenges
when the opposing viewholders consider being right more important than
finding common ground.

Ec


from_name: Simetrical

subject: [Wikitech-l] Live mirroring from Portuguese Wikipedia

body:
On 1/27/07, Luiz Augusto <lugusto at gmail.com> wrote:
> Tiny question: isn't possible to block any non-Wikimedia site from live
> mirroring instead of blocking one-by-one?

I suppose we could try to record massive request rates from the same
IP, but then you'd probably catch some large-scale proxies too.  So
not really.  They just request a page like anyone else, and the
request is superficially impossible to distinguish reliably from a
request made by an ordinary user.


body:
David Goodman wrote:
> The deleted article may not have included the word "notable" in the
> first sentence. articles have been sent to Speedy for that alone. -DGG
>
> On 1/27/07, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
[...]
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070126/wr_nm/brands_global_winners_dc
>> It looks like nobody has noticed this, at least on this list. Brandchannel
>> took this opportunity to hint to their readers that they might want to
>> contest Wikipedia's deletion of their article.

Tagged {{db-web}} by an anon and speedied by Aaron Brenneman 6.5 hours
later, which was 1.5 hours after Quarl removed the speedy tag,
recommending AfD/prod in his edit summary. I think that counts as
out-of-process deletion. How about I undelete it and clean it up a bit?
Notable or not, the deleted text does have the tone of an advertisement.

-- Tim Starling


body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
> Tim Starling wrote:
>> Tagged {{db-web}} by an anon and speedied by Aaron Brenneman 6.5 hours
>> later, which was 1.5 hours after Quarl removed the speedy tag,
>> recommending AfD/prod in his edit summary. I think that counts as
>> out-of-process deletion. How about I undelete it and clean it up a bit?
>> Notable or not, the deleted text does have the tone of an advertisement.
>
> IMO there's no need to ask in a case as clear as this, just go ahead and
> do it. I've already started. :)

I sent them an email berating them for the uncritical tone of the original
article. Ironically, they published a feature this month about dealing
with negative comment in blogs. Their recommendations about respect,
candour and the importance of facts could easily be extended to
astroturfing in Wikipedia articles.

http://brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=348

-- Tim Starling


body:
Cheney Shill schreef:
> Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
> > Common sense. Most people have this, or it would not be
> > common.
>
> When http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense is no longer
> unreferenced and has reliable sources, I'll consider
> agreeing with that.

As long as there are no doubts about the validity of the contents of the
page, I don't see what extra value sourcing would have.

Eugene


body:
> If it's remote loading, as in, pulling content from our servers live, then
we *can* stop it, and such mirrors should be reported to us on IRC in
#wikimedia-tech (on Freenode, as usual) or else reported to our mailing list
at wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org.
>
> Remote loading is not helpful for us; it creates a small amount of
additional, illegitimate load on our cache servers and it facilitates
loading the site into frames and so forth...this is not necessarily illegal,
but quite often, remote loading sites won't really care about the GFDL and
it becomes so.
>
> Legitimate mirrors and people who want to reuse our content are free, and
encouraged, to download a database dump and process it for their needs.
There is also an OAI live repository service, which I think we charge for
(and I don't know how many parties actually use it).
>
> If the licence our content is released under is violated, then individual
contributors to that content have a right to sue for copyright infringement;
Wikimedia doesn't actually *have* the copyright and so may not be able to do
the actual litigation (but I'm not a lawyer, hate lawyers, and am not
completely sure of that).
>
>
> Rob Church

I emailed info at Thagodz.com (which they say is their contact address) and
asked how they get the content.
--Mets501


from_name: Mark Ryan

subject: [WikiEN-l] about my tragic "ban"

body:
On 27/01/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/01/07, LAWRENCE A TKALYCH <lat2000 at msn.com> wrote:
>
> > As I have received a myriad of e-mails re:mthis issue, I will do my best to
> > respond to you personally.
>
>
> You'll be most pleased to know that Mr Tkalych is set to moderated and
> nomail now.

Ah, but his emails never reached the list - they were sent directly to
us list administrators :) so they probably have no idea what you're
talking about. Nothing to see here people, move along.

~Mark


from_name: Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: WIKIPEDIA IS A FRAUD

body:
And what about Parker Peters? (see
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061849.html)

-- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-

Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
> And please ban him, from looking through his contributions and his 2
> mails to this list, it is certainly justified.
>
> --Oskar
>
> On 1/28/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think this discussion is over; please put Michael on moderation or
>> drop him from the list.
>>
>>
>> -george
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Michael Smith <runechozo at gmail.com>
>> Date: Jan 27, 2007 2:51 PM
>> Subject: Re: WIKIPEDIA IS A FRAUD
>> To: George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com>
>>
>>
>> Bullshit you fucking liar.
>>
>>
>> On 1/27/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/27/07, Michael Smith <runechozo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was abused, stalked, hounded, and the one who did it got off with nothing
>>>> happening to him because you like beating up on people.And why? BECAUSE I
>>>> WAS TRYING TO MAKE AN ARTICLE BETTER.
>>>>
>>> No, you've been blocked, and may well be banned now, because you can't
>>> respond politely and in an adult and civil manner to complaints.
>>>
>>> Until you understand that you entirely did this to yourself, I don't
>>> see how you can continue participating in Wikipedia.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -george william herbert
>>> george.herbert at gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> -george william herbert
>> george.herbert at gmail.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>


body:
Roberto Alfonso wrote:
> Interestingly, this reminds me of a quote in Daniel Terdiman's article
> about his entry's AFD:
>
> <<I asked a friend, Business 2.0 magazine senior editor Chris Taylor,
> about his Wikipedia entry, which was created in 2005 when he wrote
> about Wikipedia for Time magazine.
>
>  "It didn't take long to realize why the entry had been made--and the
> timing, right after my authorship of the first Time story on
> Wikipedia, made sense," Taylor said. "So after the initial feelings of
> flattery and suspicion, I was like, Oh, OK, this is my 'reward' from
> the Wiki geeks. I wrote about their baby, so I've arrived.">>
>
>  http://news.com.com/To+delete+Wikipedia+entry+or+not+to+delete+-+page+2/2100-1025_3-6149264-2.html

That would be a cynical way of looking at it. There's no core policy issue
at stake, the reason for deletion was a poor one. We're just responding to
public criticism by taking a token step in the right direction.

-- Tim Starling


body:
OK.  Well, I emailed already asking them to switch to a database dump and
described how to download one; let's see what they have to say about it.
--Mets501

-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Roberto Alfonso
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 9:20 PM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An obscene example of remote loading

It is remote loading. Just check your userpage at Thagodz.com, then modify
it in Wikipedia, and do a full refresh at Thagodz.com again. At least when I
tried (maybe 20 hours ago, at the same time I reported them at the tech IRC
channel) they were doing so.

RB

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 27/01/07, wikien-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
<wikien-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:15:01 +0100
> From: "Oskar Sigvardsson" <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An obscene example of remote loading
> If they follow the GFDL, then no. If they don't (which it appears that
> they don't, since they don't credit us; the history link doesn't
> work), we could sue, but really, do we even care that much?

