subject: [WikiEN-l] Google indexes quickly!

body:
On 5/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Appeared on TV" is verifiable, so it's not patent nonsense. However,
> provided it's not a hoax, [[WP:HOLE]] applies.

Ok, going to the specific case ([[Georgia Ollier]]), I believe that a
young pianist (under 13) who had performed "numerous" (say, more than
5) times on one of the main TV channels would be notable. Note that
I'm defining some of the terms more clearly than they originally were.
I would expect that such a person would grab a google hit or two, but
I couldn't be certain - how would you find out via the web if someone
had ever been on a certain channel?

Steve


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request: linkable images

body:
On 5/15/06, ????????? ??????? <alexander.sigachov at gmail.com> wrote:
> Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Click

Thanks, but that makes things almost worse - the solution exists, and
the EN main page doesn't use it? I wonder how many thousands of times
a day people click on the big image expecting to go to the article,
and find themselves on the image page instead...

Thanks again,
Steve


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request: linkable images

body:
On 5/15/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems there was problems with not linking to the image page, so image
> license information was not shown and they were afraid of GFDL problems.
> The first idea i had to solve that was to show a text similar of the
> redirected pages. "You've been redirected through Image:Foo. [[See Image
> info]]"  On a reread Magnus Manske suggered so (see #18) but was forgotten.
> Would be any problem with that approach?

Not just GFDL. Most free content licenses require attribution to be provided.

We've previous received complaints from copyright holders when their
CC-BY-SA-2.0 content was copied from commons to en (for protection)
without attribution data.

Most licenses require us to provide adequate attribution in a manner
which is standard for our format.  It would be highly inadvisable to
make attribution on the main page less accessible (causing copyright
complaints from people over those) or more accessible (providing basis
for complaints elsewhere in the Wiki).

I believe the the Mangus Manske suggestion would make attribution data
far too obscured.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Request: linkable images

body:
On 5/15/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/15/06, ????????? ??????? <alexander.sigachov at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Click
>
> Thanks, but that makes things almost worse - the solution exists, and
> the EN main page doesn't use it? I wonder how many thousands of times
> a day people click on the big image expecting to go to the article,
> and find themselves on the image page instead...

Ok, I see that there is controversy surrounding this template, and for
me at least, it doesn't actually work (the examples link directly to
the image file, but with an ALT text of the intended link).

It would be good to have a real way of doing this, using plain old
HTML: , rather than apparently evil CSS.

Steve


from_name: Stanley W

subject: [Wikitech-l] automated welcome template

body:
Requested by bug 4914 (http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4914)

-----Original Message-----
From: wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org [mailto:wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of XaosFluX
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 07:18
To: Wikimedia developers
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] automated welcome template

One method would be to send it to them off-wiki, as part of the email
confirmation message.

xaosflux
----- Original Message -----
From: "Claudi Meneghin" <clamengh at yahoo.fr>
To: <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 2:18 PM
Subject: [Wikitech-l] automated welcome template

Hello,
  I am admin in Lombard wikipedia, which is still small.
  I would like to ask you if there is any way to send automatically a
welcome message to any new user who creates a new account.
  Many thanks.

  Sincerely yours,

  Claudi

---------------------------------
 Faites de Yahoo! votre page d'accueil sur le web pour retrouver directement
vos services pr?f?r?s : v?rifiez vos nouveaux mails, lancez vos recherches
et suivez l'actualit? en temps r?el. Cliquez ici.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Elliott F. Cable

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request: linkable images

body:
Oh, really not a bad idea! I think it should be added to the
contributors section thing - just take the uploader of the latest
version of the image, and add it to the current 'credits' section of
the footer.

On May 15, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Plyd wrote:

> Maybe the simplest idea would be to add, at the end of the history,
> the list of all pictures included in the article, with their info,
> licence, author etc.
> I don't think this could be a problem to make, and I find it quite
> logic to see all authors at the same place (Why pictures authors
> should be separated from text authors?)
>
> Plyd
>
> On 5/15/06, Elliott F. Cable <ecable at avxw.com> wrote:
>> I understand you're problem, and I understand you are not talking
>> about what I'm talking about. I am talking about free icons, the
>> ICONS that are used as, well, icons - look up icons on the very
>> 'wikipedia' we're discussing; they are meant to represent something.
>> When you click the 'harddrive' icon on you're computer, you expect to
>> open you're harddrive, not view information about  the harddrive
>> icon. I don't think that normal images should use this feature, or
>> perhaps even have the option - maybe we need a new Icon: namespace
>> just for free-domain-released icons like the crystal ones, that can
>> be substituted, and LINKED WITH. I don't care what license the icons
>> in the crystal pack have, and I'm sure no users do either - they just
>> want to get to their destination. I know you would get pissed if
>> you're beautiful picture or drawing of X were just passed on by,
>> without any attribution - fine. That sort of thing shouldn't be
>> linked ever for any reason that I see - I'm talking about images
>> BUILT for the PURPOSE of acting as an ICON representing and pointing
>> to something else. Right?
>>
>> On May 15, 2006, at 8:58 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/15/06, Elliott F. Cable <ecable at avxw.com> wrote:
>>>> Reply from me, I BELIEVE I have a O.K. solution to this that we can
>>>> all agree with.
>>>>
>>>> There are already a multitude of 'tags' that  go on the image tag,
>>>> such as making it a thumb, the pixel width, an alt tag, things like
>>>> that - why not add a 'link tag'? If you supply, say,
>>>> [[Image:Chicago_icon|48px|:Chicago]] - then the image
>>>> Image:Chicago_icon would appear, liked to [[Chicago]]. To parse it,
>>>> just catch any line starting with a colon (just prefix main-
>>>> namespace
>>>> links in this format with a single colon, as you do for
>>>> transclusion). Does anybody see the logic in this? And, for
>>>> links of
>>>> this format, do something similar to the redirect - put a notice
>>>> where redirects go that this image pointed you *here*, go *HERE*
>>>> instead for information about this image.
>>>
>>> I find the redirect notice notion highly distasteful. Any other site
>>> with a behavior like that would get a takedown notice from me
>>> explaining that the attribution was effectively hidden.
>>>
>>> A small 'image credit' or 'image details' link below (or in an
>>> adjustable position) would, however, be acceptable.
>>>
>>>> Also, perhaps put the attribution in the alt-tag for images so
>>>> linked
>>>> - we could make attribution a separate field on the upload screen -
>>>> that would also even help with the proposed upload-to-commons
>>>> thing!
>>>
>>> Alt text will goof up people using screen readers because they
>>> expect
>>> the alt text to be an alternative to the image (i.e. a
>>> description of
>>> the image) as per the HTML standards. In the past it has also been
>>> suggested that the longdesc attribute be set to the image page,
>>> but no
>>> browsers that I'm aware of make longdesc available in any case.
>>>
>>>> Even if not the attribution thing, I really think a link-to option
>>>> would really simplify things for users.
>>>
>>> Yes it would be useful. So lets figure out how to make something
>>> that
>>> everyone will find acceptable.
>>>
>>> For a little more fodder for the discussion is that several of the
>>> non-english wikipedias (fr for their portals icons and de for their
>>> featured article image) already fail to provide attribution for a
>>> few
>>> their free images on their main page.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>>> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


