body:
Larry Sanger wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Mark Christensen wrote:
> > Magnus brings up an important point, which has to do with how this
> > will interact with namespaces, and particularly the stable namespace.
> > I think we need to have some manual control over what goes into the
> > stable namespace, so that we can be sure that the people approving
> > [...]
>
> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia_approval_mechanism
>
> Many people have already made several good proposals and some surprisingly
> :-) polite debate has been ongoing for some time now.

I was thinking here.  What if you could name and address every version
of an article, e.g. http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Radio would link to
the "current" or "latest" version of the article on Radio, but
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Radio/12 would link to version 12 of
that article.  Then somebody could "approve" version 12, or maybe have
copyright to version 23, and this would not stop anybody from
continuing to modify the article into version 34.  You could create
"Nupedia 2.0" as a web of pointers to approved versions of Wikipedia
articles.  The articles (and their versions) would be part of
Wikipedia, but the approval mechanisms would be part of Nupedia.  Any
modification to a Wikipedia article would create a new version, and
not change the approved version.

By separating article storage from approval, you could also have
multiple approval webs.  You could have Nupedia with high academic
standards, and PC-pedia with high demands on political correctness,
only linking to politically correct articles.  Or a leftist-pedia web
that only links to article versions with non-capitalist views.  Or a
parental-guidance-pedia that only links to articles with non-explicit
contents.

I think this sort of separation would do the least harm to wikipedia,
because people could continue to write wikipedia articles at the speed
of light without having to think too much about getting approval.  The
approval could be a slower process without hampering the creativeness.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik
  Teknikringen 1e, SE-583 30 Link?ping, Sweden
  tel +46-70-7891609
  http://aronsson.se


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] A proposal for the new software

body:
Tim Chambers wrote:
> How 'bout it, O beneficent and philanthropic owner of the database
> (Jimbo)? Would you be willing to disable the purge of old revisions?
> Seems to me mostly to be a matter of disk space.

Yes, and disk space is increasingly very very cheap.  However, the
machine this is on at the moment isn't exactly overflowing with extra
space.

For now, I've upped the number of days to keep the revision history
from 14 to 28.  That will have the effect of nothing expiring for the
next 14 days.  If disk space isn't an issue at that time, I'll bump it
up further.  If disk space *is* an issue at that time, I'll set the
wheels in motion to move wikipedia to a machine with essentially
infinite disk space.  :-)

Either way, I'm not opposed in principle to keeping _all_ of revision
history, but I'm also not promising beyond what I can really deliver.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


from_name: lsanger at nupedia.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Philosophy articles on Wikipedia to review (fwd)

body:
Dear all,

I sent the following to the main North American academic philosophy
mailing list, PHILOSOP.

It would be fantastic if you could take a moment to post something similar
to other academic mailing lists.  I think we're definitely to the point
where we can get a lot more academics on board.

Larry

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: lsanger at ross.bomis.com
To: PHILOSOP at louisiana.edu
Subject: Philosophy articles on Wikipedia to review

Hello,

This is an informal call for review of encyclopedia articles about
philosophy.  I will try to keep this short.

Begun last January, "Wikipedia" ( http://www.wikipedia.com/ ) is a
"wiki"-based encyclopedia.  This is a collaborative, open, community-
edited encyclopedia, led by me (I earned my Ph.D. in philosophy last
year).  It has since grown to over 14,000 entries (with over 2,000 more
added each month) and has been the subject of coverage by the New York
Times and MIT's Technology Review.  The contents are "open content," which
means roughly the contents will always be freely distributable in any
medium.

Wikipedia is loosely associated with the more straight-laced peer reviewed
project Nupedia ( http://www.nupedia.com/ ).  The pair of websites
together constitute the world's first serious open content encyclopedia
project.

So far Wikipedia has managed to attract quite a few active academics (but
none in philosophy, alas--I'm hoping to attract a few here).  To be
accurate, however, most of the participants are fairly articulate computer
programmers, students, and professionals from around the world.  The
quality of articles is uneven in places, but constantly improving--and,
everything considered, surprisingly good for a project that is as
completely open as it is.  We edit each others' work, and the results are
not perfect, but encouraging.

We could use a few philosophers to help vet (and develop) articles written
on philosophical topics.  A few articles that I think particularly need
some careful attention from philosophers are these:

http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Scientific_method
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Atheism
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Postmodernism

There are a lot of other articles, that (unlike these) *I* wrote; I simply
pasted the contents in from old lectures, and these need work.  Anyway,
many other philosophical articles have been started; nearly all of them
are works in progress that need your input.  The central philosophy
jumping-off page is this:

http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Philosophy

And if you want to learn more about the project in general, see the
welcome page and the FAQ:

http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Welcome,_newcomers
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia_FAQ

Finally, if you're very skeptical about the very idea of Wikipedia, please
see this page, which I wrote specifically for the skeptics:

http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia/Our_Replies_to_Our_Critics

Thanks for your attention!

Larry Sanger, Ph.D.
Wikipedia main organizer  http://www.wikipedia.com/
Editor-in-chief, Nupedia  http://www.nupedia.com/


from_name: Gareth Owen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Invitation to TheCunctator

in_reply_to: Jimmy Wales's message of "Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:08:14 -0500"

body:
Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:

> It seems that TheCunctator has posted some rather inflammatory
> complaints ... I invite him, though, to come to this list

Why would we, The Cabal (tm), (TINC) do that?
If this list was open to everyone and allowed open discussion, it wouldn't be
"semi-secret repository for behind-scenes-scheming" now, would it? :)
--
Gareth Owen


from_name: Michel Clasquin

body:
On Friday 19 October 2001 19:30, you wrote:
> > It seems that TheCunctator has posted some rather inflammatory
> > complaints ... I invite him, though, to come to this list
>
> Why would we, The Cabal (tm), (TINC) do that?

"Who's this "we", white man?
(Lone Ranger apocrypha, attributed to Tonto)

<g>

--
Michel Clasquin, D Litt et Phil (Unisa)
clasqm at mweb.co.za/unisa.ac.za   http://www.geocities.com/clasqm
This message was posted from a Microsoft-free PC

Help Microsoft stamp out software piracy: give Linux to a friend today..


body:
Excellent!  And I've noticed that there has been some good new work done
on Buddhism and Eastern phil. articles lately.

Larry

On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Michel Clasquin wrote:

> On Saturday 20 October 2001 02:46, you wrote:
>
> > I sent the following to the main North American academic philosophy
> > mailing list, PHILOSOP.
> >
> > It would be fantastic if you could take a moment to post something
> > similar to other academic mailing lists.  I think we're definitely to
> > the point where we can get a lot more academics on board.
>
> On its way to BUDDHA-L
>
>


body:
On Saturday 20 October 2001 02:46, you wrote:

> I sent the following to the main North American academic philosophy
> mailing list, PHILOSOP.
>
> It would be fantastic if you could take a moment to post something
> similar to other academic mailing lists.  I think we're definitely to
> the point where we can get a lot more academics on board.

On its way to BUDDHA-L

--
Michel Clasquin, D Litt et Phil (Unisa)
clasqm at mweb.co.za/unisa.ac.za   http://www.geocities.com/clasqm
This message was posted from a Microsoft-free PC

Help Microsoft stamp out software piracy: give Linux to a friend today..


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Intlwiki-l] LA2

in_reply_to:
<200110151228.f9FCSCr186388@mailbox.univie.ac.at> (message from
	Thomas Hofer on Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:28:34 +0200)

body:
On October 15, Thomas Hofer wrote:
> > 	Eine Katze (Englisch: cat) (Schwedisch: katt) ist ein Tier.
> > [...]
> I'm not entirely happy with this mechanism. If there were 15 articles
> about cat in different languages and I wanted to add a 16th, I had to

Today this problem doesn't exist.  There is no point in linking to the
French, Dutch, or Spanish Wikipedias, because they only have a few
hundred articles, and that just isn't useful.

My intention was not to find the ultimate solution or make anybody
"entirely happy".  All I wanted was to test an idea that allows me to
link to the two existing useful Wikipedias in English and German.

> Here's my conception of the implementation: The links to the different
> languages should not be part of the viewable body of the article, but
> part of the headline or footer (which is generated by wiki). A link
> like (A) can be realized using the upcoming wiki-variables (please read
> the posting of Magnus Manske).

Tell me when you have a working prototype, and I will try it.

--
  Lars Aronsson
  <lars at aronsson.se>
  tel +46-70-7891609
  http://aronsson.se


from_name: lcrocker at nupedia.com

body:
>I think Anatoly's proposals have merit.
>
>We certainly don't want to allow the changes to impact our culture in
>a negative way.  Cautiousness is warranted, because wikipedia works
>well as it is.  We're just looking to the future and anticipating how
>to scale as we get more popular.

I'd just like to point out that I dislike "point" systems because
they explicity avoid simple human subjective judgment.  They're just
bad AI.  The problem we're trying to solve is inherently one of
subjective value: most people's edits are valuable to us, but some
aren't.  I don't want to abdicate responsibility for that judgment to
a stupid automaton.

If we want to give "reliable" users privileges that we don't
immediately give to everyone, that's great.  But just give them--
don't build a whole system of automating it, just give them to those
who ask, and who have earned them.  I would far rather that flag be
set by a real human being exercising judgment than by some
meaningless process.


body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011022/ba2a7fde/attachment.diff


in_reply_to: <200110221955.f9MJtuP06262@ross.bomis.com>; from lcrocker@nupedia.com on Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 12:55:56PM -0700

body:
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> If we want to give "reliable" users privileges that we don't
> immediately give to everyone, that's great.  But just give them--
> don't build a whole system of automating it, just give them to those
> who ask, and who have earned them.  I would far rather that flag be
> set by a real human being exercising judgment than by some
> meaningless process.