If it's remote loading, as in, pulling content from our servers live,
then we *can* stop it, and such mirrors should be reported to us on
IRC in #wikimedia-tech (on Freenode, as usual) or else reported to our
mailing list at wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org.

Remote loading is not helpful for us; it creates a small amount of
additional, illegitimate load on our cache servers and it facilitates
loading the site into frames and so forth...this is not necessarily
illegal, but quite often, remote loading sites won't really care about
the GFDL and it becomes so.

Legitimate mirrors and people who want to reuse our content are free,
and encouraged, to download a database dump and process it for their
needs. There is also an OAI live repository service, which I think we
charge for (and I don't know how many parties actually use it).

If the licence our content is released under is violated, then
individual contributors to that content have a right to sue for
copyright infringement; Wikimedia doesn't actually *have* the
copyright and so may not be able to do the actual litigation (but I'm
not a lawyer, hate lawyers, and am not completely sure of that).

Rob Church


from_name: Luiz Augusto

body:
Hi

I found three sites live mirroring Portuguese Wikipedia:

http://www.ebaita.com/enciclopedia.asp,title,Especial:Recentchanges
http://enciclopedia.tiosam.com/enciclopedia/enciclopedia.asp?title=Especial:Recentchanges
http://www.contestado.com.br/wiki/Especial:Recentchanges

Is this the best place to report them?

Tiny question: isn't possible to block any non-Wikimedia site from live
mirroring instead of blocking one-by-one?


body:
> Do married persons get to use it too?

No.


from_name: James R. Johnson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] De-sysop

body:
Hi,

            I'm the sysop at one of the other wikis, and was wondering how
to de-sysop another user.  I don't want to block the user, but he was made
sysop without any notice, and I think it was a mistake.

James


from_name: Delirium

body:
Cheney Shill wrote:
> --- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
>
>> Cheney Shill wrote:
>>
>>
>> In practice, yes, if:
>> 1) The information looks likely to be correct; and
>>
>
> Problem is that's subjective.  How does one determine what
> is or is not likely?
>
Of course---the entire process of writing an encyclopedia requires some
amount of human intelligence, which is why we've gone out and gotten
people to work on it.  Whether to delete an unreferenced
article-in-progress or leave it to be improved is a subjective decision
weighing the pros and cons of each.  Actually, this is true even of
referenced articles, since it takes very little effort to construct a
completely misleading---but referenced---article.

-Mark


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

body:
On 1/27/07, Dan Collins <en.wp.st47 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Can we make them stop?

If they follow the GFDL, then no. If they don't (which it appears that
they don't, since they don't credit us; the history link doesn't
work), we could sue, but really, do we even care that much?

--Oskar


from_name: William Pietri

body:
Rob Church wrote:
> Legitimate mirrors and people who want to reuse our content are free,
> and encouraged, to download a database dump and process it for their
> needs.

Say, are there examples of people who do this well, contributing back to
Wikipedia or to the general public? The examples I've seen are all a bit
disappointing, but perhaps that's just because the outrageous ones
generate more attention.

Thanks,

William


body:
It is remote loading. Just check your userpage at Thagodz.com, then modify it in
Wikipedia, and do a full refresh at Thagodz.com again. At least when I tried
(maybe 20 hours ago, at the same time I reported them at the tech IRC channel)
they were doing so.

RB


from_name: Omegatron

body:
On 1/27/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Most money is protected by copyright.

Right.  It can only be reproduced if it can't be mistaken for actual
currency.  But that means that images of money are not free content.  Should
we remove all images of money from Wikipedia?

<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nazi_Swastika.svg>
This is an SVG image released into the public domain by its copyright
holder.  That's about as free as you can get.  But it is not freely
reproducible in Germany. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Germany>
Should we remove all Nazi insignia from Wikipedia?

Quotations are not free content, and cannot be licensed under the GFDL.
Should we remove all quotations from Wikipedia?  Should we delete Wikiquote?
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Can_I_reuse_Wikipedia.27s_content_somewhere_else.3F
>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tianasquare.jpg>
This is not free content.  Should we remove it from Wikipedia?  (I can think
of a few people who would want it removed, but I hope they aren't Wikipedia
editors...)

This movement to destroy all fair use content is incredibly misguided.  Just
looking through the file names of some of our fair use and permission-only
images, I'm appalled that anyone who shares in the ideals of this project
would want to prohibit them.

Image:Armeniangenocide-streets.jpg
Image:Beslan child running.jpg
Image:032806 francelaborprotests2.jpg
Image:Aa McVeigh bombing.jpg
Image:1938 Jews arrested during Kristallnacht line up for roll call at
Buchenwald.jpg

The whole concept behind fair use is the protection of free speech in the
face of information-imprisoning copyright laws.  The whole concept behind
"free as in free speech" content is to produce information that can't ever
be locked up by copyright law.  I can't fathom why anyone would think that
one concept is noble and the other evil.


from_name: Ken Arromdee

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Articles that do not cite reliable published
 sources will be deleted."

body:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
> > How does that reduce the scope of the policy?
>
> Because it says there is only a problem if the material is doubtful. An
> unsourced statement that is not challenged and not likely to be
> challenged -- and that is not libelous if untrue, I should add -- is not
> to be removed, according to WP:V.

Oh, I wish.

This still is subject to people who go around challenging random articles,
which I think is an abuse of the process.  It really ought to say "sincerely
challenged", but it doesn't...


subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

body:
Christopher G. Parham wrote:
> On 1/27/2007 3:15 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>> A reasonable criterion for companies would be the listing of its shares
>> on an important stock exchange.
>>
>> Ec
>>
>>
>
> Sadly our actual "notability guideline" explicitly reject that as a
> criterion.
>
It's strange that a small elementary school is inherently notable by
virtue of existing, but a corporation that's actually publicly traded on
a major exchange isn't.  I guess the Wikipedia school lobby has more
clout than the Wikipedia corporate lobby?

-Mark


from_name: Robth

body:
On 1/27/07, Omegatron <omegatron+wikienl at gmail.com> wrote:
> This movement to destroy all fair use content is incredibly misguided.

Yes, it is.  Is there any reason you keep talking about this while
involved in discussion with people who do not wish to remove all fair
use content (i.e. everyone currently active at [[WT:FU]])?

--
Robth
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robth)


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-01-28

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r19675).

Reading tests from "maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

  18 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (single parameter)
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (multiple parameters)
      * TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)
      * TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)
      * TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)
      * TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)
      * BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled
      * TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)
      * TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting
      * TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold
      * TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line
      * TODO: dt/dd/dl test
      * TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.

Passed 489 of 507 tests (96.45%)... 18 tests failed!


from_name: Jimmy Wales

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

body:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:01:41 GMT
From: Pieism <james at northover1964.fsnet.co.uk>
To: Jimbo Wales <jwales at wikia.com>

Please bring back the pieism page, It was the best source of infomation
about pieism yet. No where existed a united article about pieism. from JoJo


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
On 1/28/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Stupid leechers. We should sue them for not complying with the GFDL.

