from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

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

>Inspired works are now starting to fall under copyright protection.
>This trend started with the inclusions of translations under the
>definition of derivative works and has been expanding since then....
>
>Enforcement has been previously limited to things like fan-fiction
>since it's so difficult to prove if original text was derived or not,
>but the history in wikipedia make it pretty easy to make a good
>argument where previously it would have been near impossible.
>
Your POV sounds too paranoid to be credible.  You seem to ignore the
fact that it's the way the ideas are expressed that is copyright not the
ideas themselves.  It's quite clear that as an initially copyvio passage
is more frequently edited its resemblance to that text changes, and the
degree of copyright violation diminishes.

>Copyright law in the US needs to be reformed,  but the current trends
>are not heading in the right direction yet.
>
Certainly it needs reform.  Requested submissions about what can be done
to make orphan works more accessible are due this Friday.  Are you
making a submission?

Ec


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: James D. Forrester

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

body:
On Monday, March 21, 2005 12:10 AM, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:

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

It's not ridiculous, though it is mildly amusing (in a rather sad way).
"Ridiculous" suggests that the comments are actually evaluated in a rational
light, which these do not qualify for. People making such demands have no
basis to make them, and can be ignored as safely as those who demand payment
for the oxygen plants on their land have produced which has found its way
into one's lungs.

However, it is probably for the best for such users to be given a friendly
word that their posturing and posing merely serves to make themselves look
foolish in the eyes of a great many people, and does not serve their cause
(which one could, perhaps somewhat unkindly, term 'Narcissism'), if only for
their perceived image.

Yours,
--
James D. Forrester -- Wikimedia: [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]

Mail: james at jdforrester.org | jon at eh.org | csvla at dcs.warwick.ac.uk
IM  : (MSN) jamesdforrester at hotmail.com


from_name: actionforum at comcast.net

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

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

> This is not the first time that SIlverback has misrepresented a conflict in
> order to trivialize the importance of content and contents policies.

It probably isn't, but are you sure in this case?

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

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

Are you being difficult and taking the point of view, that if it doesn't come from
Marx then it isn't "marxist"?   What if such a reasonable inference is involved,
say for instance that marxism is defined as public ownership of the means
of production and marxist rhetoric is constantantly raving about the capitalists
and the private ownership of capital, and private property being a property
of capitalism.   Do marxists actually have to have written
a dictionary themselves or formatlly defined the terms in one of their signature works?

It seems a fairly reasonable inference from marxist uses of the word what their
meaning is.  What is your objection?  It is not as if his definition misrepresents
or is perjorative of the marxist position.

              -- Silverback


list: wikitech-l

from_name: admin Yellowikis

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

body:
I stumbled across this way to reduce comment spam:

http://www.gadgetopia.com/2005/03/08/PreventingSpamByKeystrokeCounting.html

http://overstated.net/projects/mt-keystrokes/

It's not perfect of course - but might be worth investigating.

paul

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:08:13 -0500, Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:54:12 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > Therefore, it seems best to me if nofollow is on by default in the
> > software distribution (since most small wikis are victimized by spam)
> > and that nofollow is turned off in all the busy wikipedia sites.
>
> I didn't take part in the original vote, since it was a very scattered
> discussion and a simple "nofollow v. no nofollow" choice was hard to
> make; but the above sounds like a fair short-term compromise.
>
> It would also be great for editors to have the option of forcing
> "nofollow" for a link
> (and for setting other attribs like "title").
>
> > Wikipedia provides an enormously high value set of hints to search
> > engines to help them find sites that don't suck.
>
> In the longer term, we should start treating external links, and other
> bibliography entries and references, like first-class citizens -- with
> their own discussion pages, watchlist entries, and attributes.
>
> A reference is a lot more than just another sentence in a 10k article.
>  It forms part of the core of a good encyclopedia -- doubly so for one
> which prides itself on not hand-picking its editors.  References
> should have histories, should become more precise over time (which
> edition of that book?  on what date was that website visited [and
> where's the permalink to it via the Internet Archive]?  what do other
> people say about this reference?  is this advertising?  zealotry?
> spam?), should give off more of a signal when added, modified, or
> deleted.  When a link changes (as most of the web does), all uses of
> that reference should change as well.
>
> Perhaps we could design a system where there is a 'right' way to
> insert or call an external URL, so that a URL that is just pasted in
> would have ref=nofollow, but one which is called correctly (and has
> its own discussion space and history somewhere) would not.
>
> I will write something about this at [[m:References]], once the wiki
> is back up...
>
> --
> +sj+
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


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

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

Marx was complementary of capitalism for demonstrating that wealth was
not static but could be created.  If one were to point out that Marx appreciated
that capitalism was not a zero sum game, would one be doing original research
because he is using language that did not exist in Marx's time, or is he merely
being descriptive in modern language of Marx's position?   When does mere
description or translation (in this case into modern language) become original
research?

Scientists often define their terms at the beginning of a publication.  More precision
or a specific nuance of a term is needed in order to communicate clearly, sometimes
the "definition" is simply to rule out specific possible ambiguous interpretations of
the term.  The term still contains a recognizable essence of the original meaning,
but has become a term of art.   The recognizable essence may not be the same
essence that YOU would have selected, but you should adopt that meaning
when reading the rest of the paper.   Now if at the end, in the conclusions,
the author tries to make rhetorical generalizations to the usual definition of
the term, you are entitled to object.

Yes, I define terms, or rather select reductionists nuances of terms in an
attempt at communication, but if you insist for instance that capitalism is
a subset of fascism (BTW, you haven't as far as I know, perhaps "mercantilism"
would be a better example), you are trying to denigrate and not communicate.

What would you say the marxist definition of capitalism is?  Or do you think
he would avoid giving one as a rhetorical technique to avoid being pinned
down and put on the defensive?

                   -- Silverback


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

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

What are your standards for applying an "unreferenced" tag?  Do you apply it to every statement in an article that doesn't have a reference?  Or do you just select statements that appear to be
outliers or unlikely from your experience?

I think in a scientific article, indescriminate use of the unreferenced tag would collide with the assumption of good faith.  Many facts in our articles are not referenced, but if you were to challenge for instance the statement that beta blockers inhibit the nocturnal release of melatonin, especially after the statement had been in the article for awhile, the burden should be on you to at least have checked the PDR and have done a medline search.

                       -- Silverback


from_name: David Gerard

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

body:
actionforum at comcast.net wrote:

> What would you say the marxist definition of capitalism is?

I'd say it's off topic for this list.

Silverback, you never did give me that example I asked for. Do you have one?

- d.


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

body:
actionforum at comcast.net wrote:

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

> What are your standards for applying an "unreferenced" tag?

To articles that have *no references whatsoever* and no external
links and aren't stubs. i.e. not "your references are crap" but
literally, "this article has no references at all."

Now then, the question I asked before. You wrote:

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

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

I asked: Do you have real-life examples of this happening?

- d.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Jean-Baptiste Soufron

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

body:
>
>> You can use your addition by itself if you want. It's not a derived
>> work in itself, only the combination of the 2 texts is.
>
> Unfortunately this isn't the case.... Check out the numerous cases of
> fan fiction that don't use a single word of the copyrighted work, but
> have still been ruled to be derived works.

A Fan Fiction is a completely different problem since it will re-use
characters, plot, etc.

A Fan Fiction is a derivative work without being a copy of the original
work. It is an adaptation.

>
> Inspired works are now starting to fall under copyright protection.

Since they are only starting to fall under copyright protection, that
also mean they did not fall yet !

Copyright law still has limits and we can use very easily use these
limits. Not doing so would be a criminal attitude and a renouncement to
the values that we are fighting for every day.

> This trend started with the inclusions of translations under the
> definition of derivative works and has been expanding since then....

Translation have always been recognized as derivative works ! Just as
well as movies adaptated from books, fanfictions and so on.

We are talking about : (1) the transformation of a text by modifying it
word by word, (2) the inspiration from a text.

If Wikipedia must set up a policy, I am pretty sure it is better to
base it on actual copyright law rather than on some mystic
"what-copyright-could-be".

> Enforcement has been previously limited to things like fan-fiction

Fan fiction are a completely different problem.

> since it's so difficult to prove if original text was derived or not,

It's not that much.

> but the history in wikipedia make it pretty easy to make a good
> argument where previously it would have been near impossible.
>
> Copyright law in the US needs to be reformed,

No, it need to be applied in a better way.