I understand what you are saying, but

1.  one of the goals here is to create a system which avoids even the
    appearance of favoritism or bias.  The process of "earning" the
    privileges should leave little or no discretion to the owners of
    the project...

2.  The "privileges" under consideration are really quite small.  For
    the most part, the concept is to protect the most highly
    trafficked pages from sheer malicious vandalism.  So to "earn" the
    privilege should be quite easy -- you basically just have to be
    around for a few days and not be malicious.  Even people who we
    don't like should be allowed to edit pretty much anything, as long
    as they aren't being malicious and are willing to ultimately go
    along with community consensus.

-----

The only reason to even bring this up is that there have recently been
some initial incidents of true vandalism.  Someone put a pornographic
cartoon on the homepage of the site one night.  Another person has
been going through writing "fart" on various pages.  I don't think
anyone (even The Cunctator, who has been reluctant to endorse any form
of protection out of fear of a cabal) regards these acts as merely
legitimate differences of opinion.

It is possible -- but unlikely, I think -- that someday we will have a
big huge argument between two or more legitimate participants, an
argument which degenerates into massive delete wars or edit wars.
We've seen something similar between a couple of otherwise legitimate
people lately, although it ended (badly) within the space of an hour.

SOMEDAY, we may have to find a way to deal with a problem like that.

But for now, we're just interested in tightening things up *just the
tiniest amount* on *just the most likely pages for vandalism*.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


in_reply_to: <200110222241.f9MMfqU18363@ross.bomis.com>; from lcrocker@nupedia.com on Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 03:41:52PM -0700

body:
lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
> But we do have a specific goal, don't we?  I mean we already do
> hold the one clear bias that we want to produce a useful encyclopedia,
> as opposed to a chat room or news log.  We don't want to be too
> biased about people or points of view, but we _are_ explicity biased
> toward our goal, and the folks who have chosen that goal should be
> free to act to achieve it.  I want you and Larry and whoever else you
> trust to be able to stand up straight and say "this is what we're
> doing here, this is the way it is" without having to waste your time
> justifying everything.  You've taken on a great responsibility here;
> don't throw away your power--use it.

Thanks!  And yes, we will.  I agree with all of this.

Openness is a means to an end here -- the end is our shared vision for
a free public encyclopedia.  If we elevated the openness above the
goal, for instance by refusing to make *any* judgments, we'd be doing
the wrong thing.

On the other hand, I'm of course also willing to see things that I
disagree with make it into the encyclopedia.  In a sense, I view my
role (and Larry's) as having two complementary parts: one, as a
participant, I want to make sure that I don't privilege my own views
relative to other participants.  Second, as an administrator, I want
to act forcefully to toss out vandals and kooks.

Obviously, there could be tension between these goals at times.

> "Malicious" is another exercise of judgment.  A point system can't
> tell that all of the edits done by someone were subtle subversions--
> say putting "not" in interesting places.  Or adding links to non-
> existent or irrelevant books (how many of us check those?).  I
> suppose it's OK to give random folks the benefit of the doubt and
> grant them a flag as long as they have a login name and have been
> around.  But I'd still like to make sure that some human can revoke
> it when necessary.
>
> >But for now, we're just interested in tightening things up *just the
> >tiniest amount* on *just the most likely pages for vandalism*.
>
> I do respect the small-steps argument.  Making wholesale changes too
> quicky risks spoiling what does work well.

*nod*

I agree with everything you have said, I suppose.

How about if we sum it up like this: we'd like to have an easy,
automatic, and nearly invisible process whereby anyone who
participates is empowered to edit even the most active pages on the
site, without permission or oversight from anyone.  But, we also
reserve the right to toss jerks out on their ears, and to resort to
more extreme "privileges" regimes, if it becomes absolutely necessary.

The main thing I want to do is reassure everyone that in no way do I
think that any security measures should work to turn this into
"Jimbo's Personal Club Of People Who Agree With Jimbo About
Everything".  :-)

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Need help with page

body:
There are many people on the list who know more than I do about how the
GNU FDL works and what needs to be said where.  Could you please help by
looking at the following three URLs

http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?GNU_Free_Documentation_License
http://www.wikipedia.com/license/index.html
http://www.wikipedia.com/license/fdl.html#SEC2

and let me/us know what needs to be changed or added, particularly to the
third page?

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Example of vandalism

body:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=browse&id=HomePage&revision=802

This is the sort of thing we want to prevent.  This is not a
legitimate difference of opinion about the content of the homepage,
this is someone being stupid.

The text here is similar to the text of the propaganda flyers that the
United States military is dropping on the Taliban troops, telling them
that they are doomed if they don't surrender, and giving them a safe
procedure for surrendering.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Temporary measures

body:
I have looked into this a little bit more -- I just realized that the
existing software does give us some tools to combat this kind of
vandalism.

First, I have fixed it so that only editors can edit the HomePage.  I think
this is less desirable than our ideal system in which all the regulars
magically and transparently have this power.

If you want to edit the homepage, email me for the administrator
password -- I will give it out more or less willy-nilly to anyone who
I know.  If the vandal starts using the password, then we'll know it
is an "inside job" and we'll have to think harder.

Second, I have added some ip numbers to the banned list.  I'm prepared
to add more.  This is less than 100% ideal, obviously, since innocent
people might be at the same ip numbers.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


from_name: Simon Kissane

subject: [Wikipedia-l] GNU FDL & HTML Table Requirement

body:
I only recently discovered the requirement to place a
table at the bottom of every page that uses content
taken from Wikipedia (see
http://www.wikipedia.com/license/fdl.html).

I don't like that idea, and having read the GNU FDL,
have come to the conclusion that the requirement is
most likely in violation of the terms of the license.
The FDL permits the inclusion of invariant sections,
but it makes clear that these are front cover sections
or appendices, i.e. separate sections at the beginning
or end of a work, not something to be included on
every page. It also implies that each of these
sections is to have a unique title -- are we to give
each link table a unique name? It also implies clearly
that the invariant sections are in the original copy
of the document -- which the table links aren't in the
original copy (www.wikipedia.com).

Furthermore, even if these link tables were present in
the original copy, and mentioned, and given section
names, nowhere does Wikipedia contain a notice
indicating them as invariant sections, along the lines
contained in the FDL.

Finally, requiring them to be in HTML seems to be
violative of the FDL as well. What if I wanted to do
my website in some other markup language, such as
XHTML or SGML or XML or WML or (insert some not yet
invented language here) instead? Then I can't
technically include the exact HTML, which seems to
amount to a requirement that any redistribution on a
website be in HTML. Additional restrictions over and
above those in the FDL are prohibited by the FDL.

Now of course, any of these terms could be added if
some one individual owned the content to Wikipedia,
but they don't. The contributors license it everyone
else under the terms of the FDL; attempting to
redistribute it under any additional restriction
contrary to the FDL is in violation of their
copyright, unless you get their consent, which would
mean the consent of every single contributor to
Wikipedia.

I understand that all people want to do is require
acknowledgement, all I am saying is that legal means
must be chosen to carry this out. The legal means are
those permitted by the FDL, which is by placing a
statement (and a URL) as front-cover matter,
back-cover matter, or in an invariant section.
Websites copying Wikipedia are required to include
these sections, but these are separate sections, not
notices on every single page.

Simon James Kissane

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:

[snip]
> Each individual article in Wikipedia is released
> under the FDL.
> They are completely separable by potential users.
But section 6 of the license reads "You may combine
the Document with other documents released under this
License, under the terms defined in section 4 above
for modified versions, provided that you include in
the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all
of the original documents, unmodified, and list them
all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its
license notice. The combined work need only contain
one copy of this License, and multiple identical
Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single
copy."

Therefore even if you release each Wikipedia article
individually under the FDL, someone can combine them
all, and delete all but one of the Wikipedia linking
tables, since they would fall under "multiple
identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a
single copy." And then they can split that one work
over multiple pages, treating the pages not as
separate documents, but as mere subdivisions of a
single document. So ultimately section 6 permits the
evasion of your requirement, and allows the inclusion
of only a single linkback, not even on the same page
as the Wikipedia article, so long as they are all
linked together to form a single document. Which is
roughly what I would propose instead.

[snip]
> But additional *permissions* are not prohibited.
> What we do is require the HTML if you are publishing

> in *any* medium, but give you an extra *permission*
> to render it INSTEAD as plain text, XML, SGML,
> or whatever is appropriate in a particular medium.
Require the HTML if you are publishing in any medium?
But give you permission to render it in another
medium? So what then are we requiring -- the HTML
code, or what the HTML code renders? And if only what
the HTML code renders, how accurate a rendition is
necessary?

> There is no violation of the license to require that
> the invariant section be rendered exactly, no matter

> what the contents.
Well, I think the license implies that "rendered
exactly" refers primarily to identical text.
Otherwise, if you wanted to include images or fonts or
tables, I couldn't redistribute the document in plain
text. And, considering the object and purpose of the
FDL, it seems clear that such a restriction,
prohibiting distribution in certain media, is contrary
to the license. As I interpret it, the FDL requires
redistribution of the identical text, but not the same
presentation or machine encoding of the text.