Easier just to block access from their IP. They can waste all the
money they like setting up sites to leech with.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] David is on Channel 4 tonight re MS issue

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>The issue now, the real problem, is how Wikipedia deals with this sort
>of thing in the future. We have procedures for actual legal problems,
>but not yet for this sort of editorial problem. Something where
>companies with issues with content can say so, and where the regular
>volunteers will take an interest and look into improving articles
>based on that.
>
>We don't have that yet. I said we'd probably work out something over
>the weekend.
>
>So, regular editors. How do we set up a page or forum where companies
>and people written about can express editorial concerns (rather than
>e.g. legal ones), such that they know people will at least look over
>them with thought and improve the articles from there?
>
>This was a MAJOR news story and it came completely out of the blue.
>But it is an ongoing problem for Wikipedia - we don't want companies
>fearful of dealing with us in case they get the sort of bad press this
>issue got Microsoft and Doug Mahugh. How can we get better at this,
>quickly?
>
Handled correctly this could be a PR benefit for WP.

Not long ago I expressed my opinion that our view toward Conflicts of
Interest was not a workable one.  I'm also of the view that any severe
action against editors who are paid to clean up a company's article,
will only drive such activities underground.

I think that we need to establish a right of defence or rebuttal (or
whatever we want to call it).  This would allow anyone who is directly
affected by the article a place to defend his point of view.  This could
probably be done in a template that is linked from the page in
question.  The person or company affected would have the exclusive right
to make substantive edits to that template. The result would be a
section that is the person's view on the issue; if they want to make a
radical departure from the truth that would be their right within that
context.  If the subject tries to put the same information in the main
body of the article that would be subject to the usual meat-grinder rules.

I'm sure that we will have a few of our own dinosaurs complaining that
they should have the right to edit everything, and that having such
pages would be tremendously unwiki, but I think that giving any person
the opportunity to defend himself should improve Wikipedia's image as
one of fairness.

A few simple rules may be necessary for these persons.
    1. The writer must be the person himself or have the right to speak
on behalf of the person
    2. The writer must be registered and properly identified.
    3. All that he writes is subject to GFDL
    4. The financial arrangements between the writer and the person are
not our concern.
    5. We reserve the right to limit the length of submissions to
prevent long-winded rants.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: WIKIPEDIA IS A FRAUD

body:
And please ban him, from looking through his contributions and his 2
mails to this list, it is certainly justified.

--Oskar

On 1/28/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this discussion is over; please put Michael on moderation or
> drop him from the list.
>
>
> -george
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Michael Smith <runechozo at gmail.com>
> Date: Jan 27, 2007 2:51 PM
> Subject: Re: WIKIPEDIA IS A FRAUD
> To: George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com>
>
>
> Bullshit you fucking liar.
>
>
> On 1/27/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/27/07, Michael Smith <runechozo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I was abused, stalked, hounded, and the one who did it got off with nothing
> > > happening to him because you like beating up on people.And why? BECAUSE I
> > > WAS TRYING TO MAKE AN ARTICLE BETTER.
> >
> > No, you've been blocked, and may well be banned now, because you can't
> > respond politely and in an adult and civil manner to complaints.
> >
> > Until you understand that you entirely did this to yourself, I don't
> > see how you can continue participating in Wikipedia.
> >
> >
> > --
> > -george william herbert
> > george.herbert at gmail.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: SPUI

body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Someone writing an article and expecting someone else to find the
> sources is wasting their time, as the person finding the sources will
> be doing all the work. The actual writing of an article is generally
> the easy part, it's finding the information with is difficult. The
> wiki concept is great at copyediting and making things easier to read,
> and that's the only bit a writer that doesn't cite sources does.

Not true at all. If I write "Route 24 opened in January 1963", but don't
have a source, someone else with newspaper archive access has a much
easier time finding a source knowing what month to look in.


from_name: Angela

subject: [Wikipedia-l] De-sysop

body:
>             I'm the sysop at one of the other wikis, and was wondering how
> to de-sysop another user.  I don't want to block the user, but he was made
> sysop without any notice, and I think it was a mistake.

You can ask a steward to do this at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions

If you can provide any evidence that it was only a mistake, or get
confirmation from the bureaucrat who assigned this user adminship,
that would be helpful.

Angela


from_name: Derek Hodgson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

body:
Does ANYONE fucking cares about this?

--
Derek Hodgson


from_name: John Platt

subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

body:
Some of us do.  Some schools are worth discussing.  My own alma mater
does have its own page, but doesn't have a discussion.  That's a
shame.  It has always had an eclictic mix of students, including the
children of Brown University and Rhode Island School of Design faculty
and students from the poorest sections of Providence.  Among its
alumni are Howard Phillips Lovecraft and Scott Hamilton (musician).
In 1960, when my sister went there, there was already a heroin-using
population.  I'm not sure I'll be contributing to it.

When I did a stub about John Schoenherr, there were immediate links
added to Stuyvesant High School, which is a good discussion.  I'm not
sure I have an opinion on the matter, though.

On 1/28/07, Derek Hodgson <dhodg13 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Does ANYONE fucking cares about this?
>
> --
> Derek Hodgson
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

body:
If we didn't fucking cares [sic], would there have been so many
different people who wrote in this thread? If you don't like it, don't
subscribe to Wikipedia-l. This is a real issue.

Mark

On 28/01/07, Derek Hodgson <dhodg13 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Does ANYONE fucking cares about this?
>
> --
> Derek Hodgson
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

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

Derek Hodgson stated for the record:
> Does ANYONE fucking cares about this?

Well, I can't speak for others, but ... well ... no.  I don't care about
this when I'm fucking.  I doubt anyone fucking does.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Modern art is what happens when painters stop
 sean at epoptic.com | looking at girls and persuade themselves
                  | that they have a better idea. --John Ciardi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFvLub/SVOiq2uhHMRAiNTAJ0VM6vJTAavKP9y69Fq4wLVZga+mACeO+dg
DdglqAOawgXnyUwhuOnHeRM=
=4ieF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: foundation-l

from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] Fair Use (again)

body:
I've somehow found myself embroiled in the middle of a fair-use fight on
en.wikipedia, but an interesting viewpoint has expressed itself that I'm
curious with the "powers that be" and other experienced Wikimedia users
might find a bit interesting, at least in terms of where a significant
faction of Wikipedia users want to go.

The philosophy is essentially that fair use images are permitted on
Wikipedia, even if you are not going to be legally permitted to use them
if you copy them and try to re-publish the Wikipedia article.  I guess
this same philosophy also applies to the whole issue of NC images and
their inclusion in Wikimedia projects, but in this case the issue is
mainly centered on fair use applications of image content.