Jean-Baptiste Soufron
Intellectual Property and Contracts


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

body:
>
>>> But when do we say someone can claim that? When they are next to each
>>> other? When they are in the same article? When they are both in
>>> Wikipedia? When they are both on the Internet?
>>>
>> Don't troll.
>>
>> Someone can claim for the copyright when they are in the same article.
>> That's enough for us to worry and to define a precise policy.
>
> Right.  We're not worrying about some ignorant policy compiler in the
> sky.... The concern is convincing a court of law (i.e. a human or a
> few humans) in a climate where increasingly copyright is being
> regarded as a very expansive, and infectious, natural right.

There are still plenty of limits to copyright. A French Appeal Court
just ruled that copying movies on Internet was not copyright
infringement when it was made for private purposes.

I am confident in Courts and Judges.

>
> You couldn't convince a court that the entirety of wikipedia was
> derived from some text in a Nintendo article,  but given a substantial
> enough copyvio contribution you could easily argue  that most of the
> after-the-fact edits were derived and thus the article is tainted.

Every addition is work in itself, only the article is a derivative
work. Supressing the original copyvio text results in a nice FDL text.
Then doing every additions once again is only adding new works.

The only limit is that these addition must not be derivated from some
parts of the copyvio text.

But as far as I know, there is no such thing as "tainting" of copyvio.
>
> So we have two choices, wait for injunction or the criminal charges
> (copyright violation is now a criminal matter :( )

It always was (in France at least).

> and make the
> argument in court, arguing fine points that have never been tested
> before (how many generations of changes and replacements are needed to
> untaint derived text,

"tainting" is not a legal concept... law only know about original work
and derivative work...

> is any number sufficient), in a court which is
> likely unfavorable due to the political climate, and potential lose
> years of contributions if we lose the battle. Basically taking a huge
> bet that wikipedia will be large enough to generate a large enough
> public out-cry on the matter to influence the political situation...

It's not a huge bed at all, it's the normal way to do.

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

I don't agree. You should take for granted what copyfight activists can
say (and I can tell since I am a copyfight activist myself...)
Copyright law exist and we should use it. What you say is that you
don't understand copyright law and so, you would prefer to find a
solution that would not rely on its exceptions because you don't
understand how they apply.

Fine, but if I were an anti-copyright activist, in 5 years from now I
would just say that these exceptions do not apply anymore since nobody
is using it...

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

There is no need to change the law. Not on its core principles at
least.


body:
Jean-Baptiste Soufron, Doctorant
CERSA - CNRS, Paris 2
http://soufron.free.fr

Le 20 mars 05, ? 21:47, Andre Engels a ?crit :

> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:25:43 -0500, Gregory Maxwell
> <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So we have two choices, wait for injunction or the criminal charges
>> (copyright violation is now a criminal matter :( ) and make the
>> argument in court, arguing fine points that have never been tested
>> before (how many generations of changes and replacements are needed to
>> untaint derived text, is any number sufficient), in a court which is
>> likely unfavorable due to the political climate, and potential lose
>> years of contributions if we lose the battle. Basically taking a huge
>> bet that wikipedia will be large enough to generate a large enough
>> public out-cry on the matter to influence the political situation...
>
> Come on!!!! That's not a "huge bet", that's being ridiculous on the
> face of it. Basically, if I write something and add it to another
> text, does that make my text a copyright violation. NO. There's no
> issue about 1, 10 or 100 changes, there's an issue about DIFFERENT
> TEXTS!!!!!

That's the good way to see things. Each addition is an original work in
itself. Their combination is also another original work. If you have an
article = A+B, then you got 3 works... 2 normal and 1 derivative.


body:
> Karl Eichwalder wrote:
>
>> Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> That's clearly something for the case where a copyrighted piece is
>>> *added* to an article. Not that I would agree to it for wholly new
>>> copyright violations either. I still see no reason for dumping
>>> additional paragraphs as well.
>>>
>> As long as someone can claim the additional paragraphs are "derived"
>> from the copyvio, you would better remove the additional paragraphs as
>> early as possible.
>>
>
> Anybody can "claim" anything.  That does not make it so.  The
> information is not copyright.  Only the way of expressing it is
> copyright.  Thus if someone uses all the information from a copyright
> source, but tells it in his own way that work may be derived from the
> original but it is not legally a derivative work.  Rewriting the
> material would be more appropriate.

Exactly.

Copyright do not "protect" ideas but material creations using these
ideas. Rewriting a text with your own words is not a copyright
infringement in itself.


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

body:
-------------- Original message --------------
> Yes. Or the expert can refer to the standard textbook they have several
> of ... or wrote. (If they want to avoid referring to their own work,
> they can note it on talk for another to put on the page.)
>
> I remain utterly unconvinced of this alleged impossibility of reference.

I tend to agree that things are ultimately referencable, although some derivation  or application of a  form of analysis may sometimes be needed.

I am probably more concerned about the difficulty of providing
a reference, an example that comes to mind is when something is in the literature, not in the textbooks, but the literature is too old
too have abstracts online, if I recall correctly, this difficulty
actually occurred when I was researching whether the theory
that thalidomide caused birth defects by inhibiting angiogenesis.
Although, research into its possible application in cancer did
not occur until the early 1990s, the theory was first proposed
back in the late 60s or early 70s.

In terms of "real life" wikipedia examples I may not have a perfectly apropo example but I can probably bracket it.  Consider the difficulty of defending this statement (fortunately I haven't had to) in the [[Global warming]] article

  "Climate models that pass the above tests while only modeling the direct effects of increases in solar activity will have attributed too much of the historical warming to greenhouse gas forcing, and will predict larger increases in temperature in the future."

Yes, it may ulitimately be referencable as an APPLICATION of basic understanding of modeling, parameterization and correlation, but frankly, I am glad that some in the community will apply their basic scientific understanding and not insist that every nuance be documented.

Consider also, consider whether one should object to Connelly's refutation of Singer in the SEPP article, which I tried to revert but have not insisted, since I think, good faith in controversial scientific articles requires the allowance of some argumentation and derivation.   Others, however, are in a continuing revert war with him, and I disagree with his interpretation.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Science_%26_Environmental_Policy_Project&diff=10911317&oldid=10895572

         -- Silverback


body:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:48:51 -0800, Ray Saintonge
> <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>> Anybody can "claim" anything.  That does not make it so.  The
>> information is not copyright.  Only the way of expressing it is
>> copyright.  Thus if someone uses all the information from a copyright
>> source, but tells it in his own way that work may be derived from the
>> original but it is not legally a derivative work.  Rewriting the
>> material would be more appropriate.
>
> You misunderstand copyright, it is not longer limited strictly limited
> to the specific expression of an idea. If copyright were still
> strictly limited to the specific expression than translations would be
> nonviolating (or at worse, a grey area) rather than the strict
> violation that the law considers them to be today.

He misundertands nothing. Translations are considered to be a
derivative work because judges assume that they are done word by word
from transforming the original work one sentence at a time and so on.
Dynamically speaking the translation was derivated from the original
text even if it gives birth to a completely different one.


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

body:
> There is a lot of misunderstanding here as to what constitutes a
> derivative
> work.  But one need only look at Galoob v. Nintendo to dispel most of
> it:
>
> "The examples of derivative works provided by the Act all physically
> incorporate the underlying work or works. The Act's legislative history
> similarly indicates that 'the infringing work must incorporate a
> portion of
> the copyrighted work in some form.'"
>
> The infringing work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work
> in
> some form.  This might be the storyline, as in the case of fan
> fiction, but
> if there is no incoporation of the copyrighted work in the alleged
> infringing work, then there is no case, and a jury wouldn't even hear
> the
> case because it would be dismissed by a judge before a jury was even
> selected.
>
> Oh yeah, and by the way,  the Database and Collections of Information
> Misappropriation Act of 2003 never passed, and phone books are
> generally
> *not* subject to copyright.

Thank you.

To be more precise, phonebooks can be protected. In Europe they are
protected under the database protection act from 1997 (or 1999?).
Nothing in the US ?

Jean-Baptiste Soufron
Intellectual Property and Contracts


body:
>
>> There is a lot of misunderstanding here as to what constitutes a
>> derivative
>> work.  But one need only look at Galoob v. Nintendo to dispel most of
>> it:
>
> I've seen Galoob v. Nintendo, but I've chosen to ignore it because it
> doesn't apply:
>
>> "The examples of derivative works provided by the Act all physically
>> incorporate the underlying work or works. The Act's legislative
>> history
>> similarly indicates that 'the infringing work must incorporate a
>> portion of
>> the copyrighted work in some form.'"
>
> The Galoob case is about the "game genie" (in short a device which
> patches a nintendo game as it's loaded)... If you include more of the
> courts findings you see that:
>
> "Having paid Nintendo a fair return, the consumer may experiment with
> the product and create new variations of play, for personal enjoyment,
> without creating a derivative work."
>
> Right. The courts position was that it's not a derivative work for the
> purpose of the copyright act because it must be used *with* the
> original work.