subject: [Wikitech-l] Request: linkable images

body:
On 5/15/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Could it be done in the ALT tag? It seems to me that there is a
> mismatch between those who want attribution to be readily available,
> and what people actually want when they click on the image. I think if
> people actually want to know who created the image, it's pretty easy
> to find out. But honestly, have you ever wondered who made an image
> that you clicked on somewhere on the web? Why would you care?

I do not believe an alt tag would be sufficient.

We frequently receive requests from commercial publishers for image
copyright information, even with how easily it is currently provided.

On *articles* I believe our behavior is ideal in almost all cases
because we do exactly what is expected: we provide an enlarged copy of
the image.  Most commercial news sites have the same behavior.

As far as I can tell, the problem is limited to the main page and
potentially the portals. Do you agree?

> So, it makes sense that the information is available to anyone who
> goes out of their way to look for it - but I don't see the value in
> forcing it down people's throats, when they're actually trying to get
> more information on a topic, and aren't per se interested in the
> image.

We can't require people to 'go out of their way to look for it'. We
need to provided attribution in roughly the same manner as we do for
the articles, and we need to make it reasonably accessible.

There are people who argue that our current behavior is insufficient
and whom want an inline byline.  But providing one runs the risk of
just creating a greater mess (article authors don't get inline
bylines, multiple editor images, and the requirements to provide
historical data on GFDLed images).  Hiding it further is just not
going to fly.

> Magnus' suggestion would actually be the most visible, especially if
> the attribution information was displayed directly on the page.
>
> Australia
> (You clicked on [Australian flag.svg], created by Jim Smith)
> Australia is a great country...
> etc. The real problem is that we don't actually have attribution data
> in a readily packaged form.

Should read 'one of the problems with that proposal'.  :)
What we currently do is fine, there is no great need to have an easily
machine readable copyright holder with our current framework.

> On many images, there are actually several
> authors (due to touch ups etc). And there's no obvious way of working
> out mechanically who actually "created" the image.

Many? Well.. certainly not a majority. I would assume that ones with
multiple editors are almost as common as ones with multiple copyright
holders ... which would put us back in the same boat of having a long
list of copyright holders.


from_name: Robert Rapplean

subject: [Wikitech-l] Watchlist/contributions enhancement (round #2)

body:
I agree. This would be very helpful.  Although it's possible to get an email
alert the first time someone changes something you're watching, it's a bit
cumbersome to use your inbox as a todolist for change checking.  This would
make things much easier.

On 5/15/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/15/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It seems a sort of per-user patrolling. I'd add to the list accept edits
> by
> > X users i select as auto-Okeyed
>
> Yeah, that would be cool - I can imagine it would be very handy for
> vandal patrols.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject:
[Wikitech-l] "Image Credits" proposal to allow images to link
	to pages

body:
Well, just a credits link - not a tab, a link in the footer. And the
special credits wouldn't only have image credits, so perhaps a link
called 'Article and image credits'.

I must be dumb, cause I don't see why so much importance and thought
is put into the relatively un-important images. I could stand a
wikipedia with 0 images at all just fine, I go there for the text -
yet there isn't all this hullabaloo over content copyrights ^^/

On May 15, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:

> On 5/15/06, Jens Frank <jf at mormo.org> wrote:
>> An "image credits"-link below an icon will look very odd. Especially
>> when there are 8 project icons next to each other, like at the
>> bottom of the en:Main_Page.
>
> If I understood the suggestion correctly, it is to essentially have
> something like
>
> [[Special:Credits/Galileo_Galilei]]
>
> which would then display all the image description pages of images
> used on [[Galileo Galilei]], and to embed a single link to this
> special page somewhere in the skin for all articles, e.g. an "image
> credits" tab.
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


list: wikien-l

from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

references:
<e42kmd$gvg$1@sea.gmane.org> <4464DA25.1000409@gmail.com>
	<e42m7p$n6n$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<2ur9621hthogurng719u6feqismlit9oun@4ax.com>
	<e43642$6jp$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<1d9b62hmhs4nijbdbjaoitoocdmkrrmiuo@4ax.com>
	<e44bmb$nct$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<6rjb62tg22oicfu3tqnlnkmps8bl6fsre9@4ax.com>
	<a1be7e0e0605141338r5453997awf35a46914800f5f6@mail.gmail.com>
	<q9ff62h80p1ao9pvgb8f2p5iqfcppbia3g@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605141818v5e8cd73ck62798d88cd2b7389@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 02:18:50 +0100, you wrote:

>> second, having them in template
>> space implies a degree of "official" sanction which is absent in many
>> cases.