In reading through the Wikipedia Fair Use guideline talk page
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3AFair_use), I noticed a
recurring theme to justify many fair use images based around two
significant points of the fair-use doctrine as described in USC 92
section 107:

* Educational fair use  - Wikipedia is part of an "educational
institution" and the images are used as a form of instruction.
* Non-commercial entity - Because the WMF is a 503 (c) 3 non-profit
organization, and because all of the editor/contributors to Wikipedia
are unpaid volunteers, Wikipedia can claim non-commercial usage of fair
use content.

My counter argument is that neither of these justifications are valid
for inclusion into Wikipedia.  The educational exception is a major
stretch and I just don't see how it really applies in the case of
Wikipedia, particularly with some common-law cases that have
significantly reduced the scope of educational fair use.  In the case of
the non-commercial entity, I would argue that the GFDL is the trump card
here, as reproducing Wikipedia (and almost all Wikimedia) content must
be done under the terms of the GFDL, which explictly permits commercial
reproduction.

The response to this is that it doesn't matter if the GFDL applies.
 They just want to include fair use images, even if the GFDL doesn't
permit their reproduction.  This is essentially a "buyer beware"
attitudue where you, as the end-user, are required to explicitly go
through the licensing terms of all images you download together with an
article and remove those images if you decide to pass the article on to
a 3rd party.  The inclusion of an image on Wikipedia has no connection
to the GFDL, but only if it is legal (even if barely) for it to be
displayed on a website run by the WMF.

I had a hard time understanding this philosohpy, but a fairly vocal
group insists that this is where fair use policy on Wikipedia ought to
be going.

I should note that I got into this whole mess because I was involved
with a group that was trying to write a Wikibook about M.C. Escher, and
I tried to point out that they couldn't reproduce the Escher artwork
unless they somehow were able to obtain a license that could be used
under the GFDL.  The response was that the images were being used on
Wikipedia, so why not Wikibooks?  The Escher reproductions are claiming
fair use, but I think it has gone way too far on Wikipedia, as I believe
these to be merely a copyright violation.

--
Robert Scott Horning


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Fair Use (again)


from_name: Steve Summit

subject:
[WikiEN-l] right of rebuttal (was: David is on Channel 4
	tonight re MS issue)

body:
Ec wrote:
> I think that we need to establish a right of defence or rebuttal (or
> whatever we want to call it).  This would allow anyone who is directly
> affected by the article a place to defend his point of view.

This is an excellent, excellent idea.

I'm reminded of another entity we love to hate: credit reporting
agencies.  One of the reasons we (justifiably) love to hate them
is that they provide little or no mechanism to challenge the
information they hold about us.  Wikipedia should not be anything
like a credit reporting agency.


from_name: Who Cares

body:
  On 1/28/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Handled correctly this could be a PR benefit for WP.
>
> Not long ago I expressed my opinion that our view toward Conflicts of
> Interest was not a workable one.  I'm also of the view that any
severe
> action against editors who are paid to clean up a company's article,
> will only drive such activities underground.
>
> I think that we need to establish a right of defence or rebuttal (or
> whatever we want to call it).  This would allow anyone who is
directly
> affected by the article a place to defend his point of view.  This
could
> probably be done in a template that is linked from the page in
> question.  The person or company affected would have the exclusive
right
> to make substantive edits to that template. The result would be a
> section that is the person's view on the issue; if they want to make
a
> radical departure from the truth that would be their right within
that
> context.  If the subject tries to put the same information in the
main
> body of the article that would be subject to the usual meat-grinder
rules.
>
> I'm sure that we will have a few of our own dinosaurs complaining
that
> they should have the right to edit everything, and that having such
> pages would be tremendously unwiki, but I think that giving any
person
> the opportunity to defend himself should improve Wikipedia's image as
> one of fairness.
>
> A few simple rules may be necessary for these persons.
>     1. The writer must be the person himself or have the right to
speak
> on behalf of the person
>     2. The writer must be registered and properly identified.
>     3. All that he writes is subject to GFDL
>     4. The financial arrangements between the writer and the person
are
> not our concern.
>     5. We reserve the right to limit the length of submissions to
> prevent long-winded rants.
>

  Um... why? If we write the article as well as we should, they will not have any valid reason to complain, and I refuse to think that we should be hosting blatantly untrue things under the guise of the subject defending himself. Do we really want the White House telling us about how everyone who disagrees with them is a terrorist-lover, in their own page where nobody is allowed to remove the content, or even register disagreement?

  -Amarkov

---------------------------------
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: WIKIPEDIA IS A FRAUD

body:
On 1/28/07, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 28/01/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > In which case, the moderators need to be a little more strict about
> > what they let through...
>
> I didn't let it through. The original email sent by the person was
> rejected from the mailing list. If you received it, it means the
> person emailed it directly to you in addition to mailing it to the
> mailing list address. Notice that this thread was started by someone
> *replying* to the email, not the original email itself.

Really? That makes sense - I was wondering about the lack of the [WikiEN-L]
header on the original message.

~Mark Ryan
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: geni

body:
On 1/28/07, Omegatron <omegatron+wikienl at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Most money is protected by copyright.
>
>
> Right.  It can only be reproduced if it can't be mistaken for actual
> currency.

False. It cannot be reproduced at all. You do know that the US gov is
pretty much the only one to place government works in the public
domain?

> But that means that images of money are not free content.  Should
> we remove all images of money from Wikipedia?

Those It should certainly be a consideration for those containing
copyvio material.

> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nazi_Swastika.svg>
> This is an SVG image released into the public domain by its copyright
> holder.  That's about as free as you can get.  But it is not freely
> reproducible in Germany. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Germany>
> Should we remove all Nazi insignia from Wikipedia?

This has nothing to do with copyright.

> Quotations are not free content, and cannot be licensed under the GFDL.
> Should we remove all quotations from Wikipedia?  Should we delete Wikiquote?
> <
>

There are many free quotations.

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tianasquare.jpg>
> This is not free content.  Should we remove it from Wikipedia?  (I can think
> of a few people who would want it removed, but I hope they aren't Wikipedia
> editors...)
>

Certainly should not be as widely used as it is.

>
> This movement to destroy all fair use content is incredibly misguided.

And doesn't exist outside your head.

>  Just
> looking through the file names of some of our fair use and permission-only
> images, I'm appalled that anyone who shares in the ideals of this project
> would want to prohibit them.
>
> Image:Armeniangenocide-streets.jpg

PD pictures exist. More will exist in the coming decades.

> Image:Beslan child running.jpg

Of no historical significance

> Image:032806 francelaborprotests2.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mouvement_anti-CPE

> Image:Aa McVeigh bombing.jpg

File a freedom of information act to see what pics the US federal
government took.

> Image:1938 Jews arrested during Kristallnacht line up for roll call at
> Buchenwald.jpg
>

Talk to Danny.

The fair use claim for rather a lot of those images is highly questionable

(Non-iconic news photos used in the article about the event? I'd hate
to try and defend that one)

> The whole concept behind fair use is the protection of free speech in the
> face of information-imprisoning copyright laws.

Not exactly and in any case there are other ways of doing it.