[snip]
> This is a deep misunderstanding.  Any redistributor
> can add invariant sections.  We add ours.  You are
> free to distribute your own writings without the
> invariant sections if you like.
Yes, but only insofar as the invariant sections comply
with the FDL definition of an invariant section. Which
as I said I doubt your invariant sections do. But
anyway, as I pointed out above, even if they are valid
invariant sections, you still can't impose a
requirement for them to occur on every single page, if
multiple Wikipedia pages are reproduced.

[snip]

Simon

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Temporary measures

body:
Again, I want to calm you down mentioning my upcoming software;) (I do that
a lot, don't I?)

There will be ways to "protect" pages so that
a) only people who are logged in can edit that page
b) only people with a certain "status" can edit that page. The status can be
granted and revoked by "higher authorities", so we won't have to trade a
password and change it the first time it gets abused (just revoke the status
of the person who messed up the page)

Before you start screaming, I know that "higher authorities" is something
most people on this list won't like, but in fact, everybody with root access
to the wikipedia server already has that position. So, I'm not introducing
something new here, I'm just fine-tuning our methods to get rid of the
trolls.

Magnus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin at nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 2:57 AM
> To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Temporary measures
>
>
> I have looked into this a little bit more -- I just realized that the
> existing software does give us some tools to combat this kind of
> vandalism.
>
> First, I have fixed it so that only editors can edit the
> HomePage.  I think
> this is less desirable than our ideal system in which all the regulars
> magically and transparently have this power.
>
> If you want to edit the homepage, email me for the administrator
> password -- I will give it out more or less willy-nilly to anyone who
> I know.  If the vandal starts using the password, then we'll know it
> is an "inside job" and we'll have to think harder.
>
> Second, I have added some ip numbers to the banned list.  I'm prepared
> to add more.  This is less than 100% ideal, obviously, since innocent
> people might be at the same ip numbers.
>
>
> --
> *************************************************
> *            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
> *        You can edit this page right now!      *
> *************************************************
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


body:
In this letter, I will answer some specific technical questions about
the license to the best of my ability.  But in a separate letter I
will answer the bigger picture question, and convince Simon that the
attribution requirement is a good thing.

Simon Kissane wrote:
> I don't like that idea, and having read the GNU FDL,
> have come to the conclusion that the requirement is
> most likely in violation of the terms of the license.

Most certainly not.  I asked RMS specifically about this issue before
we adopted the GNU FDL for Nupedia and Wikipedia.

The rule is that the invariant section can contain anything as long as
it is not the subject matter of the article.  In particular, the
invariant section can contain HTML code for linking back to the
article.

> The FDL permits the inclusion of invariant sections,
> but it makes clear that these are front cover sections
> or appendices, i.e. separate sections at the beginning
> or end of a work, not something to be included on
> every page.

Each individual article in Wikipedia is released under the FDL.
They are completely separable by potential users.

> It also implies that each of these
> sections is to have a unique title -- are we to give
> each link table a unique name? It also implies clearly
> that the invariant sections are in the original copy
> of the document -- which the table links aren't in the
> original copy (www.wikipedia.com).

This is obviously a minor technical issue which can be fixed in 5
seconds.

> Finally, requiring them to be in HTML seems to be
> violative of the FDL as well. What if I wanted to do
> my website in some other markup language, such as
> XHTML or SGML or XML or WML or (insert some not yet
> invented language here) instead? Then I can't
> technically include the exact HTML, which seems to
> amount to a requirement that any redistribution on a
> website be in HTML. Additional restrictions over and
> above those in the FDL are prohibited by the FDL.

But additional *permissions* are not prohibited.  What we do is
require the HTML if you are publishing in *any* medium, but give you
an extra *permission* to render it INSTEAD as plain text, XML, SGML,
or whatever is appropriate in a particular medium.

There is no violation of the license to require that the invariant
section be rendered exactly, no matter what the contents.

> Now of course, any of these terms could be added if
> some one individual owned the content to Wikipedia,
> but they don't. The contributors license it everyone
> else under the terms of the FDL; attempting to
> redistribute it under any additional restriction
> contrary to the FDL is in violation of their
> copyright, unless you get their consent, which would
> mean the consent of every single contributor to
> Wikipedia.

This is a deep misunderstanding.  Any redistributor can add invariant
sections.  We add ours.  You are free to distribute your own writings
without the invariant sections if you like.

> I understand that all people want to do is require
> acknowledgement, all I am saying is that legal means
> must be chosen to carry this out. The legal means are
> those permitted by the FDL, which is by placing a
> statement (and a URL) as front-cover matter,
> back-cover matter, or in an invariant section.
> Websites copying Wikipedia are required to include
> these sections, but these are separate sections, not
> notices on every single page.

They are separate sections, on every single page.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Why an attribution requirement?

body:
Simon's questions were specifically about how it is that the license
permits us to require the inclusion of an HTML linkback in the
invariant sections.  In my first response, I answered that question,
though of course more details may come out in the course of further
discussion.

However, here I want to explain why the attribution requirement is
important and a good thing.

One of my goals for the encyclopedia projects that I have started is
that they be *widely used*.  Another goal is that my ideas of
openness, fairness, objectivity, community consensus become the
standard by which encyclopedias are judged.

What we want to see is Yahoo, AOL/Time Warner, Disney, Google,
Microsoft, Altavista, Lycos, etc., all decide to adopt our
encyclopedia as the foundation for their own-branded encyclopedia
products.  But when they do so, we want them to link back to the
original project, so that we can ensure that we remain the "canonical
source" for our own community works.

I pick Microsoft for my example, because they are unpopular.

Imagine this scenario -- Microsoft takes our content, and makes their
own Microsoft Online Encyclopedia from it.  Their version is on their
web pages and is modified by them.  It is redistributable and
modifiable by others, as it has to be under the license.  But (!)
imagine that we do not require them to link back to us.  And (!)
imagine that their version is not editable by anyone but them.

Then we end up with a situation in which their propaganda can be
inserted into the Wikipedia, and their readers have no means to find
us, the original source and the ultimate corrective to bias.  I think
that's undesirable.

I don't mind Microsoft taking our content, republishing it with their
own propaganda inserted.  That's fine, that's something we accept
under the FDL.  But I want them to include the invariant section --
the invariant section which leads people back to the original, so they
can compare for themselves, and hopefully join our community.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


body:
Simon Kissane wrote:
> > Each individual article in Wikipedia is released
> > under the FDL.
> > They are completely separable by potential users.
> But section 6 of the license reads "You may combine
> the Document with other documents released under this
> License, under the terms defined in section 4 above
> for modified versions, provided that you include in
> the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all
> of the original documents, unmodified, and list them
> all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its
> license notice. The combined work need only contain
> one copy of this License, and multiple identical
> Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single
> copy."
>
> Therefore even if you release each Wikipedia article
> individually under the FDL, someone can combine them
> all, and delete all but one of the Wikipedia linking
> tables, since they would fall under "multiple
> identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a
> single copy."

They aren't identical.  Each one links back to the original article.
(Or should have -- it does now.  The whole point is to make the
original available.)

> Require the HTML if you are publishing in any medium?
> But give you permission to render it in another
> medium? So what then are we requiring -- the HTML
> code, or what the HTML code renders? And if only what
> the HTML code renders, how accurate a rendition is
> necessary?

I can't imagine that anyone will really quibble over this.

I suppose someone might put up a web page, and put the HTML there, but
in such a fashion that it is invisible, despite our clean intention.
Would we be able to prevent that?  Maybe, maybe not.  But I just don't
see it really coming up.  Public pressure alone would be sufficient to
prevent it, I think.

The FDL says that invariant sections are invariant, i.e. that they
must be presented exactly as the licensee grantor specifies.  A
reasonable court would reasonably rule that this means that you can't
print it in invisible ink, for example.  You can't print it on an HTML
page in such a way that it can't be seen in a browser.

> Well, I think the license implies that "rendered
> exactly" refers primarily to identical text.
> Otherwise, if you wanted to include images or fonts or
> tables, I couldn't redistribute the document in plain
> text. And, considering the object and purpose of the
> FDL, it seems clear that such a restriction,
> prohibiting distribution in certain media, is contrary
> to the license. As I interpret it, the FDL requires
> redistribution of the identical text, but not the same
> presentation or machine encoding of the text.

Right, but so what?

> Yes, but only insofar as the invariant sections comply
> with the FDL definition of an invariant section. Which
> as I said I doubt your invariant sections do. But
> anyway, as I pointed out above, even if they are valid
> invariant sections, you still can't impose a
> requirement for them to occur on every single page, if
> multiple Wikipedia pages are reproduced.

O.k., there are two objections here.

First, that these invariant sections may not comply.  But you have to
be specific about why not?  Under the license, an Invariant section is
a kind of Seconary section, and the only restriction on a Secondary
section is that it not be *about* the topic of the article, and may
deal with "matter of historical connection with the subject or with
related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or
political position regarding them. "

Perhaps we should tweak the notice to more clearly fall within that?

Second, your objection about multiple pages and identical notices
relies on the notice being identical on each page, but it isn't.

One thing I will grant you -- because none of this has really come up
in any real context, we haven't bothered to use all the terminology of
the FDL throughout the site consistently.  That's what we're trying to
do now.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


body:
Jimbo: Okay, I think you have convinced me they are
permissible invariant sections, but I still don't see
how under the FDL you can make people place them on
each article page, as opposed to placing each of them
on a separate page.