>How? Loads of stuff in most namespaces that are not "officialy" sanctioned.

By being in the Template space, where official templates live.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

references:
<e42kmd$gvg$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<2ur9621hthogurng719u6feqismlit9oun@4ax.com>
	<e43642$6jp$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<1d9b62hmhs4nijbdbjaoitoocdmkrrmiuo@4ax.com>
	<e44bmb$nct$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<6rjb62tg22oicfu3tqnlnkmps8bl6fsre9@4ax.com>
	<a1be7e0e0605141338r5453997awf35a46914800f5f6@mail.gmail.com>
	<q9ff62h80p1ao9pvgb8f2p5iqfcppbia3g@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605141818v5e8cd73ck62798d88cd2b7389@mail.gmail.com>
	<vmig62thirki1qgp0pdefvrrmbvbhd8puk@4ax.com>

body:
On 5/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> By being in the Template space, where official templates live.
>
> Guy (JzG)

All two (template:office and Template:reset) of them. Somehow I doubt
people will make the assocation.

--
geni


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Chinese character rendering (was Re: Baidupedia (the
	downside to free content?))

body:
On 5/15/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Steve Bennett wrote:
> > > Err, just a little question: FireFox is rendering all the Chinese
> > > characters as ? - anyone know what I have to do to make them appear? I
> > > don't speak Chinese but it would be prettier...Arabic and Hebrew
> > > characters tend to show up fine. FireFox 1.5.0.3 French btw.
> > >
> >
> > What operating system? Which version?
>
> Oh, right - XP pro, SP 2, 5.1.2600 (French)

Try installing the [[Code2000]] font and setting it as the default
font for your web browser.  It's not the best-looking font in the
world, but it's got a very wide range of characters.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

references:
<2ur9621hthogurng719u6feqismlit9oun@4ax.com>
	<e43642$6jp$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<1d9b62hmhs4nijbdbjaoitoocdmkrrmiuo@4ax.com>
	<e44bmb$nct$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<6rjb62tg22oicfu3tqnlnkmps8bl6fsre9@4ax.com>
	<a1be7e0e0605141338r5453997awf35a46914800f5f6@mail.gmail.com>
	<q9ff62h80p1ao9pvgb8f2p5iqfcppbia3g@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605141818v5e8cd73ck62798d88cd2b7389@mail.gmail.com>
	<vmig62thirki1qgp0pdefvrrmbvbhd8puk@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605150236h1c868f1du63f46bc589b17e3a@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 10:36:51 +0100, you wrote:

>> By being in the Template space, where official templates live.

>All two (template:office and Template:reset) of them. Somehow I doubt
>people will make the assocation.

Funny, I could have sworn that there were more than two templates.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TPL there are quite a
few, all related to building an encyclopaedia (in a way that stating a
POV, often in very aggressive terms, is, by common consent, not).

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
Rob Church wrote:
> CSD T1 was decreed from above.

Not decreed, no.  Sannse wrote it, I believe.  It is just a simple
deduction from all our other policies.  Behaving in a divisive and
inflammatory way anywhere in Wikipedia is not welcome.

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
Timwi wrote:
> He needs to ask the community though. If a majority disagree with his
> decision, then he is de facto powerless. If he loses face with the
> community, but attempts to continue to exercise dictatorial force, forks
> will likely appear very soon. It is therefore in both his own and in
> Wikipedia's interests that he take a step back and not try to push this
> one through no matter what anyone thinks.

This is all rather charming and interesting, but totally out of context.
 I have exercised no "dictatorial force" and I always ask the community
about everything.  In the ongoing userbox wars, I think I have been
admirably constrained in my actions, even for me.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 5/13/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>>> I can't even find out where this CSD "was decreed from above" in the
>>> first place.
>>>
>>> I think I've been misled.
>>>
>> No, you haven't been misled.  It is an accepted part of policy,
>> confirmed by Jimbo Wales and the Arbitration Committee.
>
> So is Jimbo making secret decrees, or do you have evidence of this
> decree?  Either is possible IMO.

I have no idea why anyone is talking about decrees.  CSD T1 is normal
policy, created and confirmed in the normal way.  It is a very simple
natural extension of all our other policies which, despite our ongoing
tolerance of people trolling on the mailing list, *ahem*, have always
urged people in no uncertain terms not to be divisive and inflammatory.

--Jimbo

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>> It is pretty hard to overule arbcom. Possible but pretty hard.
>>
> Sure, admins tend to listen to the arb com.  That's very different
> from saying anyone has to listen to them.

Anthony, you are free to ignore the ArbCom.  You are also free to be banned.


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> And now that userboxes are banned, there's no more edit warring, wheel
> warring, or people leaving the project?

Anthony, this is just pure and simple trolling.  Since userboxes are NOT
banned, you are being incredibly dishonest here.

Anyone reading your messages in this thread would get the impression
that I unilaterally banned userboxes by secret decree, over ruling the
wishes of the community in a fit of autocratic tyranny.

This of course rather neatly ignores the facts of reality.

--Jimbo

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request: linkable images

body:
On 15/05/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>   This has probably been requested, but would it be possible to allow
> images to link to things other than the image file itself. Such a link
> is, helpful in featured pictures candidates, or when the image is
> being used as a thumbnail illustration in an article, but not helpful
> when the image is being used to illustrate a subtopic.
>
> Not sure how best to adapt the syntax, but maybe allowing something like this:
>
> [[Australia|[[Image:Australian flag.svg]]]]
>
> This would leave open the possibility of having an image be part of a
> string that is linked.

http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=539

Rob Church


from_name: Death Phoenix

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/15/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/15/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> > That's an understatement. The most potent criticism of Jimbo's
> > actions here is that he hasn't been decisive enough in simply
> > resolving the issue himself instead of waiting on the community.
>
> I have some sympathy with that view.  Being told "All your base are
> going to get belong to us some day, unless you destroy them first"
> does rather create ambiguity and uncertainty. But ultimately probably
> less damaging than "Userboxes must die today'.
>

"Userboxes must die today" would solve the userbox problem once and for all.
Unfortunately, there is a bit of collateral damage...