That's not what they said. They don't link the exclusion of copyright
infringement to the fact that you must use the item with the original
work. That's just a description of the way it works and it has nothing
to do with obiter dictum in this case.
>
>> The infringing work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted
>> work in
>> some form.  This might be the storyline, as in the case of fan
>> fiction, but
>> if there is no incoporation of the copyrighted work in the alleged
>> infringing work, then there is no case, and a jury wouldn't even hear
>> the
>> case because it would be dismissed by a judge before a jury was even
>> selected.
>
> To be infringing the work must be a derivative, so lets consult the
> law for what a derivative is:
>
> "A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting
> works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
> fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
> reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
> work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
> editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
> which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a
> "derivative work". ( 17 U.S.C. ?101)
>
> Sounds like they are specifically referring to wikipedia with the text
> "editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other
> modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of
> authorship".    The case of reading of text and then being inspired
> and writing some new text, ends up being excluded because you can not
> easily demonstrate it to be the result of a simple set of
> transformations, elaborations, commentations, or other modifications.
> The revision control system changes that.

Being inspired is authorized !

What is not is to base your work upon a preexisting one. The second
part of 17 U.S.C simply means that the article A+B+C is a derivative
work and that A, B and C are original works as a whole.

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

It's not. Every addition is an original work and the article is a
derivative work.

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

There is not need to proof anything. It's case law : I can find cases
in any contradictory sense you want. There is even a french girl who
completely plagiarized "Gone With The Wind" but was ruled free of
charges... ("la bicyclette bleue" for my fellow french companions)

> Please, find some caselaw that saves us from that.... Without it, I
> think we need to refer to the specific wording of section 101 which
> puts the exact sort of incremental changes done in wikipedia in peril.

No.

It states that every addition is an original work and that only their
combination is a derivative work.

>  There isn't much caselaw on the fanfiction subject, but just about
> *everyone* agrees that true derivatives should be protected, and it's
> very clear that the political trends are towards expanding the scope
> of copyright and not reducing it...

Well "dramatization"... isn't it explicitely related to Fan Fiction?

Jean-Baptiste Soufron
Intellectual Property and Contracts


list: commons-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Commons-l] Wikimedia Commons File Upload Service

body:
Hi,

situation today: a Wikipedian at a meetup shows me a collection of at
least 100 beautiful high-resolution photos from Ecuador. Unfortunately,
only a couple of them are on the German Wikipedia, and none are on the
Commons. He's perfectly willing to make them GFDL, though. I offered to
do the uploading for him, but it occurred to me that a more general
solution might be in order.

Hence, I've just launched an experimental file upload service for the
Wikimedia Commons:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_upload_service
(please translate!)

The idea is that people who are not comfortable using the Commons
directly (such as non-Wikimedians), or who want to upload a large number
of files, can contact a registered helper who will batch-upload them.

I can obviously only handle a limited number of such requests, so I
encourage anyone familiar with handling an upload bot to add themselves
to the list of helpers. If you can't handle large email attachments, let
me know, and I can give you an account on my FTP space.

Note that this is really a workaround for the Commons not being as
user-friendly as it should be (no single login, no easy upload form, no
batch upload support, categorization requires wiki knowledge).
Eventually, I'd like this to become obsolete.

I'm posting this announcement to foundation-l, wikipedia-l, wikinews-l,
and commons-l, since all these projects are affected. Please
forward/translate the message for other affected projects.

All best,

Erik


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Commons File Upload Service


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikimedia Commons File Upload Service


body:
What about Unfair Commerce or something like that ?

That is so efficicent in Europe that the database is never actually
enforced. Every Lawyer are using the unfair commerce system.

> There was an attempt to pass a bill through congress to protect
> databases and collections of information (such as phonebooks... would
> it include a dictionary though?) under copyright, but it didn't pass.
>
> So currently, I can make my own phonebook using the database from the
> phone company, sell it at $1mil each, and not be penalised.
>
> Mark
>
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:17:25 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron
> <jbsoufron at free.fr> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There is a lot of misunderstanding here as to what constitutes a
>>> derivative
>>> work.  But one need only look at Galoob v. Nintendo to dispel most of
>>> it:
>>>
>>> "The examples of derivative works provided by the Act all physically
>>> incorporate the underlying work or works. The Act's legislative
>>> history
>>> similarly indicates that 'the infringing work must incorporate a
>>> portion of
>>> the copyrighted work in some form.'"
>>>
>>> The infringing work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted
>>> work
>>> in
>>> some form.  This might be the storyline, as in the case of fan
>>> fiction, but
>>> if there is no incoporation of the copyrighted work in the alleged
>>> infringing work, then there is no case, and a jury wouldn't even hear
>>> the
>>> case because it would be dismissed by a judge before a jury was even
>>> selected.
>>>
>>> Oh yeah, and by the way,  the Database and Collections of Information
>>> Misappropriation Act of 2003 never passed, and phone books are
>>> generally
>>> *not* subject to copyright.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> To be more precise, phonebooks can be protected. In Europe they are
>> protected under the database protection act from 1997 (or 1999?).
>> Nothing in the US ?
>>
>> Jean-Baptiste Soufron
>> Intellectual Property and Contracts
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


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

body:
------------- Original message --------------
d. wrote:
> actionforum at comcast.net wrote:
>
> > What would you say the marxist definition of capitalism is?
>
> I'd say it's off topic for this list.

Well, I didn't self righteously bring it to the list as if someone I disagreed with was obviously wrong.   As long as we are agreed the issue of which side was "correct" or acting in good faith is
NOT obvious.
                       -- Silverback


from_name: Sérgio Ribeiro

body:
Thats a great idea!
I'm interested in helping, tomorrow morning (2:58 AM here) I'll see
what I can do.
Good timezone.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:27:36 +0100, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> situation today: a Wikipedian at a meetup shows me a collection of at
> least 100 beautiful high-resolution photos from Ecuador. Unfortunately,
> only a couple of them are on the German Wikipedia, and none are on the
> Commons. He's perfectly willing to make them GFDL, though. I offered to
> do the uploading for him, but it occurred to me that a more general
> solution might be in order.
>
> Hence, I've just launched an experimental file upload service for the
> Wikimedia Commons:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_upload_service
> (please translate!)
>
> The idea is that people who are not comfortable using the Commons
> directly (such as non-Wikimedians), or who want to upload a large number
> of files, can contact a registered helper who will batch-upload them.
>
> I can obviously only handle a limited number of such requests, so I
> encourage anyone familiar with handling an upload bot to add themselves
> to the list of helpers. If you can't handle large email attachments, let
> me know, and I can give you an account on my FTP space.
>
> Note that this is really a workaround for the Commons not being as
> user-friendly as it should be (no single login, no easy upload form, no
> batch upload support, categorization requires wiki knowledge).
> Eventually, I'd like this to become obsolete.
>
> I'm posting this announcement to foundation-l, wikipedia-l, wikinews-l,
> and commons-l, since all these projects are affected. Please
> forward/translate the message for other affected projects.
>
> All best,
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

--
Edit this page @ http://pt.wikipedia.org


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

body:
By the way there is another nuance to the Global warming example:

> "Climate models that pass the above tests while only
> modeling the direct effects of increases in solar activity will
> have attributed too much of the historical warming
> to greenhouse gas forcing, and will predict larger increases
> in temperature in the future."

Should wikipedia strive to be "actually" correct or just
"technically" correct?  In the same vein as the above quote,
recently published research on "climate commitment" already
cited on the page, means that the predictions made by the models
that do not incorporate this "lag" effect are invalid.  Those
models will have been parameterized to attribute to greenhouse
gasses warming that was actually due to a lag effect (due to
the heat capacity of the ocean) from warming earlier in the
20th century and in the 19th century.   So, not only could
a qualifying statement such as the one above be put into
the article, the predictions of future warming should be
deleted.   However, the statements of those predictions
would be technically correct because they are attributed
to the IPCC.

But is a straight forward application of published research
"original research" by the wikipedia definition?  How would
one defend a technically correct statement analogous to the one above?

It is newly published research so no one has said the particular
application before.   But it is pretty basic text book stuff, that if
you parameterize a model to data and the model does not contain
a critical variable, if the model can fit the data at all, it will attribute
the effect to the variables that it does contain.  This stuff is so basic and correct that one could not get a peer reviewed journal
to publish it, because sorry it is just an application of mathmatics.
But would it be "original research" on wikipedia?   Frankly,
I would put it in the article, defend it on the talk page, would NOT insist that the now incorrect facts be taken out.  But if
some were to engage in a revert war crying "original research",
I would just blow it off, because they are not showing good
faith.  I wouldn't want to bother trying to rally a poll on the
issue because that is not the way factual issues should be decided,
that is not how you "win" in science.
                  -- Silverback


from_name: Georg Jaehnig

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Feeds for SpecialRecentchangeslinked +
	SpecialContributions

body:
Hi,

is there a reason why there are no RSS/Atom-feeds available for
SpecialRecentchangeslinked + SpecialContributions?