[snip]
> They aren't identical.  Each one links back to the
> original article.
> (Or should have -- it does now.  The whole point is
> to make the original available.)
Okay, even if they aren't identical, I can still put
them on a separate page from the article, so long as
they form 'one document'. So if I put all of Wikipedia
on my own website, I could add a page called
'Invariant Sections', put every linkback table on that
page, and not put them on the individual article pages
-- so long as the 'Invariant Sections' page and the
article pages were linked into one document -- say by
linking to them all from a 'Table of Contents' page.
Then I would be complying with the FDL, but still
evading your requirement to have the link back table
on every page.

[snip]

Simon J. Kissane

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> Simon's questions were specifically about how it is
> that the license permits us to require the inclusion

> of an HTML linkback in the invariant sections.  In
> my first response, I answered that question,
> though of course more details may come out in the
> course of further discussion.
>
> However, here I want to explain why the attribution
> requirement is important and a good thing.
[snip]
I think requiring some form of acknowledgement and a
linkback is a good thing. And even though I don't
think you can force someone to put a linkback on every
page under the FDL, I think that for them to do so is
a good idea. The thing I'm not so keen on is telling
people what format to put the linkback in -- a
particular HTML table.

I think making people do that might be fine if they
are running some site crawling with tables, like Yahoo
or Microsoft do. But if all I want to do is put some
articles on a website, that isn't crawling with
tables, why can't I simply but up something at the end
saying, e.g., "This page was originally based on an
article from Wikipedia
(http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Mathematics)".

That is basically what Wikipedia at present does with
other FDL or public domain sources. We stick in a
simple attribution line at the end, we don't throw in
some big table. Why should Wikipedia insist other
sites do what it doesn't? (Admittedly, these other
sites don't ask us to.)

[snip]
Simon J. Kissane

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


body:
Simon Kissane wrote:
> Okay, even if they aren't identical, I can still put
> them on a separate page from the article, so long as
> they form 'one document'. So if I put all of Wikipedia
> on my own website, I could add a page called
> 'Invariant Sections', put every linkback table on that
> page, and not put them on the individual article pages
> -- so long as the 'Invariant Sections' page and the
> article pages were linked into one document -- say by
> linking to them all from a 'Table of Contents' page.
> Then I would be complying with the FDL, but still
> evading your requirement to have the link back table
> on every page.

Maybe!  I'm not sure that a person could reasonably make the claim
that posting the article on one page, and the invariant section on a
separate page could meet the requirements of the license.

If anyone attempted to do that, we'd have to try to convince them
otherwise, I suppose.  It would seem kind of silly to me, but
basically I have no intention of being inflexible if it comes down to
that.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


body:
Simon Kissane wrote:
> But if all I want to do is put some
> articles on a website, that isn't crawling with
> tables, why can't I simply but up something at the end
> saying, e.g., "This page was originally based on an
> article from Wikipedia
> (http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Mathematics)".

I think you are 100% correct about this.  We should change the "how to
use the FDL with Wikipedia instructions to more accurately reflect
this".

Basically, what we want to do is give people some guidance on how to
print the invariant sections.  We prefer the table, because it looks
nice.  But the link you suggest would certainly be fine with me as
well.  And of course in print media, CD-ROM media, and the like, the
attribution requirement should be sensibly adjusted.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] open content, GNU FDL, and open format specifications

body:
I think that's a very good and subtle question, and I don't have a
good answer.  I know how *I* would attempt to enforce it -- I
wouldn't.

The data is there, and as long as someone is making a legitimate
effort to use it in a way that is fair to us, i.e. with the
appropriate attribution done in some sensible way, that's fine with me.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


from_name: Axel Boldt

subject: [Wikipedia-l] GFDL and Wikipedia

body:
A couple of comments regarding the recent GFDL debate:

0) The rendering of the GFDL at
   http://www.wikipedia.com/license/index.html sucks rocks. Several
   @acronym's are still there, and the numbering is incorrect
   (Preamble should be 0, the MODIFICATIONS section, when refering to
   sections 2 and 3, means in fact sections 3 and 4.) It would be best
   to simply link to the FSF's version at
   http://www.gnu.org/copyleft.fdl.html. In the sequel, I will use the
   correct section numbers from FSF.

1) It is interesting to learn that every Wikipedia article is
   considered to be a separate GFDL'd work. This should be stated
   somewhere. It has real consequences.

2) Among them: the title of every article has to be changed if the
   article is changed (5.1). To get around this, we would need some
   note on the submit page, stating that the submitter permits
   to retain the article's title even if the text is changed.

3) To use the GFDL, the license text has to be part of the document. A
   link at the top (after the title) would probably be sufficient.
   This is missing right now. Furthermore, this notice has to state
   the invariant section title (for the link back that you want to
   require) and cover texts (which I assume we don't care about).

4) The five most significant authors (at least) have to be maintained
   in perpetuity (5.2)

5) I have no legal opinion about whether it is permissable to require
   exact layout, down to the colors, of an invariant section. But I
   would like it a lot better if we could relax and tone down our invariant
   section requirement a bit, maybe like this:
     "At prominent position, mention that this material originated at
     Wikipedia.com, the free collaborative encyclopedia, and provide a
     link back to Wikipedia's original article. Here is a suggested
     HTML table to do so:..."
   Imagine I want to put together a website for a class I'm teaching,
   and use materials from Wikipedia. This fat table on every page?
   Please.

Axel


body:
I have a naive question re the FDL discussions.  If Wikipedia is "open
content" under the GNU Free Documentation License (FDL) and special
Wikipedia add-on license, do you also provide a full specification of
the text format you use?  For example, the specification that says
that ''this is italics'', that [[foo]] is a link to article Foo and
that [[foo|bar]] is a link to Foo that displays as "bar"?  And the
specification that says ISBN:0-13-080360-X is to be interpreted as an
ISBN number with links to online bookstores.

In my own wiki website, I have modified the format and included new
rules.  If I were to release my wiki-website's content under FDL,
would I also have to include a full specification of the format I use?
Does the GNU FDL require this?  Sorry, I haven't read it.

One of my added rules is that sys:411 is to be interpreted as a link
to product number 411 in the catalog of the Swedish Alcohol Monopoly
System.  (This is almost as useful as ISBN numbers.  Everybody who
writes about wine or liqueur will use them as reference.)  Another
rule is that linux:ls(1) is to be interpreted as a link to the Linux
manual page for the command "ls" in section 1 of the manual.  I also
have an openbsd:ls(1) version, for fairness.

Contributors to my wiki learn some of these rules and use them.  But
if I only release the content as is, it would be really hard to guess
exactly what is what.  It would be fair to say that the content would
be useless without the format specification.

Will people volunteer their contributions to an open content project
that doesn't publish its full format specifications?

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik
  Teknikringen 1e, SE-583 30 Link?ping, Sweden
  tel +46-70-7891609
  http://aronsson.se


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia-Specific License?

body:
AxelBoldt raises a number of requirements under the
GNU Free Documentation License, such as the
requirement to preserve lists of five most significant
contributors (how could we ever judge that for
Wikipedia? we wouldn't even want to), change the title
of a new document, etc. Many of these things don't fit
too well with Wikipedia.

The FDL was not really designed for a purpose such as
Wikipedia. It was designed for programming manual
documentation. It was designed for an environment with
a small number of individual authors, dealing with a
relatively stable work, where different versions are
clearly distinguishable. The FDL was designed for an
environment were acknowledgement of individual
authorship and the identity of the work is essential,
but it was felt necessary to permit later authors to
modify the work in order to ensure it does not fall
out of date. Wikipedia, by contrast, has no clear
individual authorship, lacks a clear identity as a
work, and 'Modified Versions' are being created
constantly. Its a different paradigm, a different
method of production, and a license designed for one
paradigm doesn't fit a significantly different one
that well.

In some ways I think that the GNU GPL would be a much
better license for Wikipedia. Many of the additional
requirements that the FDL has over the GPL aren't
really relevant to Wikipedia. The GPL doesn't permit
requiring even collective acknowledgement, but as I
have argued I don't think the machinery of the FDL
license can handle the kind of acknowledgement
requirement we probably want.

The FDL allows the author to require the inclusion of
specific invariant sections. But when we want to
require acknowledgement, what is important is the
substance of the acknowledgement and its prominence,
not its exact reproduction (though as I have said,
exactly how exact a reproduction is required is
unclear.)

(On a sidepoint: Jimbo says he can't see how putting
the invariant section on a different page could comply
with the FDL. The FSF, which produced the FDL, creates
its manuals using texinfo. Texinfo documents, when
converted into HTML format, generally have a separate
page for each section or subsection. So, if we can
take the authors of the license as a guide, the
invariant section can be on a separate page, so long
as it is part of the same document, say by being
linked from a Table of Contents.)

Which is why I would creating a separate license for
Wikipedia, based on the FDL but with modifications to
fit Wikipedia's special conditions. Among other
things, I would delete the requirement for invariant
sections, and the stuff to do with "Endorsements",
"Acknowledgements", "Dedications", lists of authors,
renaming modified versions, etc. But I would add a
specific requirement to provide acknowledgement, with
some broad guidelines.

To get this new license we could simply modify the GNU
FDL. While the license for the license doesn't permit
modifications, I'm sure RMS would give us permission
if we explained why we wanted to do this, and called
it something else.

Two other issues remain. One is compatibility with FDL
documents being used in Wikipedia. Since the terms of
the license I am proposing are incompatible with the
FDL, since they don't require things that the FDL
does, and do require things that the FDL doesn't. Of
course, if the author gave permission this wouldn't be
a problem. But still, that would be different from the
current (informal) policy, which seems to permit any
FDL or other "Open Content" material to be added.