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

references:
<2ur9621hthogurng719u6feqismlit9oun@4ax.com>
	<1d9b62hmhs4nijbdbjaoitoocdmkrrmiuo@4ax.com>
	<e44bmb$nct$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<6rjb62tg22oicfu3tqnlnkmps8bl6fsre9@4ax.com>
	<a1be7e0e0605141338r5453997awf35a46914800f5f6@mail.gmail.com>
	<q9ff62h80p1ao9pvgb8f2p5iqfcppbia3g@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605141818v5e8cd73ck62798d88cd2b7389@mail.gmail.com>
	<vmig62thirki1qgp0pdefvrrmbvbhd8puk@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605150236h1c868f1du63f46bc589b17e3a@mail.gmail.com>
	<h0kg621g31gcmmoffj9u09hdno8ch9d1v9@4ax.com>

body:
On 5/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 10:36:51 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >> By being in the Template space, where official templates live.
>
> >All two (template:office and Template:reset) of them. Somehow I doubt
> >people will make the assocation.
>
> Funny, I could have sworn that there were more than two templates.
> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TPL there are quite a
> few, all related to building an encyclopaedia

That doens't make them official.
--
geni


from_name: Александр Сигачёв

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request: linkable images

body:
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Click

--
Alexander Sigachov


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Should Wikipedia make it clear to users that it is
 not censored for minors?

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

Prasad J stated for the record:

> On 15/05/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Their own problem.
>>
>>
>>Rob Church
>
>
> Be that as it may, don't we still have an ethical responsibility to do
> what we can to deter kids from coming across adult-meterial?

No.

- --
 Sean Barrett
 sean at epoptic.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEaM3wMAt1wyd9d+URAktBAKCGkKSUgNBLlh6q9BQrobs1oTwTDgCfckZm
DPf/6UdwKnnnH44jdFEBsxc=
=QrTF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Wikitech-l] Request: linkable images

body:
On 5/15/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> >We frequently receive requests from commercial publishers for image
> >copyright information, even with how easily it is currently provided.
> It's publicly available. They can ask if they are unsure or doesn't trust on
> wikis. What's the problem?

There is no problem, really. The point I was making is that we don't
want to make it any *less* accessable because it can be shown that the
people who want and need the information already have some difficulity
finding it. It's not exactly obvious that the image is clickable at
all. In any case, we can not hide the attribution information.

> >On *articles* I believe our behavior is ideal in almost all cases
>> because we do exactly what is expected: we provide an enlarged copy of
>> the image.  Most commercial news sites have the same behavior.
>
> We have a good system for images but we also wanna images for other things!
> Would be better a JS popup saying "What did you want? a) See the article b)
> See the image" ??

You're making an argument that makes sense on the main page and
possibly portals here, but not articles.  And a JS popup?? I hope
you're joking.

> >As far as I can tell, the problem is limited to the main page and
> potentially the portals. Do you agree?
>
> I disagree. It's only going to be used there but it could be used anywhere.
> We must be aware of that.

A feature that lets people hide the attribution page and as a result
violate our image licensing obligations can not be accepted, we must
be aware of that.

We need to know all the expected use cases so that we can produce a
solution which preserves our obligations, avoids causing attribution
problems elsewhere, and meets our needs.   So please detail where you
can see 'linkable images' being used outside of the main page.

> >We can't require people to 'go out of their way to look for it'. We
> >need to provided attribution in roughly the same manner as we do for
> >the articles, and we need to make it reasonably accessible.
> Is really people going to care? They often say "uploaded from english
> wikipedia X" and X is an article!! Having one or two steps won't be a
> difference for them. They're used to right-click and catch. Those who care
> will find it easy :)

I'm not following you.  If we fail to provide attribution in a clear,
consistent, and accessable manner then we have no right to distribute
the image at all.

>
> >Should read 'one of the problems with that proposal'.  :)
> >What we currently do is fine, there is no great need to have an easily
> >machine readable copyright holder with our current framework.
>
> That's not the system. I was talking about a link *to the real image page*.
> It's like articles when disambiguation is on "title (disambiguation)".
> It makes no sense showing "image by John", when John only added a
> transparent background of an image uploaded by Mike. And it doesn't make
> sens showing "image by Mike" because he uploaded it from X wikipedia. An on
> that wikipedia it was uploaded from Susan, who got it from the NASA webpage
> an so it's on the public domain :D

Our current system covers the situation you've proposed just fine.
The problem of lacking concise machine readable attribution is only a
problem for the proposal that makes the image look like a redirect.
We already have perfectly good attribution for other purposes: the
image page.

The reason I tried to split out the 'main/portal' page cases is
because another possible solution would be to create an image tag flag
which allowed you to specify a link target for the image but placed a
small 'image credits' link right below the image which takes you to
the image page.

We could achieve something like that by using an image caption, but
captions are realestate intensive.

I'm somewhat concerned that by doing so we would make image
attribution on the main/portal pages more accessable than on the rest
of the site.


from_name: Chad Perrin

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Is this a bug (strikethrough doesn't carry onto
	lists)

body:
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 06:43:08PM +0100, Rob Church wrote:
> On 15/05/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Seems like in this sort of text:
> >
> > <s>some struck out text
> > *a
> > *list
> > *that should
> > *also be
> > struck out </s>
>
> The parser sees the * and starts a new <ul> container. Since tags
> can't overlap in XHTML, the <s> container must be closed before the
> <ul>.