--
| Jorge | Nur lernen, was man will:
          http://www.sudbury.de


body:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:26:24 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron
> <jbsoufron at free.fr> wrote:
>> That's not what they said. They don't link the exclusion of copyright
>> infringement to the fact that you must use the item with the original
>> work. That's just a description of the way it works and it has nothing
>> to do with obiter dictum in this case.
>
> No, it's another argument in the case as to why the game genie isn't
> create a derrivitive work.  If you take the part Anthony quoted out of
> context you'd think that you actually had to have some of the
> copyrighted text in order to be violating.. But this is clearly not
> the case because there have been cases where not a single word of the
> orignal work was taken  (see the superman/wonderman case, or the
> fanfic case)... Sure, *ideas* were taken, but you keep arguing that
> copyright is still bound to a specific embodyment of an idea, and that
> is clearly not the case anymore.

These cases are "dramatization" works, arent' they ?

A fanfic is an adaptation.

An article is not an adaptation but a combination of different works.

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

But these revisions, annotations, elaborations or others are original
piece of works. You still have one derivative work and 2 original works
(minimum) : "which, as a whole, represent an original work of
authorship"

>
>> What is not is to base your work upon a preexisting one. The second
>> part of 17 U.S.C simply means that the article A+B+C is a derivative
>> work and that A, B and C are original works as a whole.
>
> We'll assume that X is the copyrighted work, and through revision, etc
> you create original Y.  Work Y is a derrivitive work. Y containing X
> any more appears to be immaterial since Y was made by modifying X.   I
> don't see how seperating Y into A+B+C makes A,B,C any less infringing
> so long as they can be shown to have been created via "revisions,
> annotations, elaborations, or other modifications"

Because they are not derivative works. The combination of them is a
derivative work but each of them is an original work.

>
>> It's not. Every addition is an original work and the article is a
>> derivative work.
>>
>>>
>>> There is a huge amount of case law that would appear to support the
>>> bulk of wikipedia's activities at face value, for example the classic
>>> "Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc."  but which
>>> completely fail to cover the case where the proof derivative work
>>> status is so easy made by the existence of the revision history.
>>
>> There is not need to proof anything. It's case law : I can find cases
>> in any contradictory sense you want. There is even a french girl who
>> completely plagiarized "Gone With The Wind" but was ruled free of
>> charges... ("la bicyclette bleue" for my fellow french companions)
>
> I'm specifically concerned with US caselaw as we're at the forfront of
> eroding rights on these matters. I said in my first post that it's
> likely the the law in other countries is more sane.  Even in the "la
> bicyclette bleue" case the final decision was an appeal, the orignal
> decision was that it infringed.

Of course since it was a complete plagiat...

> The appealat court made decided that
> in abscence of the evidence of it being directly derrived from the
> other work the differences were substantial enough to judge it as an
> entirely different work.

Sure but nobody were able to understand the criterias of substantial
difference. The reality is that this case is misdjudged. It's an error.


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:36:43 -0800, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Cite cases please.

I do elsewhere in the thread, later than the post you've replied to.

> >Enforcement has been previously limited to things like fan-fiction
> >since it's so difficult to prove if original text was derived or not,
> >but the history in wikipedia make it pretty easy to make a good
> >argument where previously it would have been near impossible.
>
> Your POV sounds too paranoid to be credible.  You seem to ignore the
> fact that it's the way the ideas are expressed that is copyright not the
> ideas themselves.  It's quite clear that as an initially copyvio passage
> is more frequently edited its resemblance to that text changes, and the
> degree of copyright violation diminishes.

It's an intentionally paranoid POV, that doesn't make it useless. I
wasn't calling for a sudden change in policy, but a discussion.

At the same time, it's important for me to be aggressive with this
position, because far too many people believe that copyright is still
strictly limited to a specific embodiment and never an idea itself.
The matter is not that simple and hasn't been for a long time.


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New Wikistats

body:
Sweet!

Any ETA on when the Daily Usage stats will be updated?

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/


body:
Well read the book and find the "substantial" differences :)

Plus, this decision was not really followed by other Judges and Courts.

Le 21 mars 05, ? 04:03, Mark Williamson a ?crit :

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


from_name: Wikimedia Foundation

subject: [Foundation-l] Amazon Honor System

body:
---- Forwarded message from Felix Pahl ----
> Just wondering whether you've heard of the Amazon Honor System
>
(http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/subst/fx/help/how-we-know.html/002-5703367-3240863)
> and have considered whether it might be a useful way for Wikipedia to
> raise money.
>
> Greetings,
>
> felix.
>
>
---- End forwarded message ----


subject: [Foundation-l] Amazon Honor System


from_name: Erik Zachte

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New Wikistats

body:
Finally, new wikistats.

It took a couple of weekends to get the scripts up to date for the new
database format.

You may have to refresh the page in your browser to see new stats (Ctrl-F5)
Stats are generated from newest dump (March 9)

The layout has been improved in some places (newest stats on top, language
names in comparison tables).

New features:

Records counts per namespace:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm#namespaces

Percentage categorised articles (same url as above)

Hierarchical category trees per Wikipedia (some are huge!):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/CategoryOverviewIndex.htm

Not entirely new but not yet advertised here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TimeLinesIndex.htm

EasyTimeline charts are collected per Wikipedia and listed together with the
script code. This may serve as a source of inspiration and help to learn the
syntax. Also this can help to find real gems on other Wikipedias that
deserve to be translated. Although starting a timeline from scratch is not
completely trivial, expanding, correcting or certainly translating an
existing chart is really where the plug-in earns its name.

Tech notes on script update:

Decipering the serialized compressed info was not a major hurdle, although
the Perl equivalent (http://hurring.com/code/perl/serialize/ )was unusable,
way too slow (goes through a state machine for each character), so I had to
cook something myself.

Keeping everything within reasonable memory boundaries was more difficult,
wherever possible data are written to disk in several bins (e.g. one
intermediate file per month history), sorted per bin, then merged before
readback.

Erik Zachte


subject: [Wikitech-l] New Wikistats


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

body:
Speaking of which, I just made a simple perl script to upload files to
the commons which might interest those who for some reason don't want
to run pywikipediabot or just like perl;)

It's located at http://www.simnet.is/velfag/tmp/platypus


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Commons-l] Wikimedia Commons File Upload Service


subject: [Wikipedia-l] New Wikistats

body:
Erik,

I never cease to be amazed by the amount of work you put into this. I
can't begin to count the number of times I've made use of your stats and
pointed other people to them. I know how hard it is to keep these up to
date, so thanks a lot for doing it (though 1.5 will probably cause major
difficulties for you once more ..).

Jimbo, can we have Erik Zachte Day, please? :-)

All best, and please keep up the good work,

another Erik


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
>No, it's another argument in the case as to why the game genie isn't
>create a derrivitive work.  If you take the part Anthony quoted out of
>context you'd think that you actually had to have some of the
>copyrighted text in order to be violating.. But this is clearly not
>the case because there have been cases where not a single word of the
>orignal work was taken  (see the superman/wonderman case, or the
>fanfic case)... Sure, *ideas* were taken, but you keep arguing that
>copyright is still bound to a specific embodyment of an idea, and that
>is clearly not the case anymore.

You're missing the phrase "in some form".  Copyright does not cover only
text.  Copyright covers the story itself, and in some cases has been ruled
to cover even the characters.  And as was said earlier, you can't copyright
non-fictional characters.

Another way to look at it, copyright law only covers *preparation* of
derivative works, not copying or distribution of derivative works.  It
doesn't have to cover the latter, because when you copy a derivative work
you necessarily also copy the original work on which it is derived.

http://chillingeffects.org/fanfic/faq.cgi ("the infringing work must
incorporate some portion of the original work", "For example, a detailed
commentary on a work or a musical composition inspired by a book would not
usually constitute infringements of this right.")

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise6.html "There is no
hard-and-fast rule determining when something is a substantially similar
copy, and when it is a derivative work, since both will incorporate the
original work in some way and also have changed material."

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/cases/Micro_Star_v_Formgen.html
"Nintendo sued, claiming that when the Game Genie modified the game system's
audiovisual display, it created an infringing derivative work. We rejected
this claim because 'derivative work must incorporate a protected work in
some concrete or permanent form.'"