But I am unsure how much such material has been added,
and I question the legal adivisability of permitting
such material to be added, even if we continued to
distribute under the FDL. The FDL provides several
specific requirements for reproduction, which I doubt
anyone who has added such content has paid specific
attention to; and even if they did, as I have pointed
out many of these requirements (e.g. invariant
sections -- how possibly could anything in a Wikipedia
article be invariant?) don't really fit with
Wikipedia. And other "Open Content" licenses add their
own requirements as well. Since licenses can be quite
complex and can often impose conflicting terms, I
don't think it is advisable to let people add
copyrighted material of any sort, without specific
permission from the copyright holder.

The other issue is that people who have already
submitted their content have done so on the
understanding that it will be redistributed under the
FDL, and might not agree to having it redistributed
under another license. This raises quite a legal
conundrum. The only thing I can suggest is, that if
sufficent consensus arises in the Wikipedia community
on a license change, we widely publicise the license
change, allow anyone who does not want their material
to be distributed under that license object, and
consider those who do not object as consenting to
having their material distributed under the new
license.

I think that, rather than just creating a notice below
the submit button, we should provide a proper terms
and conditions notice, which should include that the
author consents to redistribution under the terms of
the license, or any later modifications of the license
or replacement license which may be agreed upon by the
Wikipedia community. Of course if we had a "any later
modifications or replacement license" clause, we'd
need to find some way for the will of the Wikipedia
community to be expressed (how about a Wikipedia
council? Wikipedia referenda? Wikipedia elections?).

And of course, any such new Wikipedia license or
Wikipedia terms and conditions of use should be
discussed and achieve wide consensus in the Wikipedia
community, before being put into practice. (I suppose
that Jimbo, since he owns the Wikipedia website, could
just produce his own terms and conditions of use
without consultation and impose us on it all. But I
trust he won't.)

Anyway, that is my latest thinking on the Wikipedia
licensing issue. I'm also going to add this on
Wikipedia commentary under Wikipedia, so people who
don't subscribe to Wikipedia-L can read/comment on it.

Simon J Kissane

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

body:
At 04:03 AM 10/26/01 -0700, Simon Kissane wrote:
<snip>
>
>The other issue is that people who have already
>submitted their content have done so on the
>understanding that it will be redistributed under the
>FDL, and might not agree to having it redistributed
>under another license. This raises quite a legal
>conundrum. The only thing I can suggest is, that if
>sufficent consensus arises in the Wikipedia community
>on a license change, we widely publicise the license
>change, allow anyone who does not want their material
>to be distributed under that license object, and
>consider those who do not object as consenting to
>having their material distributed under the new
>license.

I'm unsure of how valid this is, legally or ethically: but I Am
Not A Lawyer.

More to the point, perhaps, I'm not sure it's feasible: even a short
Wikipedia article may have been worked on by a dozen people.
How would this change work if (numbering the contributors by
time), everyone *except* contributors 3, 7, 9, and 12 consented?
We might be able to back up to the version before the last changes
(by person 12), but is it even possible to remove the contributions
of people 3, 7, and 9?

That said, I think Simon's points about the FDL are valid: I'm just
not sure we have a good way of addressing them, given 15,000+
articles created under the terms of that license.


body:
--- Vicki Rosenzweig <vr at redbird.org> wrote:
[snip]
> I'm unsure of how valid this is, legally or
> ethically: but I Am Not A Lawyer.
Well, the basic legal issue is this -- we don't have
permission from a copyright holder to distribute
something, but make a best effort to locate them and
get such permission, yet never got an answer (be it
"yes you can" or "no you can't"). (We also have good
reason to presume that most of the people we can't
trace would say yes if we could.) Suppose then one of
the copyright holders we could not locate objected to
our distributing the materials without their
permission. We delete the offending materials, but are
we still legally liable for distributing them in the
first place? A relevant point here is that there is
probably little difference in commercial benefit to
the copyright holder between the FDL and an
alternative Wikipedia-Specific License.

But chances are that, even though we said we do, we
don't really use the FDL, I doubt we actually do,
legally speaking. Wikipedia doesn't presently fit many
of the FDL requirements, nor does it seem to me that
it could easily be meshed with them. Plus people are
trying to impose additionial requirments outside the
FDL, which as I've argued you can't do. So I think
that, even though what we say we use is the FDL, we
actually are using a different license, an unwritten
implied license created by Wikipedia. Similarly, the
(unwritten) legal agreement created between Wikipedia
and the contributors is to use this unwritten implied
license. (The agreement, like the license, is a
product of Wikipedia custom.)

And if we don't really use the FDL, but rather a
customary unwritten license, there is nothing stopping
us from writing down this customary license.

[snip]
Simon

(P.S. I'm no lawyer either, but I'm applying to switch
to doing law next year.)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] GFDL and Wikipedia, II

body:
--- Axel Boldt <axel at uni-paderborn.de> wrote:
> A couple more things:
>
> * I am not in favor of switching to another license
> for three reasons:
>    ** designing a license is not easy, and it would
> suck a lot of energy out of Wikipedia proper.
So long as we don't start overreach, all we need to is
make some simple changes to the GNU FDL, mainly
deleting some of the requirements in section 4, such
as the five author requirement. Of course, we'd need
to get FSF permission to create a modified version of
the GNU FDL, but I suspect they'd probably give it to
us, so long as we didn't call it the FDL, and we
acknowledged it as originating with them.

> Furthermore, it is not clear that in the end we
> would be able to agree on one license.
Well, if we take the FDL as a base, and make only
those changes are necessary to make it fit with
Wikipedia.

I am planning to create my own modification of the FDL
as a demonstration, and post it to see peoples
reactions. I probably shouldn't post a modified
version, even though it would only be to gather
comments, since copyright on the FDL doesn't allow it,
until I get permission from the FSF. (I have emailed
RMS to ask him.)

>    ** GFDL has goodwill in the community; our new
> license would be scrutinized and certainly
> criticized by vocal GNU hawks.
Again, basing it on the FDL with only a minimum of
necessary modifications would solve this problem.

>    ** I think it is not too difficult for Wikipedia
> to comply with GFDL, see below.
>
> * the requirement that (at least) the five most
> important authors be listed can be easily fulfilled
> once we keep complete logs (which is desirable for
> other reasons as well). We simply list *all*
> contributing authors then, and that is in compliance

> with GFDL.
The problem here is, what if two hundred people have
each made one edit to an article. Under the FDL, if I
want to post that article anywhere else, or print it,
I'd have to post the log as well.

I like the idea of not acknowledging the authors of
articles. I think it emphasises the collective and
communal nature of Wikipedia. In fact, I personally
would rather not be acknowledged. But the FDL as it
stands seems to force such acknowledgement.

[snip]
>    ** We are currently using FOLDOC materials which
> were licensed to us under GFDL.
This would cause problems for my proposal to modify
the FDL license, since we'd probably need their
permission to distribute their material under a
different license. But if its significantly similar to
the FDL, I think we'd have a good chance.

And I doubt we are following the terms of the FDL at
present anyway in so far as including FOLDOC materials
goes.

[snip]
Simon J Kissane

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Thoughts on Wikipedia-Specific License

body:
I'm not in disagreement with any of the sentiments expressed by Simon.

Two thoughts, though...

1.  If we did decide to change the license, it would have to be to
    something with equivalent or at least similar credibility to the
    GNU license, which might be hard to achieve with something
    homegrown.  One of the most important "marketing" reasons for the
    GNU license is that people can immediately see that it is a
    "GNU-brand" license and therefore something that they can trust in
    the usual ways.

2.  It would probably be very difficult to change the license at this
    point, since any change we made would have to be consistent with
    the fact that the content in the encyclopedia is already GNU FDL,
    and the "viral" nature of GNU licenses means that derivatives have
    to have the same license.

I'm not even sure we could change from FDL to GPL.

It should be pointed out that the GPL isn't really appropriate,
either.  It was designed for software and it is really incoherent when
you start reading it and thinking about things in a non-software
context.  There is talk of compiled binaries, etc., which only apply
here by the very loosest of analogies.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] GFDL and Wikipedia, II

in_reply_to: <200110261650.SAA07229@linde.uni-paderborn.de>; from axel@uni-paderborn.de on Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:50:06PM +0200

body:
I agree totally with the idea that we should not impose a strict table
attribution requirement.  However, I don't think all these arguments
against it are valid.

Axel Boldt wrote:
> * Three additional arguments against the current strict table
>   attribution requirement occured to me last night:
>
>    ** if we really want large websites to adopt Wikipedia (Microsoft
>       is out since they have Encarta, but Yahoo, Google and AOL are
>       potential customers), there is absolutely no way that we can hope to
>       dictate layout decisions to them. Their site designers will laugh us
>       out the door.

Actually, many sites (Google, AOL, Altavista, and some other major
sites) do use the "Open Directory Project" data, and it has a strict
table requirement.  So apparently this isn't as big an issue as we
might think.

>    ** On educational websites that use some materials from Wikipedia,
>       teachers typically would want to tell students about the project, but
>       they don't want their students to jump right in and contribute
>       to Wikipedia: it would distract too much; learning is the focus.
>       So you make actually discourage teachers from using Wikipedia
>       material, because the current table would suggest to students
>       that the teacher wants them to contribute.

I'm not sure that this would really be a factor, but it is certainly
one thing to consider in thinking about what, exactly, we want to require.