> The whole concept behind
> "free as in free speech" content is to produce information that can't ever
> be locked up by copyright law.  I can't fathom why anyone would think that
> one concept is noble and the other evil.

Look at your examples. Half have "fair use" cases so weak it's
embarrassing. I'm yet to see any case law for emotional impact being a
valid argument supporting fair use

--
geni


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

body:
Ray Saintonge schreef:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>
>> Ray Saintonge schreef:
>>
>>
>>
>>> David Monniaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> But there's no reason we should have an article on my neighbouring
>>>> highschool, unless we also want articles on every company or organization...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> A reasonable criterion for companies would be the listing of its shares
>>> on an important stock exchange.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Hoi,
>> That would be true if only companies that are traded on stock exchanges
>> are notable.
>>
>>
> I said "a" reasonable criterion, not "the" reasonable criterion.  It
> would be one of possibly several criteria that could serve independently
> to justify an article.
>
>
>> That is a fallacy in its own right.
>>
>>
> I see no logical fallacy in such a criterion.
>
> Ec
Hoi,
When only one criterion is produced without any others, it is not self
evident how your proposed criterion would work. If you consider that I
misinterpreted what you said, than by giving your rationale, you
apparently do agree that it is a fallacy to consider the listing on a
stock to be the justification for an article. Some companies that failed
miserably are notable because of what they stood for.
Thanks,
    GerardM


body:
On 1/28/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Handled correctly this could be a PR benefit for WP.
>
> Not long ago I expressed my opinion that our view toward Conflicts of
> Interest was not a workable one.  I'm also of the view that any severe
> action against editors who are paid to clean up a company's article,
> will only drive such activities underground.
>
> I think that we need to establish a right of defence or rebuttal (or
> whatever we want to call it).  This would allow anyone who is directly
> affected by the article a place to defend his point of view.  This could
> probably be done in a template that is linked from the page in
> question.  The person or company affected would have the exclusive right
> to make substantive edits to that template. The result would be a
> section that is the person's view on the issue; if they want to make a
> radical departure from the truth that would be their right within that
> context.  If the subject tries to put the same information in the main
> body of the article that would be subject to the usual meat-grinder rules.
>
> I'm sure that we will have a few of our own dinosaurs complaining that
> they should have the right to edit everything, and that having such
> pages would be tremendously unwiki, but I think that giving any person
> the opportunity to defend himself should improve Wikipedia's image as
> one of fairness.
>
> A few simple rules may be necessary for these persons.
>     1. The writer must be the person himself or have the right to speak
> on behalf of the person
>     2. The writer must be registered and properly identified.
>     3. All that he writes is subject to GFDL
>     4. The financial arrangements between the writer and the person are
> not our concern.
>     5. We reserve the right to limit the length of submissions to
> prevent long-winded rants.
>

No thankyou people can buy their own webhosting space. In any case it
risks lessening the requirment on the rest of us to be NPOV.

Aditionaly who is going to speak for Carthage?
--
geni


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

body:
On 28 Jan 2007 at 01:40, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> I think that we need to establish a right of defence or rebuttal (or
> whatever we want to call it).  This would allow anyone who is directly
> affected by the article a place to defend his point of view.  This could
> probably be done in a template that is linked from the page in
> question.  The person or company affected would have the exclusive right
> to make substantive edits to that template. The result would be a
> section that is the person's view on the issue; if they want to make a
> radical departure from the truth that would be their right within that
> context.  If the subject tries to put the same information in the main
> body of the article that would be subject to the usual meat-grinder rules.

This strikes me as a really bad idea, going completely against the
core NPOV policy, as well as the principle that nobody owns any part
of any article.  Why should any part of main article space (or
templates included in it) be controlled by outside people and used to
present their (perhaps distorted) view of reality?  That's what the
subjects' own (personal, organizational, and corporate) web space is
for.  Web hosting is really cheap these days, and when you've got
your own site you can use it to promote your own POV as much as you
want.  Then, if you're the subject of a Wikipedia article, it's
reasonable for that article to have an external link to your site
(including its anti-Wikipedia rants, if that's part of the site's
content). This works out reasonably well for everybody; the subject's
POV is easily available in exactly the form the subject wants it to
be, but it's also clearly at arm's-length from Wikipedia itself,
which remains in an NPOV style.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

body:
Hey, if your partner is talking about it during the act, wouldn't you
think about it?

Mark

On 28/01/07, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Derek Hodgson stated for the record:
> > Does ANYONE fucking cares about this?
>
> Well, I can't speak for others, but ... well ... no.  I don't care about
> this when I'm fucking.  I doubt anyone fucking does.
>
> - --
>  Sean Barrett     | Modern art is what happens when painters stop
>  sean at epoptic.com | looking at girls and persuade themselves
>                   | that they have a better idea. --John Ciardi
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFFvLub/SVOiq2uhHMRAiNTAJ0VM6vJTAavKP9y69Fq4wLVZga+mACeO+dg
> DdglqAOawgXnyUwhuOnHeRM=
> =4ieF
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


body:
> > Legitimate mirrors and people who want to reuse our content are free,
> > and encouraged, to download a database dump and process it for their
> > needs.

> Say, are there examples of people who do this well, contributing back to
> Wikipedia or to the general public? The examples I've seen are all a bit
> disappointing, but perhaps that's just because the outrageous ones
> generate more attention.

Yes, several sites do this quite well. See for example
http://www.answers.com.
--Mets501


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: WIKIPEDIA IS A FRAUD

body:
> Really? That makes sense - I was wondering about the lack of the
> [WikiEN-L] header on the original message.
>
> ~Mark Ryan

Yeah, he sent it to me directly as well.  I knew it didn't come from the
list because it was in HTML, not plaintext :-)
--Mets501


from_name: habj

subject: [Wikitech-l] slowness today

body:
2007/1/16, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com>:
>
> On 16/01/07, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> > I can't say words without having some God-given "policy" read into them.
>
> The English Wikipedia took comments you and I made about being
> sensible and not worrying *too much* in a previous thread, and turned
> it into a guideline;
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_worry_about_performance.
>
> I assume, or hope, that these people still know when to suspend
> guidelines. I think most of them got it.

That guideline page has been complemented with some more quotes from this
discussion. If you find that strange, maybe you should check a couple of the
policy pages.

>From Wikipedia:Consensus on English Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Exceptions ):
"Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly
for copyright, legal issues, or server load, are usually held to have policy
status (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines)."

>From Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines on English Wikipedia, regarding how
policies are started
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#How_are_policies_started.3F)
:
"Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly
for copyright, legal issues, or server load."