Yes, the key for Nintendo was that the display was not in concrete or
permanent form, but that doesn't change the fact that the derivative work
must incorporate a protected work in some form the first place.

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/


from_name: Kurt Roeckx

subject: [Wikitech-l] PostgreSQL Port

body:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:45:37PM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> (Please CC me on responses as I'm not subscribed...)
>
> Hi,
>
> Just wondering if anyone else is working on the PostgreSQL port?  I plan
> to finish it off (hopefully), but I don't want to tread on anyone's toes.
>
> It looks like the PostgreSQL schema files are out of sync with the main
> MySQL ones, so I supposed no-one's working on it?

I'm working on it.  See my current patch in bugzilla.  It still
needs some work.

Kurt


from_name: Alphax

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Images on Answers.com and copyright conditions

body:
Anthere wrote:

> I think you are correct that there is possibly a problem as no where
> is the author of the picture mentionned, nor a link available.
>
> We should mention this to Jimbo
>
> Ant
>
>
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm a ?crit:
>
>>> Is anyone else surprised that Answers.com doesn't seem to follow GFDL
>>> or CCbySA conditions with regard to images used from Wikipedia, such as
>>> crediting authors:
>>>
>>> http://www.answers.com/library/Wikipedia+Images
>>>
>>> Or am I misunderstanding the process?
>>>
>>> Christiaan
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, I could be misunderstanding the process myself, but aren't they
>> following GFDL by telling us it's a Wikipedia article to start with?
>>
>> Mgm
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
The biggest problem is when bandwidth leaching occurs, which they are
not doing in this case. See [[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks]]. However, we
do need to do something about this.

[[en:User:Alphax]]


body:
> Your POV sounds too paranoid to be credible.  You seem to ignore the
> fact that it's the way the ideas are expressed that is copyright not
> the ideas themselves.

Of course, I don't want to deny the fact that people can claim another
interpretation of the copyright law and try to argue that additions are
derivative works. But that's just as like going to the police and
trying to convince them that the house of my neighbour is my house.

>  It's quite clear that as an initially copyvio passage is more
> frequently edited its resemblance to that text changes, and the degree
> of copyright violation diminishes.

That's not the trick.

Additions are original works and the good way to do is to go back to
the sane situation, to erase the copyvio text and to re-add everything
that is not directly based on it.


body:
>
> At the same time, it's important for me to be aggressive with this
> position, because far too many people believe that copyright is still
> strictly limited to a specific embodiment and never an idea itself.
> The matter is not that simple and hasn't been for a long time.

I agree with that.

But people can't just claim whatever they want. Legal rules can be used
to defend yourself as well as to attack.


subject: [WikiEN-l] GFDL violation - Laborlawtalk.com

body:
Mark Pellegrini wrote:

> /http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/The_Foundation_Series
> /
> I wrote the vast majority of that article. (Seriously) That's my
> copyright they're violationg.
> <sarcasm> Burn them to the ground and salt the earth!</sarcasm>
> --Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Now /that/ is bad. Check the
[http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Main%20page Main page] - some
stuff is recent, other stuff is not. Needs listing on
[[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks]].

We need a project group to deal with these.

[[en:User:Alphax]]


from_name: Ray Saintonge

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

body:
actionforum at comcast.net wrote:

>------- Original message ---------
>
>
>>And it doesn't help that whenever Silverback has an opportunity, he
>>belittles our policies. Silverback, your own "definition" of capitalism
>>only further muddies the waters. As you should know by now, your own
>>definition of capitalism (like mine, or RJII's) is irrelevant here. We are
>>researching an encyclopedia, and we are committed to NPOV and NOR. That
>>means providing different people's definitions of capitalism in a
>>verifiable way.
>>
>>
>Marx was complementary [sic! = complimentary?] of capitalism for demonstrating that wealth was
>not static but could be created.  If one were to point out that Marx appreciated
>that capitalism was not a zero sum game, would one be doing original research
>because he is using language that did not exist in Marx's time, or is he merely
>being descriptive in modern language of Marx's position?   When does mere
>description or translation (in this case into modern language) become original
>research?
>
Sorry about the "sic!"  I try to limit that comment to places where it
could make a difference.

This sort of thing only illustrates the ridiculous interpretations that
have recently come out of the NOR policy.  It's certainly a fact that
Marx wrote in the 19th century and from a 19th century perspective.  He
wrote in German, but his 19th century translator also wrote from that
perspective.  Marx may certainly have had his own definition of
"capitalism", but a lot has happened to the term since then; the
evolution of the term is essential to its understanding.  Taken to its
extreme the NOR policy is in a paradoxical conflict with the extremes of
our copyright policy.  We can't use our own interpretation of a concept
because it conflicts with NOR policy, but we also have to be careful
about using the work of others because it could be in improper
derivative work.

>Scientists often define their terms at the beginning of a publication.  More precision
>or a specific nuance of a term is needed in order to communicate clearly, sometimes
>the "definition" is simply to rule out specific possible ambiguous interpretations of
>the term.  The term still contains a recognizable essence of the original meaning,
>but has become a term of art.   The recognizable essence may not be the same
>essence that YOU would have selected, but you should adopt that meaning
>when reading the rest of the paper.   Now if at the end, in the conclusions,
>the author tries to make rhetorical generalizations to the usual definition of
>the term, you are entitled to object.
>
A definition at the beginning is perfectly valid for the entire book
even if that definition flies in the face of the definition used by
everybody else.  One can only hope that that author maintains
consistency in the use of his term.  Others like Rummell invent their
own words (democide) to avoid the nuances of a more widely used term
(genocide).  Using a particular interpretation of a term is not
obligatory beyond a particular book or a particular author's works
generally.  For "capitalism" we should perhaps have a series of dated
quotes in Wikiquote.  Wikipedia would do best to reduce the definition
to its essential elements, without becoming mired in convoluted prose.
When I looked at the article a couple days ago (without knowing whose
version was current) I found that the definition there was difficult to
follow.  That's not what a casual reader looking to be enlightened wants
to see.  If he has difficulty reading the first paragraph, his
presumption will be that reading the rest of the article will be just as
difficult.  A lead paragraph should draw readers in, not drive them away.

>Yes, I define terms, or rather select reductionists nuances of terms in an
>attempt at communication, but if you insist for instance that capitalism is
>a subset of fascism (BTW, you haven't as far as I know, perhaps "mercantilism"
>would be a better example), you are trying to denigrate and not communicate.
>
When you treat capitalism as a subset of fascism (or vice-versa which to
me would seem more plausible) you are muddling an economic concept with
a political one.

>What would you say the marxist definition of capitalism is?  Or do you think
>he would avoid giving one as a rhetorical technique to avoid being pinned
>down and put on the defensive?
>
Marx is not engaged in rhetorical debates; he's too long dead to do
that.  If you want Marx's definition of capitalism use a properly cited
quote.  If you want the view of the MarxISTS then properly cite them.
The same goes for anti-Marxists.

Ec


from_name: Charles Matthews

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

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote

> I consider citing sources to be far more important that no original
> research.

Well, a much higher proportion of what is on WP will be wrong and
embarrassingly so, because it was just one man's idea, than because it is
unsupported by chapter and verse.

It clearly depends where you sit, and Ray was talking about Wiktionary in
particular.

But I do worry, now, that the contemporary-politics-and-history issues are
driving policy which then is supposed to apply WP-wide.  It seems clear that
the most bitter and generic disputes are going to be along those faultlines.
Those involved use policy instrumentally, where I much prefer to see it as a
style guide: write within policy, but still try to write well and
attractively.

The point here surely is that even with stringent policies, WP can hardly
expect to transcend completely the intellectual scuffling outside its walls.

Charles


body:
Mark Williamson wrote:

>There was an attempt to pass a bill through congress to protect
>databases and collections of information (such as phonebooks... would
>it include a dictionary though?) under copyright, but it didn't pass.
>
>So currently, I can make my own phonebook using the database from the
>phone company, sell it at $1mil each, and not be penalised.
>
Dictionaries have their own set of problems.  The Webster was frequently
in court during the late 19th century over infringements of its
copyrights.  It lost some significant cases.  Cookbooks also fall into
this class of works that are really a reflection of a society's
collective knowledge.  If I invent a dictionary definition that is
identical to what is found in a published dictionary I am not infringing
their copyright.  If that published dictionary is an obscure one I may
never have seen it, and my definition is original it's good.  Often the
definition may be the only one reasonably possible.  For many kinds of
works it is highly improbable that such a thing would happen.
Dictionaries and cookbooks are exceptions.  In the area of music (rather
than lyrics) cases often hinge on whether the defendant was familiar
with the plaintiff's work.  A definition in a modern paper dictionary
may itself be copied from an older public domain work, and therefore be
non-copyrightable.  Copying a single definition can also be fair use.