>    ** We are currently using FOLDOC materials which were licensed to
>       us under GFDL. Imagine their invariant section contained some
>       pink table and a blinking icon. I don't think we would
>       appreciate it.

That's right.

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


body:
Hi, [LA2] here,

I wish I had the time to participate actively in the Wikipedia
licensing discussion.  I don't have that.  But I would like to provide
some pointers for further information, that could be included as
background reading for those who want to go deeper into this.

 * General copyright law:
 ** History of the U.S. system where copyrights were created by
    registration with the Library of Congress copyright office.
 ** The difference between US/UK "copyright" = right to make copies
    vs the central European "Urheberrecht" = right to be recognized
    as the originator.
 ** US copyright law's "public domain" concept is missing in other
    national laws.
 ** The Geneva convention of the 1890s, laying the foundation for
    respecting copyrights across borders
 ** EU harmonization of copyright in the mid 1990s, extending the
    copyright protection term from 50/60/70 years to a harmonized life
    of the author + 70 years
 ** Academic publishing with private publishing houses (Elsevier,
    Springer)  vs electronic self-publishing from the universities,
    and licensing costs for university libraries.  Electronic Journals.
 ** News sources and discussion lists: ALA, RLG, Diglib, VPIEJ,
    Project Gutenberg, Bookpeople-l, UPD-discuss
 ** Current work in WIPO and WTO to globalize copyright law.
 ** The US DMCA.
 ** The EU personal data protection directive

 * Software licensing:
 ** Historic background of computer software licensing: IBMs shifting
    of revenues from punch cards to peripherals to CPUs to software.
 ** Proprietary vendor-specific software solutions vs open standards
 ** Software becomes protected by copyright law in the 1980s.
 ** Software patents.
 ** History of free software and open source code in academia: GPL.
 ** GNU GPL vs BSD license vs Perl Artistic License vs Public Domain
 ** History of GNU FDL.  GNU FDL vs Open Content License
 ** Standardization vs Patents: Cultural differences between IETF and
    ETSI.  The last call from W3C.

 * Weaving the web
 ** Understanding if websites are software, contents or something
    else.  Software is protected by copyright, but what is the best
    form of protection for websites / web-based concepts?
 ** Service marks as opposed to trade marks.
 ** Did the web make it easier to get software patents, because now
    computer software more resembles the telephone network?
 ** Does GNU FDL require or presuppose that the document format is
    stable and openly specified?  What if it isn't?
 ** How do other Wikis handle copyright / licensing issues?

So, I guess there is far more to this topic.  All I know for sure is
that I won't have the time to go any deeper into this.  If any terms
or acronyms were new to you, look them up on the web and write
Wikipedia articles about them.  Best wishes.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik
  Teknikringen 1e, SE-583 30 Link?ping, Sweden
  tel +46-70-7891609
  http://aronsson.se


from_name: koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] A question

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011026/2fd52812/attachment.diff


subject: [Wikipedia-l] GFDL and Wikipedia, II

body:
Simon Kissane wrote:
> So long as we don't start overreach, all we need to is
> make some simple changes to the GNU FDL, mainly
> deleting some of the requirements in section 4, such
> as the five author requirement. Of course, we'd need
> to get FSF permission to create a modified version of
> the GNU FDL, but I suspect they'd probably give it to
> us, so long as we didn't call it the FDL, and we
> acknowledged it as originating with them.

I don't think we need a new version for this.  I think this can be
handled by simply saying that we grant additional permissions.

One oddity here is that although keeping an indefinite amount of
history will help with the 5 author problem, we really don't even know
or keep the *names* of the authors, only at best their *handle*.
Perhaps that's sufficient?

I can't imagine anyone seriously complaining about this.

> I am planning to create my own modification of the FDL
> as a demonstration, and post it to see peoples
> reactions. I probably shouldn't post a modified
> version, even though it would only be to gather
> comments, since copyright on the FDL doesn't allow it,
> until I get permission from the FSF. (I have emailed
> RMS to ask him.)

That's sort of funny, isn't it?

> The problem here is, what if two hundred people have
> each made one edit to an article. Under the FDL, if I
> want to post that article anywhere else, or print it,
> I'd have to post the log as well.
>
> I like the idea of not acknowledging the authors of
> articles. I think it emphasises the collective and
> communal nature of Wikipedia. In fact, I personally
> would rather not be acknowledged. But the FDL as it
> stands seems to force such acknowledgement.

I agree with you about the spirit of acknowledgement.  The article
history, with authors listed, is a useful technical tool in trying to
appease all sides in any dispute.  But I try hard personally not to
think of any page as "my" page, except perhaps [[Jimbo Wales]], which
will be moved into a separate namespace someday.

> This would cause problems for my proposal to modify
> the FDL license, since we'd probably need their
> permission to distribute their material under a
> different license. But if its significantly similar to
> the FDL, I think we'd have a good chance.

Yes, with *them*, but not necessarily with *us*.  We already have
hundreds or thousands of authors, most of whom we have no way of
contacting, and some people who we *can* contact may object strongly
to any change of license of any kind.

> And I doubt we are following the terms of the FDL at
> present anyway in so far as including FOLDOC materials
> goes.

You are probably right, but I hope I'm not boring anyone by repeating
myself that any violations we have right now are unintentional and
will be corrected as soon as we can figure out exactly what to do.  :-)

----
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


from_name: Mark Christensen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] A question

body:
I do.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jimmy Wales [mailto:jwales at bomis.com]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 4:34 PM
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] A question

I would not feel comfortable with the idea that Microsoft or Yahoo
could take our content, make an encyclopedia out of it
(redistributable, of course), and *not* include an invariant section
amounting to a link back to us.

Do others share this sentiment?

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] A question

body:
I would not feel comfortable with the idea that Microsoft or Yahoo
could take our content, make an encyclopedia out of it
(redistributable, of course), and *not* include an invariant section
amounting to a link back to us.

Do others share this sentiment?

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] A question

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011026/ddf63762/attachment.diff


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Bug hunting!

body:
Hi all,

You might not quite realize it, but Magnus is on the verge of recommending
that Wikipedia switch to his very fine PHP wiki.  Yes!  This is good news,
but it ought to make you just slightly nervous.  (Not to say we don't have
*great faith* in Magnus.)  So help do some testing.  Go to

http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml

and do some bug-hunting.  Does it work as you expected?  Does it have all
the functionality of the old Wikipedia (that we want to keep)?

Not all features we've requested are implemented; but not all of them need
to be implemented yet.  What's the phrase--rough consensus and running
code?

Just be gentle.  :-)

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] GFDL and Wikipedia, II

body:
A couple more things:

* I am not in favor of switching to another license for three reasons:
   ** designing a license is not easy, and it would suck a lot of
      energy out of Wikipedia proper. Furthermore, it is not clear
      that in the end we would be able to agree on one license.
   ** GFDL has goodwill in the community; our new license would be
      scrutinized and certainly criticized by vocal GNU hawks.
   ** I think it is not too difficult for Wikipedia to comply with
      GFDL, see below.

* the requirement that (at least) the five most important authors be
  listed can be easily fulfilled once we keep complete logs (which is
  desirable for other reasons as well). We simply list *all*
  contributing authors then, and that is in compliance with GFDL.

* The requirement that titles have to be changed for every new version
  of the work can be waived by the authors; we need to have a clear
  statement on the submit page which says: "you are now submitting
  your additions under GFDL without front- and back cover text and
  invariant sections; furthermore you agree that modified versions of
  the document may retain the same title. If you don't agree, don't
  hit submit."

* Three additional arguments against the current strict table
  attribution requirement occured to me last night:

   ** if we really want large websites to adopt Wikipedia (Microsoft
      is out since they have Encarta, but Yahoo, Google and AOL are
      potential customers), there is absolutely no way that we can hope to
      dictate layout decisions to them. Their site designers will laugh us
      out the door.

   ** On educational websites that use some materials from Wikipedia,
      teachers typically would want to tell students about the project, but
      they don't want their students to jump right in and contribute
      to Wikipedia: it would distract too much; learning is the focus.
      So you make actually discourage teachers from using Wikipedia
      material, because the current table would suggest to students
      that the teacher wants them to contribute.

   ** We are currently using FOLDOC materials which were licensed to
      us under GFDL. Imagine their invariant section contained some
      pink table and a blinking icon. I don't think we would
      appreciate it.

Cheers,
  Axel


subject: [Wikipedia-l] A question

body:
--- lcrocker at nupedia.com wrote:
[snip]
> I'll be the token dissenter here.  I certainly don't
> care what anyone else does with free content--that's

> why I made it free in the first place, because my
> imagination for what uses it might be put to is
> limited.  Let any take it for any reason--for free
> or for profit--as long as they don't commit outright
> fraud by claiming that they created it and attach
> their own copyright notice, it's still free.
To some extent I agree with this. I think the only
think we should be asking for is some form of
acknowledgement that it came from Wikipedia. I think
making the requirements too onerous will discourage
people from using Wikipedia content, and retard
Wikipedia's growth.

> In support of the general idea, though, I should
> point out that making the requirement doesn't
> actually prevent any other uses, it just makes them
> non-automatic.  Bomis could still grant permission
> for uses that violated the GFDL on an individual
> basis.
No, Bomis can't. Bomis only holds the copyright to
material contributed by Bomis employees. All the other
material contributed by others is copyrighted by them.
So Bomis can only give permission for the terms of the
license to be changed if the content is purely the
work of Bomis employees, which given the collective
authorship of Wikipedia articles is unlikely. In order
to vary the terms of the license, you'd basically need
agreement from every contributor. (On a side note, how
many people working on Wikipedia actually are employed
by Bomis? There's Larry, Jimbo, and who else?).