So unless the word "declaration" is defined, it actually says on two enwiki
policy pages that pretty much anything you guys say on server load matters
should be made into policy/guideline pages at once. It is at least very easy
to interpret it that way. The guys who do not like this maybe could take
some measures against it. *hint*

/habj


subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

body:
Delirium wrote:

>Christopher G. Parham wrote:
>
>
>>On 1/27/2007 3:15 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A reasonable criterion for companies would be the listing of its shares
>>>on an important stock exchange.
>>>
>>>
>>Sadly our actual "notability guideline" explicitly reject that as a
>>criterion.
>>
>>
>It's strange that a small elementary school is inherently notable by
>virtue of existing, but a corporation that's actually publicly traded on
>a major exchange isn't.  I guess the Wikipedia school lobby has more
>clout than the Wikipedia corporate lobby?
>
While most Wikipedians have probably attended some elementary school, I
sometimes can't help but feeling that there is a profound lack of
understanding  about the corporate world.  Maybe it's just that our
younger crowd has never had the occasion to figure out what the
financial pages are about.  Listed companies have their share prices
reported on a daily basis.  Objective studies are constantly being done
and published by brokerage and other investment firms.  Even a confirmed
opponent of most corporate activities needs to "know his enemy" in oder
to fight them more effectvely.  I wonder whether those who support the
current guidelines for corporate notability have ever bought, owned or
sold any stock in their lives.  The usual image of a corporation st
least gives the appearance of being contrary to any kind of open access
to information.  We probably don't have much of a corporate lobby at all.

Ec


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: WIKIPEDIA IS A FRAUD

body:
On 1/27/07, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- <tariqabjotu at gmail.com> wrote:
> And what about Parker Peters? (see
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061849.html)
>
> -- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
>
> Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
> > And please ban him, from looking through his contributions and his 2
> > mails to this list, it is certainly justified.
> >
> > --Oskar
> >
> > On 1/28/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I think this discussion is over; please put Michael on moderation or
> >> drop him from the list.
> >>
> >>
> >> -george
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: Michael Smith <runechozo at gmail.com>
> >> Date: Jan 27, 2007 2:51 PM
> >> Subject: Re: WIKIPEDIA IS A FRAUD
> >> To: George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com>
> >>
> >>
> >> Bullshit you fucking liar.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/27/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 1/27/07, Michael Smith <runechozo at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I was abused, stalked, hounded, and the one who did it got off with nothing
> >>>> happening to him because you like beating up on people.And why? BECAUSE I
> >>>> WAS TRYING TO MAKE AN ARTICLE BETTER.
> >>>>
> >>> No, you've been blocked, and may well be banned now, because you can't
> >>> respond politely and in an adult and civil manner to complaints.
> >>>
> >>> Until you understand that you entirely did this to yourself, I don't
> >>> see how you can continue participating in Wikipedia.

Despite certain bizarre aspects of Parker's interaction here, he has
remained within the general bounds of civil discourse.  I would object
to kicking him off.

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Fair Use (again)

body:
On 1/28/07, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> I've somehow found myself embroiled in the middle of a fair-use fight on
> en.wikipedia, but an interesting viewpoint has expressed itself that I'm
> curious with the "powers that be" and other experienced Wikimedia users
> might find a bit interesting, at least in terms of where a significant
> faction of Wikipedia users want to go.
>
> The philosophy is essentially that fair use images are permitted on
> Wikipedia, even if you are not going to be legally permitted to use them
> if you copy them and try to re-publish the Wikipedia article.  I guess
> this same philosophy also applies to the whole issue of NC images and
> their inclusion in Wikimedia projects, but in this case the issue is
> mainly centered on fair use applications of image content.
>
> In reading through the Wikipedia Fair Use guideline talk page
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3AFair_use), I noticed a
> recurring theme to justify many fair use images based around two
> significant points of the fair-use doctrine as described in USC 92
> section 107:
>
> * Educational fair use  - Wikipedia is part of an "educational
> institution" and the images are used as a form of instruction.
> * Non-commercial entity - Because the WMF is a 503 (c) 3 non-profit
> organization, and because all of the editor/contributors to Wikipedia
> are unpaid volunteers, Wikipedia can claim non-commercial usage of fair
> use content.
>
> My counter argument is that neither of these justifications are valid
> for inclusion into Wikipedia.  The educational exception is a major
> stretch and I just don't see how it really applies in the case of
> Wikipedia, particularly with some common-law cases that have
> significantly reduced the scope of educational fair use.  In the case of
> the non-commercial entity, I would argue that the GFDL is the trump card
> here, as reproducing Wikipedia (and almost all Wikimedia) content must
> be done under the terms of the GFDL, which explictly permits commercial
> reproduction.
>
> The response to this is that it doesn't matter if the GFDL applies.
>  They just want to include fair use images, even if the GFDL doesn't
> permit their reproduction.  This is essentially a "buyer beware"
> attitudue where you, as the end-user, are required to explicitly go
> through the licensing terms of all images you download together with an
> article and remove those images if you decide to pass the article on to
> a 3rd party.  The inclusion of an image on Wikipedia has no connection
> to the GFDL, but only if it is legal (even if barely) for it to be
> displayed on a website run by the WMF.
>
> I had a hard time understanding this philosohpy, but a fairly vocal
> group insists that this is where fair use policy on Wikipedia ought to
> be going.
>
> I should note that I got into this whole mess because I was involved
> with a group that was trying to write a Wikibook about M.C. Escher, and
> I tried to point out that they couldn't reproduce the Escher artwork
> unless they somehow were able to obtain a license that could be used
> under the GFDL.  The response was that the images were being used on
> Wikipedia, so why not Wikibooks?  The Escher reproductions are claiming
> fair use, but I think it has gone way too far on Wikipedia, as I believe
> these to be merely a copyright violation.

As the US code reads, fair use includes:
"criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research"

It then goes on to describe the four factors involved in determining
if a use was fair under those theories:
"       1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether
such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
purposes;
       2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
       3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
       4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value
of the copyrighted work."

Wikipedia can be argued to fall under aspects of news reporting,
scholarship, teaching, comment, and criticism, depending on the
details of the particular article and subject.

The US code doesn't say "educational institution".  It says "for
teaching".  It doesn't requires that a fair use meet all four factors,
just that those factors be used in the determination.

Regarding the distribution of materials beyond Wikipedia, while it's
true that we fall under the "nonprofit educational purposes" clause of
factor 1 above, most potential further-distributed users would find
protection under 2-4 and the scholarship, news reporting, etc.
fundamental fair users.

In particular, factor 2 "The nature of the copyrighted work" rather
clearly implies that promotional materials released by organizations
are generally expected under law to be reproduced, which is one of the
major arguments on en.wp right now.

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Fair Use (again)


body:
geni wrote:

>On 1/28/07, Omegatron <omegatron+wikienl at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Quotations are not free content, and cannot be licensed under the GFDL.
>>Should we remove all quotations from Wikipedia?  Should we delete Wikiquote?
>>
>>
>There are many free quotations.
>
Quotations are the most fundamental application of fair use.  If we are
unable to use direct quotations, and must paraphrase the ideas the risks
of inacurracy are too high.