Patterns of behaviour thus become more significant if one is seeking to
establish the infringement of copyrights in a dictionary.  It would be
difficult to establish such patterns when many editors are working
independently.

Original definitions do present a different problem.  If someone
generates a new definition based solely on his own limited experience
with life that definition can be grossly inaccurate; that speaks to the
reliability of the work that contains it, which for us is Wiktionary.

Ec


from_name: Rick

body:
--- David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Geoff Burling wrote:
>
> > What is Lir's current status, out of curiousity?
> (I don't pay attention to
> > this editor's actions at all, so I'm not sure if
> Lir is banned, rehabilitated,
> > or quietly making useful & valued contributions.)
> And if this is isn't one
> > of Lir's identities, why would this user bother
> behaving in a manner that
> > is at best annoying, & at worst self-destructively
> disfunctional?
>
>
> Currently banned for a year. Keeps coming back,
> acting like Lir, getting
> noticed and resetting the ban.

I've never understood why somebody would keep
committing obvious vandalism (like repeatedly
vandalizing Raul's User page) so that they can get
rebanned.  If Lir was ever interested in editing, he
could just come in as an anon and make valid edits,
but he seems more interested in disruption than in
contribution.

RickK

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


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

body:
actionforum at comcast.net wrote:

>-------------- Original message --------------
>
>
>>I've been spreading {{unreferenced}} tags with great (slightly
>>restrained, after the TFD nomination ;-) glee, and I see others
>>have taken to it too.
>>
>>
>What are your standards for applying an "unreferenced" tag?  Do you apply it to every statement in an article that doesn't have a reference?  Or do you just select statements that appear to be
>outliers or unlikely from your experience?
>
>I think in a scientific article, indescriminate use of the unreferenced tag would collide with the assumption of good faith.  Many facts in our articles are not referenced, but if you were to challenge for instance the statement that beta blockers inhibit the nocturnal release of melatonin, especially after the statement had been in the article for awhile, the burden should be on you to at least have checked the PDR and have done a medline search.
>
Indiscriminate unreferenced tags could be a problem anywhere, not just
in scientific articles.  The primary obligation for someone challenging
a statement should be to put a polite question on the contributor's talk
page and give him at least a week to respond.  Doing that would be prima
facie evidence that you have assumed good faith.  If the wrong facts
have been there for a year another week won't make a big difference.

Ec


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Retrospective

body:
> How many
> days does it take us to add 19,000 articles now? :)

How many different cards are used in collectible trading card games?


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Der Schindler lernt Fremdsprachen... oderlässt lernen.

body:
(request for help: What did I say according to my own words? :) )

Polnisch: http://www2.dw-world.de/polish/kultur/1.128985.1.html

Kroatisch: http://www2.dw-world.de/croatian/kultur/1.128383.1.html

das original war mal:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1510851,00.html , die
?bersetzungen scheinen etwas freier zu sein..

Mathias

"Schindler podejrzewa zgo?a, ?e w?r?d autor?w niemieckiej wersji
?Wikipedii? anonimowo znajduje si? kilku encyklopedyst?w z renomowanego
wydawnictwa Brockhaus. Por?wnanie to stanowi dla Wikipedii wyr??nienie:
obie, najwi?ksze wersje internetowej encyklopedii, anglo i
niemieckoj?zyczna, zawieraj? niemal tyle samo hase?, co Encyclopedia
Britannica i Brokhaus."

und

"Mathias Schindler pretpostavlja da na njemackom izdanju tajno radi i
nekoliko autora izdavaca leksikona Brockhaus. U svakom slucaju Wikipedia
je vrijedna usporedbe s vezanim leksikonima u formi knjige: obje
najopseznije Wikipedia verzije, engleska i njemacka imaju pojedinacno
gotovo isto podataka kao i njihova dva velika brata iz svijeta knjiga:
enciklopedija Britannica i Brockhaus."

w?sste zu gerne, was ich gesagt habe....


from_name: David Gerard

body:
Geoff Burling wrote:

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

Currently banned for a year. Keeps coming back, acting like Lir, getting
noticed and resetting the ban.

- d.


from_name: Christopher Kings-Lynne

subject: [Wikitech-l] PostgreSQL Port

body:
(Please CC me on responses as I'm not subscribed...)

Hi,

Just wondering if anyone else is working on the PostgreSQL port?  I plan
to finish it off (hopefully), but I don't want to tread on anyone's toes.

It looks like the PostgreSQL schema files are out of sync with the main
MySQL ones, so I supposed no-one's working on it?

Chris


subject: [Wikipedia-l] New Wikistats

body:
Sl. wrote

> What can be done to see the statistics for the languages that
> already exist in Wikipedia, but are not on the SiteMatrix list
>(I mean the Ossetian one first of all)?

For each language there is a separate file with all messages.
You can send me a translation of
http://members.chello.nl/epzachte/Wikipedia/Statistics/WikiReports_XX.pl

Erik Zachte


from_name: Walter Vermeir

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

body:
> Hoi,
> I have had a look at the proposed change to the portal page and I do not
> like the background with all the languages. It is too cluttered to my
[cut]

It also looks very ugly whit IE.

Walter


from_name: V. Ivanov

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New Wikistats

body:
What can be done to see the statistics for the languages that already
exist in Wikipedia, but are not on the SiteMatrix list (I mean the
Ossetian one first of all)?

Sl.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:25:08 +0100, Erik Zachte <e.p.zachte at chello.nl> wrote:
> Finally, new wikistats.
>
> It took a couple of weekends to get the scripts up to date for the new
> database format.
...
--
Esperu cxiam!


from_name: Juanma Barranquero

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.4.0 released

body:
> 1.4 beta or release candidate users should upgrade to this release.

I've seen there's a change from using $wgProxy to $wgSecretKey. Still,
this one change on the code (from setToken(), on user.php) puzzles me:

			if ( $wgSecretKey ) {
				$key = $wgSecretKey;
			} elseif ( $wgProxyKey ) {
				$key = $wgProxyKey;
			} else {
				$key = microtime();
			}
			$this->mToken = md5( $wgSecretKey . mt_rand( 0, 0x7fffffff ) .
$wgDBname . $this->mId );

Shouldn't the call to md5() use $key? Or am I misinterpreting the code?

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.4.0 released

body:
> I've seen there's a change from using $wgProxy

I mean "$wgProxyKey", obviously...

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


body:
Remember that the situation is not "OH NOES VAGUELY POSSIBLE (C)
VIOLATION WE MUST FOLD TOMORROW!!1!" If you're talking about a
possible battle, one should look to past battles, and particularly
on contentious and politically charged issues like such an attack on
Wikipedia would be.

It's worth considering that, as an academic work produced by
a nonprofit, we have considerably greater scope for fair use. See
the considerable quantities of quotes and fair use images in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu ? Not a squeak from the notoriously
litigous Church of Scientology.

Furthermore, we have an active policy of aggressively removing copyright
violations once notified, and even before being notified, which would get us
many points in an actual courtroom. And the clock only starts ticking when
you have been notified.

Furthermore, for the egregiously overbroad infringement suit Gregory
Maxell hypothesises, the battle also goes out to the media. Imagine
something more mediapathic. Suing cute fluffy kittens, perhaps? Not
to mention that such a case would promptly bring to our aid ten
thousand First Amendment ninja attack lawyers.

That is: we may well in fact be in a position to say "That's utter bullshit.
Bring it on."

This is the reasoning behind [[Wikipedia:Avoid copyright paranoia]].

- d.


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

body:
csherlock at ljh.com.au wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:

>> ... however, Magnus Manske has announced that he will be getting the
>> [[m:Article validation feature]] into shape for MediaWiki 1.5. w00t!
>> This may be useful to supply baseline versions by consensus, with
>> comparatively very little human tweaking needed afterward for a
>> distribution.

> Cool :) Even if my idea doesn't scale, it would still be good for
> reviewing articles.

See also [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team]] and the talk page -
they have the right idea, but it's a bit early for it IMO and a wikilike
sifting system may help reduce their load to something humanly possible.

- d.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Help needed using POST to submit changes to my wiki

body:
Jaroslaw Fedevych (UALUG wrote:
> Yes, but why in mediawiki-1.3.11, I have the same result when I'm using the
> canonical edit form? Tokens just fail to match. As well as some users get
> logged out right when they try to edit anything (cookies are ok on both
> server and clients), but I cannot reproduce this.