Simon.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [Wikipedia-l] A question

body:
>
> I would not feel comfortable with the idea that Microsoft or Yahoo
> could take our content, make an encyclopedia out of it
> (redistributable, of course), and *not* include an invariant section
> amounting to a link back to us.
>
> Do others share this sentiment?

I feel less comfortable with the alternative.

Or another way of putting it, is, I'm comfortable with billions of people
taking our content, making an encyclopedia out of it (redistributable,
of course), and *not* including an invariant section amounting to a link
back to us. If that also means that Microsoft and Yahoo can do it as
well, then that's not so bad.

--
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com www.kband.com
www.wikipedia.com/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/In_Memoriam


subject: [Wikipedia-l] GFDL: Required copyright and license notice?

body:
The GFDL states:

To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of
the
License in the document and put the following copyright and license
notices just after the title page:

  Copyright (C)  year  your name.
  Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
  under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1
  or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
  with the Invariant Sections being list their titles, with the
  Front-Cover Texts being list, and with the Back-Cover Texts being list.
  A copy of the license is included in the section entitled ``GNU
  Free Documentation License''.

----
The copyright and license notices are nowhere included on Wikipedia. Thus,
Wikipedia is not formally covered by the GFDL.

Is this an incorrect interpretation?

I haven't seen any counter-arguments.

Right now we're kind of in that "if you call a tail a leg, how many
legs does a horse have?" stage.

Do we have a timeline for including the necessary copyright and license
notice?

Should we workshop it?

  Copyright (C) 2001 Free Software Foundation.
  Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
  under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1
  or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
  with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with
  no Back-Cover Texts.
  A copy of the license is included in the section entitled ``GNU
  Free Documentation License''.

Another possibility:

  Copyright (C) 2001 Free Software Foundation.
  Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
  under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1
  or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
  with the Invariant Sections being link.html, with no Front-Cover Texts,
  and with no Back-Cover Texts.
  A copy of the license is included in the section entitled ``GNU
  Free Documentation License''.

link.html:
   Wikipedia

Some possibilities for the related necessary pieces for coverage under the
GFDL:

Acknowledgments:
   Wikipedia is only possible through the collaborative effort of the
   world community.
Title Page:
    Welcome to Wikipedia, a collaborative project to produce a complete
    encyclopedia from scratch. We started in January 2001 and already
    have over 15,000 articles. We want to make over 100,000, so let's
get
    to work--anyone can edit any page--copyedit, expand an article,
write
    a little, write a lot. See the Wikipedia FAQ for information on how
to
    edit pages  and other questions.

    The content of Wikipedia is covered by the GNU Free Documentation
License,
    which means that it is free and will remain so forever. See open
    content and [free content]? for background.
History:
    http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia_Announcements
Endorsements:
    http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Friends_of_Wikipedia

I'm also posting this to http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License/Talk

Note that this is another thing Project Sourceberg could serve as, a way
for us to collectively deal with Invariant Sections.

Note that Invariant Sections are only Invariant for people outside of
Wikipedia; they don't have to be invariant within Wikipedia.

--
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com www.kband.com
www.wikipedia.com/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/In_Memoriam


subject: [Wikipedia-l] A question

body:
Welcome, Laura!

I'm also glad this is the first message you saw.  :-)

Larry Sanger

On Sun, 28 Oct 2001, Laura T. wrote:

> I've just joined. What a great first message for me to see. Now I have a
> better idea of where things are.
>
> I've been online over 5 years. I guess I'm a web writer since I've written
> for several websites and ezines. I have a writers email list, InkSplatters
> at Yahoo. I make ASCII art and have my creations up on my personal website.
> Currently I'm writing for WZ.com and BackWash. I have a site in the works
> for HerPlanet. If my computer could stop dying I would have it up and going
> by now.
>
> I'm a Canadian living in southern Illinois with the guy I met as a teenaged
> penpal and married just at the end of last year. I love sewing, travel, the
> outdoors, nature, writing, publishing online and too many things to mention
> in a short introduction.
>
> Happy Weekend,
>
> Laura
>
>
>
>
>           \\
>      .-'```^```'-.       http://wz.com/business/ASCIIart.html
>     /   (\ __ /)  \    http://www.backwash.com/content.php?id=59
>     |    ` \/ ` |\_/|
>     \    \____/ (^Y^)--.-,
>      `'-.......-'w-w__((__)  ldb
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Laura T.

subject: [Wikipedia-l] A question

body:
I've just joined. What a great first message for me to see. Now I have a
better idea of where things are.

I've been online over 5 years. I guess I'm a web writer since I've written
for several websites and ezines. I have a writers email list, InkSplatters
at Yahoo. I make ASCII art and have my creations up on my personal website.
Currently I'm writing for WZ.com and BackWash. I have a site in the works
for HerPlanet. If my computer could stop dying I would have it up and going
by now.

I'm a Canadian living in southern Illinois with the guy I met as a teenaged
penpal and married just at the end of last year. I love sewing, travel, the
outdoors, nature, writing, publishing online and too many things to mention
in a short introduction.

Happy Weekend,

Laura

          \\
     .-'```^```'-.       http://wz.com/business/ASCIIart.html
    /   (\ __ /)  \    http://www.backwash.com/content.php?id=59
    |    ` \/ ` |\_/|
    \    \____/ (^Y^)--.-,
     `'-.......-'w-w__((__)  ldb


subject: [Wikipedia-l] A question

body:
Simon Kissane wrote:
> (On a side note, how
> many people working on Wikipedia actually are employed
> by Bomis? There's Larry, Jimbo, and who else?).

I am the majority owner of Bomis.  Tim Shell is my partner, and we
have another partner who is (merely) an investor, not an active
participant in the company.

Larry works solely on Nupedia and Wikipedia.

You may also have had contact with Jason, Ted, and Toan, which, if you
include me as well, is our programming staff.

We currently have 10 employees.  In addition to me, Tim, Larry, Jason, Ted
and Toan, there is Terry (advertising sales), Christine (business
manager and my wife) in the business areas, and Rob and Jeremy in the
Bomis content management department.  The 10th employee is my brother
Johnny -- he only works part-time, doing programming tasks.

We have never had venture capital.  We didn't make millions in the
dot-com boom, but we didn't lose millions, either.  We never even
*saw* millions.  :-) We're making a decent living, and we're growing
the company in the old fashioned way, i.e. trying to turn a proft from
month to month, paying the bills, serving the customers.

As a side note, it is sort of funny to me when I read people
discussing "Bomis" in the abstract.  Ultimately, that just means me,
since I'm the final decisionmaking authority.  Bomis is not a big
abstract company, it's just the people that you know.  A down home mom
and pop dot-com.  :-)

--
*************************************************
*            http://www.wikipedia.com/          *
*        You can edit this page right now!      *
*************************************************


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Why Wikipedia needs linkbacks

body:
I am not going to pretend to have an edifying opinion about specific
*legal* issues.  I'll leave that to Jimbo and others, who have probably
studied this stuff a heck of a lot more than I have.  I want to get the
legal problems straightened out as soon as possible; the stress is very
unpleasant!

What I do want to comment on is why having links back to Wikipedia, in
general, is such a good thing.  You'll forgive me for waxing eloquent on,
well, one of my favorite subjects (the future of Wikipedia).

(By the way, I agree entirely that a text link back to Wikipedia would be
just fine.  We, Jimbo and I, haven't said so on the "requirements" page,
but that's because we're waiting for this issue to get properly resolved
so we can figure out what we *should* put up there.)

First, I have a goal.  This is my *professional* goal in life.  I want to
is to help create--probably together with Nupedia--the biggest and
highest-quality encyclopedia in history (eventually, anyway).  And one,
moreover, that is free, both libre and gratis.  This is a hugely ambitious
goal, and I never thought it was going to be easy.  I'm enormously
gratified that we've gotten this far.  When I was given this job (it
really was a great gift), I certainly didn't have *that* ambition.  I
never thought I'd work professionally on an encyclopedia.  But I've warmed
up to the task and by golly, I'm going to do my best to see it through.

Eventually, if we *focus* and stick to the task, Wikipedia will become a
truly useful resource.  I think the two main keys to our success are focus
and time.  As long as we resist travelling in the direction of Everything2
or Usenet, with their acceptance of low quality, bias, and internecine
warfare, and as long as we are given enough time, Wikipedia will grow from
15,000 not-too-bad-articles to 150,000 wow-these-are-actually-good-
encyclopedia-articles.  And then who knows what will happen.  It could
become something truly amazing.  It's definitely worth the old college
try, anyway.

Links back to us from websites that use our content will help make this
possible success more probable, particularly if they are links to specific
articles.  I want to make sure that people who want to contribute to the
Wikipedia and Nupedia projects, who see Wikipedia and Nupedia content on
other websites, are given the option of returning to the original source
of the content and working on it.

Consider this: the people who return to the source of our articles from
another website will be twice as impressed with Wikipedia precisely
*because* someone thought the content was good enough to use and put on
their website.  Think, as soon as particularly large, relatively
"prestigious" websites start using our content, the credibility of
Wikipedia is going to be given a solid boost.  At that time, we will want
to be able to invite people who are impressed by our content to come back
and work on it.