>>This movement to destroy all fair use content is incredibly misguided.
>>
>>
>And doesn't exist outside your head.
>
You have to admit that there are some people around here who have
extreme views about this. :-)

>>Just
>>looking through the file names of some of our fair use and permission-only
>>images, I'm appalled that anyone who shares in the ideals of this project
>>would want to prohibit them.
>>
>>Image:Armeniangenocide-streets.jpg
>>
>>
>PD pictures exist. More will exist in the coming decades.
>
In reviewing the copyrights for such a picture it's important to
remember exactly when the Armenian genocide took place.

>Image:1938 Jews arrested during Kristallnacht line up for roll call at
>Buchenwald.jpg
>
>
>Talk to Danny.
>
>The fair use claim for rather a lot of those images is highly questionable
>
>(Non-iconic news photos used in the article about the event? I'd hate
>to try and defend that one)
>
We can safely assume that the picture was actually taken in 1938, but do
we know who took it?  There's a strong probability that the picture is
already in the public domain, and if research establishes that we don't
need fair use.

>>The whole concept behind fair use is the protection of free speech in the
>>face of information-imprisoning copyright laws.
>>
>>
>Not exactly and in any case there are other ways of doing it.
>
Not exactly, but in a different way.  Copyright does not imprision
information because information is not copyrightable; only the way in
which the information is expressed is copyrightable.  Patent
applications include details on just what is to be protected.  If, for
whatever reason, something is not protected the question of fair use is
moot.  What often happens is that some people who claim fair use do so
without any idea about the real copyright status of the item in
question.  Doing that is a lot easier than doing the research to
determine the real copyright status.

>>The whole concept behind
>>"free as in free speech" content is to produce information that can't ever
>>be locked up by copyright law.  I can't fathom why anyone would think that
>>one concept is noble and the other evil.
>>
>>
>Look at your examples. Half have "fair use" cases so weak it's
>embarrassing. I'm yet to see any case law for emotional impact being a
>valid argument supporting fair use
>
Allowing fair use depends on the material fitting the legal definitions,
or at least having a legal rationale of some sort.  Although I am
philosophically closer to the permissive end about using fair use
material, I fully agree that "emotional impact" is not such a legal
rationale.


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

subject: [Foundation-l] Fair Use (again)

body:
All it takes is one lawsuit from someone who is upset at the images
being used, and the money from
the last fund drive could get used up in legal fees pretty durn fast. If
someone object to images
being used, then TAKE THEM OFF THE SITE, Fair use argments are not. I
recall my interactions
on en.wikipedia with people using copyrighted materials and some of the
debates I had there.

Bottom line, these anonymus editors are not the people who will get
nailed. The foundation will
be the ones who get served and Brad will have to hire a law firm to
defend the Foundation. It's
pretty simple -- if someone who owns th images does not want them used,
then do not use them.

There are a lot more torts than just copyright infringement they could
pull out of the bag and use. They could claim
unfari competition, tortious interference, and a whole host of other
torts they may win with. It's cheaper, easier,
and honorable to simply take down the images and tell the offended party
it is being done as a courtesty. This makes
it appear the foundation is acting in good faith.

Jeff

Robert Scott Horning wrote:

>I've somehow found myself embroiled in the middle of a fair-use fight on
>en.wikipedia, but an interesting viewpoint has expressed itself that I'm
>curious with the "powers that be" and other experienced Wikimedia users
>might find a bit interesting, at least in terms of where a significant
>faction of Wikipedia users want to go.
>
>The philosophy is essentially that fair use images are permitted on
>Wikipedia, even if you are not going to be legally permitted to use them
>if you copy them and try to re-publish the Wikipedia article.  I guess
>this same philosophy also applies to the whole issue of NC images and
>their inclusion in Wikimedia projects, but in this case the issue is
>mainly centered on fair use applications of image content.
>
>In reading through the Wikipedia Fair Use guideline talk page
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3AFair_use), I noticed a
>recurring theme to justify many fair use images based around two
>significant points of the fair-use doctrine as described in USC 92
>section 107:
>
>* Educational fair use  - Wikipedia is part of an "educational
>institution" and the images are used as a form of instruction.
>* Non-commercial entity - Because the WMF is a 503 (c) 3 non-profit
>organization, and because all of the editor/contributors to Wikipedia
>are unpaid volunteers, Wikipedia can claim non-commercial usage of fair
>use content.
>
>My counter argument is that neither of these justifications are valid
>for inclusion into Wikipedia.  The educational exception is a major
>stretch and I just don't see how it really applies in the case of
>Wikipedia, particularly with some common-law cases that have
>significantly reduced the scope of educational fair use.  In the case of
>the non-commercial entity, I would argue that the GFDL is the trump card
>here, as reproducing Wikipedia (and almost all Wikimedia) content must
>be done under the terms of the GFDL, which explictly permits commercial
>reproduction.
>
>The response to this is that it doesn't matter if the GFDL applies.
> They just want to include fair use images, even if the GFDL doesn't
>permit their reproduction.  This is essentially a "buyer beware"
>attitudue where you, as the end-user, are required to explicitly go
>through the licensing terms of all images you download together with an
>article and remove those images if you decide to pass the article on to
>a 3rd party.  The inclusion of an image on Wikipedia has no connection
>to the GFDL, but only if it is legal (even if barely) for it to be
>displayed on a website run by the WMF.
>
>I had a hard time understanding this philosohpy, but a fairly vocal
>group insists that this is where fair use policy on Wikipedia ought to
>be going.
>
>I should note that I got into this whole mess because I was involved
>with a group that was trying to write a Wikibook about M.C. Escher, and
>I tried to point out that they couldn't reproduce the Escher artwork
>unless they somehow were able to obtain a license that could be used
>under the GFDL.  The response was that the images were being used on
>Wikipedia, so why not Wikibooks?  The Escher reproductions are claiming
>fair use, but I think it has gone way too far on Wikipedia, as I believe
>these to be merely a copyright violation.
>
>
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Fair Use (again)


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] school articles : enough

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

>Ray Saintonge schreef:
>
>
>>Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ray Saintonge schreef:
>>>
>>>
>>>>David Monniaux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But there's no reason we should have an article on my neighbouring
>>>>>highschool, unless we also want articles on every company or organization...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>A reasonable criterion for companies would be the listing of its shares
>>>>on an important stock exchange.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That would be true if only companies that are traded on stock exchanges
>>>are notable.
>>>
>>>
>>I said "a" reasonable criterion, not "the" reasonable criterion.  It
>>would be one of possibly several criteria that could serve independently
>>to justify an article.
>>
>>
>>>That is a fallacy in its own right.
>>>
>>>
>>I see no logical fallacy in such a criterion.
>>
>>
>When only one criterion is produced without any others, it is not self
>evident how your proposed criterion would work. If you consider that I
>misinterpreted what you said, than by giving your rationale, you
>apparently do agree that it is a fallacy to consider the listing on a
>stock to be the justification for an article. Some companies that failed
>miserably are notable because of what they stood for.
>
It's hard to know how much we really disagree, if at all.  My criterion
was a sufficient rather than a necessary one.  To be precise I consider
current listing on a major stock exchange to be sufficient notability
justification for having an article.  It is not a necessary condition
because other qualifying conditions are possible for accomplishing
this.  Your example of a failed company is an excellent one of someplace
where another criterion would apply.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: WIKIPEDIA IS A FRAUD

body:
On 1/28/07, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/28/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Despite certain bizarre aspects of Parker's interaction here, he has
> > remained within the general bounds of civil discourse.  I would object
> > to kicking him off.
>
> I think this email
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/060314.html
>
> where he pretended to be someone else (and, in fact, had a whole
> conversation with himself) is quite enough to be put on moderation.
> That's so much over the line that, as Joey from friends would have it,
> the line is a dot to him. I mean, look at his response to his own
> email:
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/060315.html
>
> He has no business here anymore.
>
> --Oskar

I think that everyone is aware of that sillyness and is taking it into
account in weighing opinions proffered.