Tags can nest, though, so if the unordered list is entirely inside the
strikethrough, it should technically work.

--
Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your
hands and hopping when a rock or a club will do." - McCloctnick the Lucid


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Baidupedia (the downside to free content?)

body:
geni wrote:

>On 5/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Rob Church wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 12/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>And if that's the case, can we sue?  Please?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Good luck with that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The Foundation can't, because it doesn't own the copyright to the
>>>material. It's up to the copyright holder to enforce their licencing.
>>>
>>>
>>Could The Foundation sue /on behalf of/ those authors whose copyright
>>has been violated?
>>
>>
>INAL but my understanding is.
>Under US law they could if given permission to do so by the copyright
>holders (the situtation is compicated in the case of minors. The
>foundation would probably need their parents/gardians permissions).
>
I don't see that aspect as a problem.  Even one significant adult author
of an article should be enough.  GFDL does not even require that ALL
authors be listed.

Authors could designate the Foundation as their agent in such
circumstances, but IIRC it has refused that role in the past.  For most
individual authors to begin an action could be incredibly complicated,
and as long as we are dealing with only snippets of material they could
very well come up with a fair use argument.

The situation is perhaps the worst nightmare come true for those who
believe that access to information should be free.  Inadvertent
violations of traditional copyrights by advocates of free material are
easily corrected.  Free material needs to be defended if it is to remain
free.  This is why I have always maintained that public domain is not
ownership by no-one but ownership by every one; I see this as a subtle
but important decision.  Who is responsible for protecting the public
domain, and the broad range of free licences?  Who is in a practical,
rather than merely thoretical, position to do anything about the
problem?  Have any of these licences been tested anywhere in the courts?

I do not want to believe that GFDL including its permissions to use
material for commercial purposes, was nothing but a big unconscionable
con job designed to get people to work and contribute for nothing.

>I don't know how chinese copyright law works and international
>copyright law tends to get very complex very fast.
>
>
Answers.com is an American company.  If Baidu is listed on nasdaq that
may be enough for US jurisdiction and US copyright law to apply.  If the
individual authors are left to their own devices than individual authors
should start peppering these unrepentant violators with large quantities
of DMCA takedown orders.  If you are a significant author in 1,000
articles you could send them 1,000 takedown orders.  This could be more
easily done by US Wikipedians because of their easier access to US
courts in every judicial district if it ever gets to that.  Proving
damages would be difficult, but accepting the minimum statutory penalty
of $200 for each separate violation could have an interesting effect.

Ec


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Yury Tarasievich

subject: [Wikipedia-l]  Conflict re:Belarusan WP

body:
Hi folks,

Let me clarify things a bit. Please be patient, this is going to be
somewhat longish text. And I'll keep words like "nationalists" and
"radicals" in quotes to avoid negative connotation.

I've joined the discussion in Meta which Marc mentioned and tried to
introduce bit of  constructive approach. I didn't succeed to elicit
any definite response from Be: admin participating there (on lines of
yes/no and will be/won't be amended).

Then I went to Be: community discussion and proposed several
corrections of Be: rules which would amend existing state of affairs
and allow to keep one Belarusian community. Living where we,
Belarusians, live, we've had pretty turbulent history and several
cultural splits in it, and each was a disaster. Culturally we are
extremely unwell now, indeed, and the last thing I'd want to see would
be split of Be: into two separate communities.

However, there's a problem here. Since the end of 1980-s, we have a
"radical" trend in our cultural revival movement, promoting not only
revival of Belarusian language, but also restoration of some
orthography rules cancelled by 1933 reform on reasons of their.

The post-1933 (1959, actually) standard orthography is what is taught
in schools and what only "radicals" call "narkamauka" (BTW, this is
pejorative term). What "radicals" (part of "nationalist" community)
since the end of 1980-s have been voluntarily using and what they call
affectionately "tarashkievitsa" or, since ca.1994, "classical", is
different combinations of *standard* rules and *some* of the reverted
rules, to the taste of each editor. In 2005, 4-person workgroup
supervised by V.Viachorka published the book "normalising" those
combinations (and diverting even further from standard orthography,
e.g., introducing addditional letter into alphabet). "Latsinka" is a
non-issue, as under this name "sits" one of the "ad hoc" methods of
Latin rendering of Belarusian text, adopted by publishers of
Belarusian texts in particular periods, and under certain political
circumstances.

/* Follows the paragraph where some statements may or may not be verifiable */
Now, this alternative orthography (you actually CAN speak it -- it
changes pronounciation rules for some words) has very strong "flavour"
of "Polish-ness" and "obsoleteness" to most of people. Folks speaking
altenative frequently tend to use more words and concepts freshly
borrowed from Polish language. The community supporting alternative
orthography isn't numerous. They like to point to their alleged
numeral superiority in internet but I could contend that after seeing
those "internet community", you've pretty much seen all of supporters
of alternative orthography.

/* Follows the paragraph where some statements may or may not be
verifiable */Folks promoting those alternative orthographies are, on
average, rather aggressive and outspoken against alleged "communism"
and "rusification" which in their opinion standard orthography somehow
imposes on mind of its users. They tend to regard promotion of
alternative ("clasic") orthography as kind of a mission, and
frequently try to "substitute" alternative for standard and/or to put
alter.o. in role of the only "really used", especially when
"foreigners are watching" (as those may have no real insight). They
tend to present existence of common mandatory minimum knowledge of
standard Belarusian in school as "insubstantial" and existence of
subculture preferring alter.o. as "decisive" argument.

/* Follows the paragraph where some statements may or may not be verifiable */
So, person which doesn't buy into "radical" way, finds him-/her-self
under ideological fire from two directions, one from exponents of
Russian-language culture claiming their superiority ("Belarusian is
weak and uninteresting and has no future"), another from "radicals"
who *also* claim superiority ("Belarusian written in standard
orthography is weak and uninteresting and has no future").