Sounds like a failure of PHP's session data. Make sure this is set up
correctly; if you're on a server farm (such as SourceForge's project web
space) PHP may be incorrectly configured to save session data onto the
local hard drive where it won't be picked up by subsequent hits on other
servers.

http://www.php.net/session

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050321/787236e3/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Mark Williamson

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

body:
The reason it looks ugly with IE is because Goplat, for whatever
reason, removed the IE hacks for CSS.

Mark

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:49:30 +0000 (UTC), Walter Vermeir
<walter at wikipedia.be> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > I have had a look at the proposed change to the portal page and I do not
> > like the background with all the languages. It is too cluttered to my
> [cut]
>
> It also looks very ugly whit IE.
>
> Walter
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New Wikistats

body:
I think Mr. Ivanov was not talking about getting another interface,
but about getting the language (or languages, although I do not at
first look see another important language missing at the moment) among
the languages of which the statistics are shown.

Andre Engels

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:48:05 +0100, Erik Zachte <e.p.zachte at chello.nl> wrote:
> Sl. wrote
>
> > What can be done to see the statistics for the languages that
> > already exist in Wikipedia, but are not on the SiteMatrix list
> >(I mean the Ossetian one first of all)?
>
> For each language there is a separate file with all messages.
> You can send me a translation of
> http://members.chello.nl/epzachte/Wikipedia/Statistics/WikiReports_XX.pl


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Retrospective

body:
at the time of Phase I and phase II, there were no links between the
languages.

I think no languages other than english went to phase II (maybe german ?).

There were a couple of tiny differences between phase III nostalgia and
phase I

Hmmmm,
* no deletion
* no protection
* no renaming of pages
* no separate space for user and encyclopedia
* no talk page
* no watch list
* no contributor list
* no categories
* no related changes....

just minor issues :-)

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


from_name: Matt Brown

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

body:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:08:56 -0800 (PST), Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I've never understood why somebody would keep
> committing obvious vandalism (like repeatedly
> vandalizing Raul's User page) so that they can get
> rebanned.  If Lir was ever interested in editing, he
> could just come in as an anon and make valid edits,
> but he seems more interested in disruption than in
> contribution.

I have the strong suspicion that editing itself was not high on the
list of Lir's reason to be on Wikipedia, by the sheer fact of the
above.  Other banned users have come back and edited quietly for quite
a while before anyone realised, and I'm sure there are others who are
editing to this day.

-Matt


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Retrospective

body:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:51:13 +0100, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> at the time of Phase I and phase II, there were no links between the
> languages.
>
> I think no languages other than english went to phase II (maybe german ?).

No, not even German. German was however the first language other than
English to go to phase III.

Andre Engels


from_name: Yann Forget

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New Wikistats

body:
Hi,

Le Monday 21 March 2005 06:25, Erik Zachte a ?crit :
> Finally, new wikistats.

Oh great! Thanks a lot for this. It is very useful and also fun.

> Erik Zachte

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] New Wikistats


from_name: Andre Costa

subject: [Wikitech-l] Thks =)

body:
Hi,

just wanted to thank you folks for MediaWiki. I just installed version
1.3.11 so that we could try to grow our knowledge base on top of it, in
a collaborative manner. I was _very_ impressed with how easy it was to
install it (IMHO it's as "turn key" as a software needs to be) and to
use it (as a reader/ editor). Documentation is excellent.

Many thanks and congratulations. Keep up the excellent work. I am
looking forward to trying version 1.4 when it stabilizes -- please,
please, please make sure upgrade from 1.3.x will be painless =)

Best,

Andre

PS: I am not subscribed to the list.

--
Andre Oliveira da Costa
(costa at tecgraf.puc-rio.br)


from_name: Jim Higson

body:
I'm trying to programatically submit edits to my wiki via a http post, using
XMLHTTP. However, I am unable to 'persuade' the server to accept them. The
server always responds as if I'm asking for a preview.

Either:
* I'm not making the upload requests correctly
* There is a server side security model that forbids this
* I'm going mad :)

You can see the form-data I'm sending by going here:

http://81.5.150.113/wysi/Very_small_test?debug=yes&action=edit
then change the wikitext and click save, the request and response body will
be shown on the right (which I use as a debugging area)

Any help would be really appreciated, this is a real show-stopper for my
project.

Thanks,
Jim


from_name: csherlock at ljh.com.au

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Everyone's favorite FUD-master is at it again

body:
Mark Pellegrini wrote:
> Everyone's favorite FUD-master is at it again ---
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0503200191mar20,1,26199.story?coll=chi-techtopheds-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
>
> /
> /*...*
> / A similar hyperbole surrounds such projects as the Wikipedia, a free
> online encyclopedia open to all. The Wikipedia's apologists emphasize
> the great number of volunteers who have taken part in the project and
> the number of entries they have contributed. They emphasize also the
> communal nature of the undertaking, in which anyone with a better
> understanding of a subject, or a bigger ax to grind, can edit what
> someone else has created. Their prime article of faith is that this
> openness will inevitably lead to a high level of accuracy and quality.
> ...
> ----------
> Robert McHenry is former editor of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and is
> the author of "How to Know."
>
> /This is the same guy who called us the Faith-based encyclopedia and
> compared us to a public toilet-
> http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html
>
> --Mark

"In each of these examples, a small and self-selected group convinces
itself not so much that it represents the greater world beyond the
computer screen but that it is in some ineffable way superior to it,
that it has transcended the need for the hard lessons the rest of us
have learned about how things actually work."

Can anyone say irony? The Encyclopedia Britannica uses an even smaller
number of people to write their articles. Through the years, the EB has
proven wrong in many of their editions. That they are more correct in
their latest works shows that they have the same issues as Wikipedia.

TBSDY


subject: [Wikipedia-l] New Wikistats

body:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:50:23 +0100, Andre Engels wrote:
> I think Mr. Ivanov was not talking about getting another interface,
> but about getting the language (or languages, although I do not at
> first look see another important language missing at the moment) among
> the languages of which the statistics are shown.

Yes, really.
The problem seems to be that some languages are not in the general
list of "Wikimedia projects". Among them the codes "os", "lb" and
several others.

Because of that we can't see statistics, and the interwiki-links to
os.wikipedia are always red. :/

Sl.
--
Esperu cxiam!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Interesting new Taipei Times feature

body:
I find this particularly interesting: the Taipei times have a Wikipedia
link that seems to get their normal stories and run an automated filter
over the text and link directly to Wikipedia articles. Example:

Non wikipedia linked:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2005/03/21/2003247221
Wikipedia linked:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2005/03/21/2003247221/wiki

Kinda cool.

TBSDY


body:
David Gerard wrote:
> csherlock at ljh.com.au wrote:
>
>> You should note that before I left the project, I started this with
>> [[Wikipedia:Baseline revision]]. This was designed to have no
>> noticable disruptionn of the main article (I directly linked to a
>> proposed revision, this was done on a subpage that hangs off the
>> article. The discussion of the revision is done on the talk page.) It
>> was my hope this could allow for a "stamped" version of a FA page that
>> we could proudly state is the most reliable version and guaranteed not
>> to be vandalised.
>
>
>
> This is of course still sorta possible: anyone can link to chosen good
> versions of articles.
>
> The problem is that the selection person/committee won't scale ...
>
>
>> Regrettably, it looks like my idea has fallen through. I hope that
>> Wikipedia can find a credible alternative.
>
>
>
> ... however, Magnus Manske has announced that he will be getting the
> [[m:Article validation feature]] into shape for MediaWiki 1.5. w00t!
>
> This may be useful to supply baseline versions by consensus, with
> comparatively very little human tweaking needed afterward for a
> distribution.
>
>
> - d.

Cool :) Even if my idea doesn't scale, it would still be good for
reviewing articles.

TBSDY


from_name: Tomer Chachamu

body:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:07:50 +0000, Jim Higson <jh at 333.org> wrote:
> I'm trying to programatically submit edits to my wiki via a http post, using
> XMLHTTP. However, I am unable to 'persuade' the server to accept them. The
> server always responds as if I'm asking for a preview.
>
> Either:
> * I'm not making the upload requests correctly
> * There is a server side security model that forbids this
> * I'm going mad :)
>
> You can see the form-data I'm sending by going here:
>
> http://81.5.150.113/wysi/Very_small_test?debug=yes&action=edit
> then change the wikitext and click save, the request and response body will
> be shown on the right (which I use as a debugging area)
>
> Any help would be really appreciated, this is a real show-stopper for my
> project.