Can you imagine what this project could be like in ten years, if we stay
on track?  It really *could* beat out Britannica in terms of quality.
And *everybody and his grandmother* will be wanting to use Wikipedia
content.  We would be denying ourselves, I imagine, potentially
*thousands* of very qualified new contributors, if we didn't require links
back to Wikipedia.  I want those people to work on Wikipedia!  I
internally do a little dance whenever I see a new highly-qualified person
writing lots of articles for Wikipedia.  It makes me think, "By golly,
this really is *working*!  This is friggin' great!"

Anyway, that's why I feel strongly about this issue.

Larry


body:
Larry wrote:
[An impassioned and earnest defense of linkbacks]

I agree wholeheartedly.

The only thing is that the GFDL already requires linkbacks
in pretty much every situation.

We don't need to add an invariant section unless we want to
determine the look-and-feel of the linkback.

What we need to do, at a minimum, is follow the nuances of
the GFDL and comply with it, and give our recommendations
on how we believe (without giving official legal advice)
you (Joe Q. Other) can use Wikipedia content in compliance.

We should frame it as "All you have to do to use our
stuff is follow the GFDL. If you do these things [list]
we (Wikipedia/Bomis/etc.) will consider that you are
successfully following the GFDL. But the list is only
a set of recommendations and is not legal advice."

Then we can say "This HTML table is the recommended way
to link back to Wikipedia. If you put it on your site,
you will not only be complying with the GFDL but also
helping grow Wikipedia."

etc. etc.

But first steps is actually understanding the GFDL,
which requires a close analysis. I recommend
doing it.

On another note, I think it's bad policy to leave the
HTML table page up as the official policy while
a) it's being discussed, and
b) the Wikipedia principals have unofficially distanced
   themselves from the requirement.

--
The Cunctator
cunctator at kband.com www.kband.com
www.wikipedia.com/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/In_Memoriam


subject: [Wikipedia-l] LinkBacks?

body:
New person here,

Why is there a debate about using/ having linkbacks?

Also, why 2 sites, or 2 encyclopedias? My impression of them is Wikipedia
is the "everyman's" encyclopedia and Nupedia is for the university elite. I
looked at being a writer there but I really felt I wouldn't be welcome
since I'm just a college graduate of a two year program for corporate
communications.

Curiousity killed the cat, its a good thing I'm a dragon. ;)

Laura

          \\
     .-'```^```'-.       http://wz.com/business/ASCIIart.html
    /   (\ __ /)  \    http://www.backwash.com/content.php?id=59
    |    ` \/ ` |\_/|
    \    \____/ (^Y^)--.-,
     `'-.......-'w-w__((__)  ldb


body:
On the PHP script (you knew I'd mention that again, right? ;) every article
now has a link to its "printable version", currently without the logo and
the links, just the article text, with a single line below it, stating the
adress of both wikipedia and the article itself on the web.
As people will prefer that version for printout (no links and other
distracting stuff), the "paper linkback" should be solved by that.

IMHO, that linkback table is a little overkill for people who only want to
use a single article (or just a part of it). Thinking about it, how about a
little button to append at the end of the text (like the Nupedia "N") that
links back to wikipedia.com or to the article itself? Linking to
wikipedia.com might be better in the long run, because we can give a
one-line-source for the button that needs no change; and, people who follow
the link will see what we have to offer *in addition to* that specific
article (which they can find using search pretty easy).
Also, a small button wouldn't ruin layouts, is smaller than even a text
link, but can still be quite visible (how about a white W on black
background?)

Magnus


body:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Michel Clasquin wrote:
> Forget Britannica. This obsession with "beating" an obsolete concept is
> something we need to get rid of *fast*.

Why?  I want to beat Britannica in terms of quantity and quality, and I
think we can do it, given enough time.  I want this because I think
Britannica is a great encyclopedia, and if we actually do better, we will
have achieved something truly extraordinary.  It's a goal, stated in terms
of a known product.

> Instead, let's look at what is going on on WP right now. The people
> handling the 9-11 reporting are putting up pages for WTC victims.
>
> [...]
>
> This is something new, and I don't think any of us can really predict
> where it will go. But there is no need to obsess about Britannica. It was
> a great product in its time, but moving an 18th century concept to the web
> does not move the concept itself  into the 21st.

If I understand you correctly, your point is that we should not limit
ourselves by conceiving of our project as *just* following the traditional
model of an encyclopedia.  With that I fully agree.  I probably spend more
time "outside the box" than in it, and that probably goes for a lot of
people at work on the project.  There are many ways in which Wikipedia can
be expanded.  But I do believe that we should do everything Britannica has
done at least as well as Britannica has done it, and that is a fine goal
for us to have for now.  I also think that, in these early stages, it is
essential that we do focus on the task of building an encyclopedia, rather
than starting many new different kinds of projects that could enhance the
encyclopedia.  First we've got to have something really great to enhance,
I think.  (This isn't to say that the 9/11 pages are unwelcome, of course.
I'm glad people are working on them: they aren't in the way, they serve an
important public service, and they get more people hooked on Wikipedia!)

Larry


body:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, The Cunctator wrote:
> The only thing is that the GFDL already requires linkbacks
> in pretty much every situation.

It hasn't been established that linkbacks are required on every Wikipedia
article, though, and those are the sorts of linkbacks I think would help
Wikipedia most.

> We don't need to add an invariant section unless we want to
> determine the look-and-feel of the linkback.

We also need an invariant section, according to my understanding anyway,
if we want to have linkbacks to specific articles on every article,
inviting people to contribute.  That surely constitutes content of the
linkback, if not the look-and-feel.  As I intimated, we're not so
concerned about the look-and-feel of the linkback as the content.

> What we need to do, at a minimum, is follow the nuances of
> the GFDL and comply with it, and give our recommendations
> on how we believe (without giving official legal advice)
> you (Joe Q. Other) can use Wikipedia content in compliance.
>
> We should frame it as "All you have to do to use our
> stuff is follow the GFDL. If you do these things [list]
> we (Wikipedia/Bomis/etc.) will consider that you are
> successfully following the GFDL. But the list is only
> a set of recommendations and is not legal advice."

On first glance, this looks like a nonstarter, and potentially a disaster.
Unless it's quite clear we *require* linkbacks of the specified type,
there are bound to be all sorts of websites that will do the absolute bare
minimum in terms of directing potential contributors back to us.  That is
particularly true, as Jimbo said, for the likes of yahoo.com, msn.com, and
other biggies who will be only to happy to use our content without
contributing to the project.  That's precisely what I want to avoid.

> But first steps is actually understanding the GFDL,
> which requires a close analysis. I recommend
> doing it.

I've done enough of it to know that your interpretation is indeed a very
contentious interpretation, not a statement of fact.  But, as I said, I'm
letting Jimbo address questions of license interpretation.

Larry


from_name: Hannes Hirzel

body:
Thanks Magnus for this proposal. I would like to see a link to the FSF
GFDL included as well. If you include that in your proposition I would
second it.

Hannes Hirzel

On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Magnus Manske wrote:

> On the PHP script (you knew I'd mention that again, right? ;) every article
> now has a link to its "printable version", currently without the logo and
> the links, just the article text, with a single line below it, stating the
> adress of both wikipedia and the article itself on the web.
> As people will prefer that version for printout (no links and other
> distracting stuff), the "paper linkback" should be solved by that.
>
> IMHO, that linkback table is a little overkill for people who only want to
> use a single article (or just a part of it). Thinking about it, how about a
> little button to append at the end of the text (like the Nupedia "N") that
> links back to wikipedia.com or to the article itself? Linking to
> wikipedia.com might be better in the long run, because we can give a
> one-line-source for the button that needs no change; and, people who follow
> the link will see what we have to offer *in addition to* that specific
> article (which they can find using search pretty easy).
> Also, a small button wouldn't ruin layouts, is smaller than even a text
> link, but can still be quite visible (how about a white W on black
> background?)
>
> Magnus
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
On Tuesday 30 October 2001 03:54, you wrote:
> Can you imagine what this project could be like in ten years, if we stay
> on track?  It really *could* beat out Britannica in terms of quality.
> And *everybody and his grandmother* will be wanting to use Wikipedia
> content.

Forget Britannica. This obsession with "beating" an obsolete concept is
something we need to get rid of *fast*.

Instead, let's look at what is going on on WP right now. The people
handling the 9-11 reporting are putting up pages for WTC victims.

Think about that. In the past, to get your name into britannica you first
needed to get famous (or infamous), to do something extraordinary. To get
a page up on WP, all that is needed is for someone to think that you
should be remembered. Hypothetically, we could have a page for every one
of the six billion people on the planet. And one for every one of their
ancestors yea unto the seventh generation. [[At this point, Jimbo looks
nervously at his hard disk capacity]].

This is something new, and I don't think any of us can really predict
where it will go. But there is no need to obsess about Britannica. It was
a great product in its time, but moving an 18th century concept to the web
does not move the concept itself  into the 21st.

--
Michel Clasquin, D Litt et Phil (Unisa)
clasqm at mweb.co.za/unisa.ac.za   http://www.geocities.com/clasqm
This message was posted from a Microsoft-free PC

Help Microsoft stamp out software piracy: give Linux to a friend today..


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The threat of forking and why it is good

body:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Axel Boldt wrote:

> Let me preface this by saying that I don't like the concept of
> marriage: two people should stay together because they love each
> other, not because they feel bound to each other by the prospect of a
> messy divorce.

I'm getting married on December 1.

:-)

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] PHP script with tarball from www.wikipedia.com

body:
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20011030/981344ba/attachment.diff