Now where does that the average person wanting to contribute? Coming
to Be: WP one is immediately confronted with rules written only in
alter.o., categories presented only and exclusively in alter.o.,
clauses containing politically biased names for orthographies
("classical" and "narkamauka", that is, recognised only by one side)
and stating prederrability of alter.o. over standard, lots of articles
in alter.o. (which is NOT a problem per se) with clauses requiring ot
obtain permission from author (! FDL?) if one wants to enter info in
"different" orthography (which IS a problem).

So, in Be: talk I've proposed following amendments:

1. Remove politically biased names for orthographies, put standard on
"preferred" position. I believe I've proposed the driest of possible
defintions, in form of "standard ("school")" and "proposed by
V.Viachorka (with reference to 2005 book of his workgroup)". I've even
tried to appease "alternatives" with slightly diminutive "school"
explanation.
Admin refuses and insists on "official" (which, in post-Soviet
culture, bears strong connotation of "not-common", "non-mandatory")
and "classical".

2. Remove clause requiring obtaining permission if one wants to enter
info in "different" orthography, allow free editing like in FDL, with
safety catch *asking* for keeping *corrections* in same orthography.
Admin refuses, supposedly because of some hypothetical vandals waiting
only for removal of that clause. I believe the clause breaches the FDL
rules.

3. Everything in framework (categories) must exist also in standard
orthography. And if not technically possible, only in standard.
Admin refuses, points to technical impossibility of having redirect of
categories (bug 3311?). Categories remain exclusively in alter.o.,
admin rewrites all standard o. entries (example: A.Gouk). I understand
this breaches the general WP rules.

4. Names of articles and contents of rules must exist also in standard
orthography. This seems to be accepted with no noticeable objections
on technical or other grounds.

Now, I'd like to keep ONE Be: community, and I believe aforementioned
amendments would make participation acceptable for all interested
(except of political hard-liners, possibly). I do NOT propose or
encourage rewriting articles for the sake of "changing the
orthography". Now, folks, as your attention was already drawn to the
issue, I guess we could benefit from some third party mediation.
Thanks!

-regards


subject:
[WikiEN-l] BBC radio refer listeners to the wikipedia entry on
 the doosra

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

>On 13 May 2006 at 10:44, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Guettarda wrote:
>>
>>
>>>All Americans (and
>>>other similarly deprived poor souls) should have cricket forced onto them.
>>>
>>>
>>I'll thank you not to force-feed me cricket. We have plenty already, and
>>they can be interesting to listen to (unless you're trying to go to
>>sleep), but I have no interest in eating them.
>>
>>
>Then you'd better not become a contestant on a reality TV series;
>various shows (Fear Factor, Survivor, The Amazing Race) have at times
>compelled its contestants to eat crickets or similarly gross things.
>
In some cultures these grosseries are bought in the markets as normal
food or even as delicacies. :-)

Ec


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject:
[Wikitech-l] "Image Credits" proposal to allow images to link to
	pages

body:
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 06:27:18PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Heh, ok, so people who are looking to follow the link to another
> article click and get the wrong behaviour. People actually looking for
> the image info don't think of clicking. Everyone loses!
>
> Would it be possible, on each and every page, to have a "Image
> credits" link which would provide links to the attribution page of
> every image used on that page, no matter how it was used? Then
> professionals would know to always click on that same "Image credits"
> link placed in the bottom corner, for example.

I've been following this thread with some interest, both as a
photographer (who has actually contributed original work to WP) and as
a usability guy, who understands that icons should behave the way icons
*behave*...

and I like Steve's suggestion here a *lot*; I think it's probably the
best balance between people getting credit for their work, and websites
working as websites are -- these days -- expected to work.

I've unthreaded this, so this proposal doesn't get lost in the noise.

Comments, all?

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

references:
<e44bmb$nct$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<6rjb62tg22oicfu3tqnlnkmps8bl6fsre9@4ax.com>
	<a1be7e0e0605141338r5453997awf35a46914800f5f6@mail.gmail.com>
	<q9ff62h80p1ao9pvgb8f2p5iqfcppbia3g@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605141818v5e8cd73ck62798d88cd2b7389@mail.gmail.com>
	<vmig62thirki1qgp0pdefvrrmbvbhd8puk@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605150236h1c868f1du63f46bc589b17e3a@mail.gmail.com>
	<h0kg621g31gcmmoffj9u09hdno8ch9d1v9@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605150344i3a45e5a8x792e5edad60e27df@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 11:44:28 +0100, you wrote:

>That doens't make them official.

It implies a degree of endorsement.  I don't see any problem with
emphasising the difference between those things which are encouraged
as helping the building of an encyclopaedia, from those which are
tolerated  but recognised as not doing so, and in some cases actively
impeding the process.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [Wikitech-l] Request: linkable images

body:
On 5/15/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ahem, everyone, including us, violates our licenses left, right and centre.

A point here since it looks like we're in agreement otherwise..

We're not talking about "our licenses" we're talking about the
licenses of the photographers whos work we distribute. The vast
majority of the images on wikipedia (well, en at least) were not
created by a Wikipedia editor.

I've had 100% success with takedown notices of sites infringing on my
image copyrights with little difficulty.  ... Even if that weren't the
case, it still wouldn't excuse Wikipedia from doing something which is
potentially in violation.

That was mostly an aside, it seems that we agree some sort of small
credits link (I think I'd prefer 'image details' because another
common question is 'can I get a larger version of the image on foo')
is conceptually acceptable.  Has anyone mocked this up yet and
considered all the other impacts (skin compatibility, browser
compatibility, accessability by the disabled)?