Are you loading the edit page first and taking the wpEditToken? You
need it. (It's used for various things, including detection of edit
conflicts.)


from_name: Giovanni

subject: [Wikitech-l] Script Tag

body:
I'm trying to insert JavaScript in some Articles in my wiki without a good result.
I tried to create an extension for <script> tag but it doesn't work.
Someone has a extension file for insert this tag in a wiki article?
In which part of the code is this script blocked?
Thanks,

Giovanni

SCAI - Tradizioni del Sud
http://stores.ebay.it/tradizionidelsud
http://www.tradizionidelsud.com


from_name: Ray Saintonge

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

body:
David Gerard wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Indiscriminate unreferenced tags could be a problem anywhere, not
>> just in scientific articles.  The primary obligation for someone
>> challenging a statement should be to put a polite question on the
>> contributor's talk page and give him at least a week to respond.
>> Doing that would be prima facie evidence that you have assumed good
>> faith.  If the wrong facts have been there for a year another week
>> won't make a big difference.
>
> It's not for indiscriminate use - it's for *nothing resembling a
> reference
> of any sort*. You'll see a pile of these articles if you middle-click
> "Random page" twenty times - four- to six-paragraph things which look
> like
> okay articles, but have nothing resembling a source, reference or even
> external link. That's what it's for. The debate on WP:TFD made it *very*
> clear its use was to be for unambiguous cases. And not for stubs either.

I don't dispute that at all.  Still, givng people the first opportunity
to fix their own deficiencies is good for the social atmosphere.

Ec


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Help needed using POST to submit changes to my wiki

body:
Tomer Chachamu wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:07:50 +0000, Jim Higson <jh at 333.org> wrote:
>> I'm trying to programatically submit edits to my wiki via a http post,
>> using XMLHTTP. However, I am unable to 'persuade' the server to accept
>> them. The server always responds as if I'm asking for a preview.
>>
>> Either:
>> * I'm not making the upload requests correctly
>> * There is a server side security model that forbids this
>> * I'm going mad :)
>>
>> You can see the form-data I'm sending by going here:
>>
>> http://81.5.150.113/wysi/Very_small_test?debug=yes&action=edit
>> then change the wikitext and click save, the request and response body
>> will be shown on the right (which I use as a debugging area)
>>
>> Any help would be really appreciated, this is a real show-stopper for my
>> project.
>
> Are you loading the edit page first and taking the wpEditToken? You
> need it. (It's used for various things, including detection of edit
> conflicts.)

I wasn't aware of such a thing - this is obviously the problem.

Is is possible to request a token from the server without it generating a
page? (since the page will never be displayed) Or any another way that a
thick(er) client can submit edits.

I could just request an edit page in the background to get the token, but
doing so would defeat the object of a low-bandwidth, low-cpu wiki.

As an aside, what do people here think of this project? Personally I see a
lot of potential in this kind of 'half-thick' interface - the very quick
feedback when editing should make contributing a lot easier for those
starting to learn the wiki syntax.

Jim


from_name: Austin Hair

subject: [Wikitech-l] add worldwind URL scheme?

body:
As an aside, looking over maintenance/interwiki.sql I see that a few
entries are in need of an update (IMDb changed its url scheme some
months ago).

--
Austin D. Hair <adhair at gmail.com>
http://www.austinhair.org/


from_name: Tels

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Help needed using POST to submit changes to my
	wiki

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

Moin,

On Monday 21 March 2005 18:36, Jim Higson wrote:
> Tomer Chachamu wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:07:50 +0000, Jim Higson <jh at 333.org> wrote:
> >> I'm trying to programatically submit edits to my wiki via a http
> >> post, using XMLHTTP. However, I am unable to 'persuade' the server
> >> to accept them. The server always responds as if I'm asking for a
> >> preview.
> >>
> >> Either:
> >> * I'm not making the upload requests correctly
> >> * There is a server side security model that forbids this
> >> * I'm going mad :)
> >>
> >> You can see the form-data I'm sending by going here:
> >>
> >> http://81.5.150.113/wysi/Very_small_test?debug=yes&action=edit
> >> then change the wikitext and click save, the request and response
> >> body will be shown on the right (which I use as a debugging area)
> >>
> >> Any help would be really appreciated, this is a real show-stopper
> >> for my project.
> >
> > Are you loading the edit page first and taking the wpEditToken? You
> > need it. (It's used for various things, including detection of edit
> > conflicts.)
>
> I wasn't aware of such a thing - this is obviously the problem.
>
> Is is possible to request a token from the server without it generating
> a page? (since the page will never be displayed) Or any another way
> that a thick(er) client can submit edits.
>
> I could just request an edit page in the background to get the token,
> but doing so would defeat the object of a low-bandwidth, low-cpu wiki.
>
> As an aside, what do people here think of this project? Personally I
> see a lot of potential in this kind of 'half-thick' interface - the
> very quick feedback when editing should make contributing a lot easier
> for those starting to learn the wiki syntax.

I hacked together something similiar. A lot of people new to wiki's
stuggle with just creating a new article. It really isn't obvious. So I
added a "new article" entry to the toolbox menu.

This leads to a page (on another server, currently) with a form that lets
you select a category (list currently hardcoded, and doesnt include the
"no category" selection) and an input field for the article name, plus a
preview button.

When you press "preview" it will bounce you back to the wiki with:

* "{{stub}}", some dummy headline/text and the category already included
into the input box,
* the preview already above it

The user can then edit the new article and finally submit it.

Currently it is a simple get form, but for the category inclusion I wanted
to change it to an simple cgi script. I also haven't figured out how to
prefill the "summary" entry field - new users are very likely to forget
to fill it in (hopefully one day it will be mandatory to tack all your
changes so I don't have to explain this over and over that this is
important...)

Of course, my hack probably wont work with v1.4, but I have to test/adapt
it :)

And in another day or to we talk about users who are not able to find the
"New article" entry in the menu and complain about this all being "too
complicated..." :-D

Best wishes,

Tels

- --
 Signed on Mon Mar 21 19:02:15 2005 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "Let's say there are a thousand. But there are 284 million people in
 this country. You can't have public policy that is aimed at 100,000
 people when the other multi-multi-millions are also involved. You can't
 do it that way." - Jack Valenty in http://tinyurl.com/2y65n

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

iQEVAwUBQj8NyncLPEOTuEwVAQEyDwf+K5ZSDApIWAEJhwgqr9YXZ18ImTov/bJY
KllRhEUxA1nkR+9pXzMGPAn/LYTdnI0xOtpOaUlIOY9pteXnRbg76B613ppLxBX5
W+5BKtBArx9jsY1SOSZQpdTZ6NWTyP/RInginQ3LQL42fByHdfBaBm9dE/pMshQ5
Aq9GcEMQJrlGlmvfwFbZzyNPLcjMfAIgbUPtY2Mih8AZnZ6FmotnmH+6BF3KpDry
720vQGeRR3DO18e6yMZVf9GWgdNwmkGvYiYr26HgvVD92kNd6fTttBZ1EUoD+QC7
RFyQ64g2A4kWG37wP2hOw6uE/5XMC0l9KZz4kO21oNIfLqF59wB0/w==
=LZ43
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Jaroslaw Fedevych (UALUG

body:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:14:08PM +0000, Tomer Chachamu wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:07:50 +0000, Jim Higson <jh at 333.org> wrote:
> > I'm trying to programatically submit edits to my wiki via a http post, using
> > XMLHTTP. However, I am unable to 'persuade' the server to accept them. The
> > server always responds as if I'm asking for a preview.
> >
> > Either:
> > * I'm not making the upload requests correctly
> > * There is a server side security model that forbids this
> > * I'm going mad :)
> >
> > You can see the form-data I'm sending by going here:
> >
> > http://81.5.150.113/wysi/Very_small_test?debug=yes&action=edit
> > then change the wikitext and click save, the request and response body will
> > be shown on the right (which I use as a debugging area)
> >
> > Any help would be really appreciated, this is a real show-stopper for my
> > project.
>
> Are you loading the edit page first and taking the wpEditToken? You
> need it. (It's used for various things, including detection of edit
> conflicts.)

Yes, but why in mediawiki-1.3.11, I have the same result when I'm using the
canonical edit form? Tokens just fail to match. As well as some users get
logged out right when they try to edit anything (cookies are ok on both
server and clients), but I cannot reproduce this.

--
X windows: A software disaster of Biblical proportions.


from_name: Walter Vermeir

body:
Walter Vermeir schreef:
>>Hoi,
>>I have had a look at the proposed change to the portal page and I do not
>>like the background with all the languages. It is too cluttered to my
>
> [cut]
>
> It also looks very ugly whit IE.
>
> Walter

But whit FireFox it is better.

Why not use the monobook background? If all the wikis use it, even the
cafepress shop now, why not the portal?

Idem for www.wikimedia.org

Walter