I don't think that deleting people off the list who merely are
unlikely to be taken entirely seriously is a good approach.  He's not
flooding the list and is not a major part of the list's bandwidth, nor
is he causing any serious disruption or rudeness.

As long as the list is open, I don't want subjective decisions of this
nature made about who can participate.  Short of disruption or
incivility or such abuse, leave him alone.

My opinion only, of course.

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


from_name: Omegatron

body:
On 1/28/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There are many free quotations.

You seriously think this way?  We should remove all quotations from
Wikipedia unless they have been released under free licenses?  Seriously?

> This movement to destroy all fair use content is incredibly misguided.
>
> And doesn't exist outside your head.

It most certainly does.  You aren't part of it?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Walter#Say_no_to_fair_use>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Say_NO_to_Fair_Use.svg>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_no_fair_use>
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_24#Template:User_against_Fair_Use
>

The fair use claim for rather a lot of those images is highly questionable

You seriously think this way?

> The whole concept behind fair use is the protection of free speech in the
> > face of information-imprisoning copyright laws.
>
> Not exactly and in any case there are other ways of doing it.

Such as?

Look at your examples. Half have "fair use" cases so weak it's
> embarrassing. I'm yet to see any case law for emotional impact being a
> valid argument supporting fair use

You seriously think these images have no value in an encyclopedia?
Seriously?

You do realize that this is an encyclopedia, right?  Are you actually
interested in contributing to an encylopedia or are you just here to delete
images?


subject: [WikiEN-l] The downside of creating perfect articles

body:
On 1/28/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26/01/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/26/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > As an aside, this is the other use for redlink farms - they're a
> > > really good way to find places to put sensible redirects.
> >
> > Yeah. I can't help but feel that there ought to be an organised front
> > end to all of this, though. Like a committee that says "There shall be
> > a "Religion in X" article for every country. The list of countries is
> > stored [[here]]. Redirects of the following forms will be set up for
> > every country..."
> >
> > I mean I know Wikipedia isn't run top-down, but would it hurt to have
> > a little management? Or should I say "leadership".
>
> That's exactly what we have wikiprojects for! Perfect textbook example
> of a good role for them - organising coverage on a specific subject,
> getting the infrastructure (names, redirects) in place that they can
> then come back and work on content

It doesn't need a project; one sufficiently motivated individual can
populate a matrix of needed stubs rapidly by hand, for n up to 100 or
so.

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


from_name: Mark Ryan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: WIKIPEDIA IS A FRAUD

body:
On 28/01/07, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- <tariqabjotu at gmail.com> wrote:
> And what about Parker Peters? (see
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061849.html)
>
> -- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-

Both of those people are already on moderation on this mailing list.

~Mark Ryan
WikiEN-l mailing list admin


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] slowness today

body:
On 28/01/07, habj <sweetadelaide at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly
> for copyright, legal issues, or server load."
>
> So unless the word "declaration" is defined, it actually says on two enwiki
> policy pages that pretty much anything you guys say on server load matters
> should be made into policy/guideline pages at once. It is at least very easy
> to interpret it that way. The guys who do not like this maybe could take
> some measures against it. *hint*

Oh, for god's sake. More common sense needed, obviously.

That particular statement is supposed to be applied as (example case):

* Brion discovers something a group of users is doing is causing unhelpful load
* Brion asks people not to do it - with luck, asking is all that is
needed - while we find a better solution
* If asking doesn't work, then people can be *told* not to do it
* A better solution is found

If everything Brion or Tim says is supposed to be taken as gospel,
then we *will* have [[Wikipedia:Brion is on crack]] and
[[Wikipedia:Users suck]]. Clearly you can see that this is ludicrous.

There are clearly far too many policy wonks on the English Wikipedia.
I don't recall we have problems with any other project understanding
this sort of thing.

Rob Church


from_name: Jim Hu

subject: [Wikitech-l] how to stop that gaping mouth of an edit box?

body:
Creating 1500 empty pages is trivial with a script and
importDump.php.  Seems like a cron job or bot could periodically run
the query from Special:Wantedcategories and make stubs for those pages.
=====================================
Jim Hu
Associate Professor

On Jan 28, 2007, at 10:36 AM, Dan Jacobson wrote:

> Dan Jacobson wrote:
>> Is there any way I can stop that gaping mouth of an edit box on empty
>> category pages??
>
> Tim says
> <Just make the links to categories with no associated pages blue
> instead of
> <red. It's a one-line patch. [OutputPage.php]
> -			$this->mCategoryLinks[] = $sk->makeLinkObj( $title, $text );
> +			$this->mCategoryLinks[] = $sk->makeKnownLinkObj( $title, $text );
>> I wish when one visits action=edit on category pages, it would
>> act like action=view.
>
> Nice, but what about [[Special:Categories]]? The empty categories are
> still red there. A hack here, a hack there...
>
> <Then you wouldn't be able to edit it, even by clicking the edit tab.
>>> I think that's what he wants.
>
> Yes. And me messing in includes/* will only get overwritten next time
> as I always don't know what I did six months later. Plus I am not
> making a permanent contribution/mark/impact on the MediaWiki that way.
>
> <Create the pages, but give them an empty content.
>
> Hurmf, 1500 empty pages for http://radioscanningtw.jidanni.org/ . Naw.
>
> So far I have come up with wimpy
>     function fnmybla1($text,$title)
>     { global $wgSitename;
>       if (   ( NS_CATEGORY == $title->mNamespace )
>           || ( NS_CATEGORY_TALK == $title->mNamespace ) )
>        {$text = "${wgSitename} notice: please put frequencies into
>     articles, the categories will be automatically generated";}}
>     $wgHooks['EditFormPreloadText'][]='fnmybla1';
> for LocalSettings.php, which I wish not to venture beyond.
>
> Anyway, how limiting that MediaWiki can't deny editing (to everybody,
> fine with me) in a given namespace! One must create new namespaces,
> etc.
>
> It seems even if array $wgGroupPermissions had a added dimension:
> namespace, stamping out all those red links would better be
> accoplished via hooks into OutputPage.php above and
> SpecialCategories.php.
>
> For now I must use
> http://radioscanningtw.jidanni.org/index.php?title=Template:C to help
> a little against sending users into the gaping mouth of the edit box.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l