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

references:
<e44bmb$nct$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<6rjb62tg22oicfu3tqnlnkmps8bl6fsre9@4ax.com>
	<a1be7e0e0605141338r5453997awf35a46914800f5f6@mail.gmail.com>
	<q9ff62h80p1ao9pvgb8f2p5iqfcppbia3g@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605141818v5e8cd73ck62798d88cd2b7389@mail.gmail.com>
	<vmig62thirki1qgp0pdefvrrmbvbhd8puk@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605150236h1c868f1du63f46bc589b17e3a@mail.gmail.com>
	<h0kg621g31gcmmoffj9u09hdno8ch9d1v9@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605150344i3a45e5a8x792e5edad60e27df@mail.gmail.com>
	<aipg62ph1tpq5afkhc1k8g30irl3pbq3h6@4ax.com>

body:
On 5/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 11:44:28 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >That doens't make them official.
>
> It implies a degree of endorsement.

To who?

> I don't see any problem with
> emphasising the difference between those things which are encouraged
> as helping the building of an encyclopaedia, from those which are
> tolerated  but recognised as not doing so,

I don't see any reason to do so. I don't see how any of your proposal
would do that.

> and in some cases actively impeding the process.

Sorry are we talking about AFD, admins, Jimbo, process, IAR, 1-click
answers, deletionists, inclusionists, userboxes or methodists here?
Some accusions get thrown about so much I generaly ignore them

--
geni


body:
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 09:16:46PM +0300, Rotem Liss wrote:
> As far as I understand, a block element (<ul>) cannot be included in an
> inline element (<s>).

You can always redefine block elements as inline elements, and vice
versa, though.  Of course, I'm not entirely sure that's relevant to this
discussion.

--
Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The measure on a man's real character is what he would do
if he knew he would never be found out." - Thomas McCauley


subject: [Wikitech-l] Request: linkable images

body:
On 5/15/06, Elliott F. Cable <ecable at avxw.com> wrote:
> Reply from me, I BELIEVE I have a O.K. solution to this that we can
> all agree with.
>
> There are already a multitude of 'tags' that  go on the image tag,
> such as making it a thumb, the pixel width, an alt tag, things like
> that - why not add a 'link tag'? If you supply, say,
> [[Image:Chicago_icon|48px|:Chicago]] - then the image
> Image:Chicago_icon would appear, liked to [[Chicago]]. To parse it,
> just catch any line starting with a colon (just prefix main-namespace
> links in this format with a single colon, as you do for
> transclusion). Does anybody see the logic in this? And, for links of
> this format, do something similar to the redirect - put a notice
> where redirects go that this image pointed you *here*, go *HERE*
> instead for information about this image.

I find the redirect notice notion highly distasteful. Any other site
with a behavior like that would get a takedown notice from me
explaining that the attribution was effectively hidden.

A small 'image credit' or 'image details' link below (or in an
adjustable position) would, however, be acceptable.

> Also, perhaps put the attribution in the alt-tag for images so linked
> - we could make attribution a separate field on the upload screen -
> that would also even help with the proposed upload-to-commons thing!

Alt text will goof up people using screen readers because they expect
the alt text to be an alternative to the image (i.e. a description of
the image) as per the HTML standards. In the past it has also been
suggested that the longdesc attribute be set to the image page, but no
browsers that I'm aware of make longdesc available in any case.

> Even if not the attribution thing, I really think a link-to option
> would really simplify things for users.

Yes it would be useful. So lets figure out how to make something that
everyone will find acceptable.

For a little more fodder for the discussion is that several of the
non-english wikipedias (fr for their portals icons and de for their
featured article image) already fail to provide attribution for a few
their free images on their main page.


subject: [WikiEN-l] 1-Click Answers tool finally released

body:
On 5/15/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 5/15/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sorry are we talking about AFD, admins, Jimbo, process, IAR, 1-click
> > answers, [....]
>
> Speaking of which, I see that was finally released:
> http://wikipedia.answers.com/main/download_answers_wikipedia.jsp
>
> Taking a look at one of the results, apparently Answers Corporation
> claims copyright on the page, and doesn't acknowledge any of the
> authors.  Go figure.
>
> Anthony

Happened a while back (you can find the lastest round of the argument
at [[WP:TOOLS]] I think people are complaining about paintent issues
as well.
--
geni


subject: [Wikitech-l] Request: linkable images

body:
On 15/05/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks. I gather from that the functionality to do this has been
> around since 2004. It was reinvented in February 2005. Any idea why it
> didn't make the main branch?

Possibly (if there's a patch I haven't looked) it wasn't sufficiently
well coded?

Rob Church


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

references:
<e44bmb$nct$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<a1be7e0e0605141338r5453997awf35a46914800f5f6@mail.gmail.com>
	<q9ff62h80p1ao9pvgb8f2p5iqfcppbia3g@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605141818v5e8cd73ck62798d88cd2b7389@mail.gmail.com>
	<vmig62thirki1qgp0pdefvrrmbvbhd8puk@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605150236h1c868f1du63f46bc589b17e3a@mail.gmail.com>
	<h0kg621g31gcmmoffj9u09hdno8ch9d1v9@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605150344i3a45e5a8x792e5edad60e27df@mail.gmail.com>
	<aipg62ph1tpq5afkhc1k8g30irl3pbq3h6@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605150443g3facb672w4f35d953a7dfee1f@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 15/05/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 May 2006 11:44:28 +0100, you wrote:
> >
> > >That doens't make them official.
> >
> > It implies a degree of endorsement.
>
> To who?

To readers and new editors, who don't know the ropes. Let's not forget that.

Rob Church


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

references:
<e44bmb$nct$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<q9ff62h80p1ao9pvgb8f2p5iqfcppbia3g@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605141818v5e8cd73ck62798d88cd2b7389@mail.gmail.com>
	<vmig62thirki1qgp0pdefvrrmbvbhd8puk@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605150236h1c868f1du63f46bc589b17e3a@mail.gmail.com>
	<h0kg621g31gcmmoffj9u09hdno8ch9d1v9@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605150344i3a45e5a8x792e5edad60e27df@mail.gmail.com>
	<aipg62ph1tpq5afkhc1k8g30irl3pbq3h6@4ax.com>
	<f80608430605150443g3facb672w4f35d953a7dfee1f@mail.gmail.com>
	<e92136380605150518n66406632hbda6864b01d87c2a@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 5/15/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/05/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 15 May 2006 11:44:28 +0100, you wrote:
> > >
> > > >That doens't make them official.
> > >
> > > It implies a degree of endorsement.
> >
> > To who?
>
> To readers and new editors, who don't know the ropes. Let's not forget that.

How do readers know about namespaces?

--
geni


from_name: Prasad J

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unfair block

body:
Vannakam Anwar,
Why would you assume that Nichalp and other Indian Wikipedians would
gang up on you? Even though many Indians (even Hindus like me) do not
support Hindutva, perhaps branding them "fascists" is a rather hasty
step. Also, I do not thik you need to worry (even if you are an Indian
citizen) about being charged with treason for exercising your right to
free speech by expressing your views on Kashmir. However, it may
generally cause ill-will between you and (other) Indian Wikipedians
(seeing as how the Kashmiri "freedom fighters" keep bombing us and
all), so it may be best to refrain from making such comments. And
since you seem to be Tamil I'm assuming that you are an Indian? If
that is the case than what does Nichalp's nationality or religion (he
is,according to his userpage a Christian and hence most likely neutral
about the Hindutva issue) have to do with this?
                                                               Regards


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Should Wikipedia make it clear to users that it is
	not censored for minors?

body:
On 5/14/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia has followed a policy whereby it's content is not censored
> for children. Having said that would it be useful to put a
> warning/advisory on the website to make it clear to users that though
> it is legal for them to enter the site, they should be aware that
> Wikipedia's content is not censored for minors and the latter may come
> across some sexual or other adult material so it is advisable for them
> to be careful what they view?

Perhaps Wikipedia needs something like the entry page on
http://www.bigtits.com ?

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: maru dubshinki

subject: [WikiEN-l] GFDL lawsuits - who can sue?

body:
On 5/15/06, Joe Anderson <computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Personally, I would be unwilling to waive all my copyright's at once to the
> Foundation, but one or two edits I would.
> --
> Joe Anderson
>
> [[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.

I'm kinda curious; why would it bother you to assign all of your
copyright but not some of it to the Foundation? I mean, you'll already
essentially have given up hope of profitting of it by GFDL licensing
it, and if you cross-license, you typically give up even more. And
it's unlikely the Foundation will go evil, but even so, your original
edits will still be safe?

What I'm trying to say is I don't really see any situation in which
giving them or not to the Foundation matters to an editor, and I can
see some situations in which giving it would help.

~maru


subject: [WikiEN-l] Tearing down the Chinese Firewall

body:
Prasad J wrote:

>Ray,
>You cannot compare Gandhiji's Civil Disobedience Movement (a part of
>which was producing salt illegally) with the present scenarion,
>because the Chinese do not plan (since that would be stupidity) to
>openly admit to their Government that they are breaking this law.
>Under the Civil Disobedience Movement, Gandhiji and his followers
>openly broke the law, after announcing to the British that they would
>be doing so . It was not done in a secretive way, which is the manner
>in which the Chinese would evade the firewall.
>
But then the Chinese goverment also acts secretly, and looking for
explanations and understanding is akin to approaching Kafka's castle.
Has there been a clear decree that downloading Wikipedia in China is
illegal?  Perhaps our Chinese colleagues would admit that their actions
were a breach of the law if the law were clearly stated.  Which side is
acting more sercretively?

>Again, if two
>homosexuals in India defied the Indian Penal Code, they would not be
>treated as if they were fighting for a just cause (or following
>Gandhian principles)-infact they would be jailed. This is because
>Indian society is still against the concept of gays.So does that mean
>that the U.N can intervene? No. Because mass public opinion is against
>homosexuals-although this opinion may not be all that justified. So
>again, you cannot compare this issue with the one in China (where, I'm
>assuming most oppose the firewall)since the majority of Indians do
>support this law-even though the gays may term it a violation of their
>human rights.
>
Rights of homosexuals in India would not have crossed my imagination if
you had not raised the issue.  Our own former prime minister once said
that "the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."  The
activities of two adult consenting individuals is a private act; if they
choose to make a public display of their homosexuality that may be
another matter.  Following the Gandhian principle of announcing that
they are breaking the law would have the paradoxical effect of turning a
private act into a public matter.  Justifying the restriction of gay
rights on the basis of majority opinion is an imposition of the Tyranny
of the Majority.

It's conceivable that the UN could make pronouncements on this, but it
would not be likely to consider the issue important enough for
intervention even in a country much smaller than India.  I rather
suspect that the vast majority of Chinese citizens are unaware of what
firewalls are.

Ec


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] GFDL lawsuits - who can sue?

body:
It seems to me that the most plausible place in which someone could
use the GFDL in suing is if you re-used improperly re-used material.

For example: Company X downloads GFDL material from Wikipedia but does
not correctly comply with the terms of the GFDL. Company Y knows
Company X's material is GFDL and re-uses it themselves. Company X sues
Company Y; Company Y pulls out the GFDL, proves the material was
originally licensed under it, counter-sues Company X for having
claimed they had copyright control over something they they did not.

Of course, Wikipedia/media gets nothing out of this.

Other than that, though, unless we are talking about a class-action
suit (all Wikipedians who had worked on a given article), I don't know
how you'd ever coordinate something like this...

FF

On 5/15/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 5/15/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Rob Church wrote:
> > > > On 12/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > >>> And if that's the case, can we sue?  Please?
> > > >>>
> > > >> Good luck with that.
> > > >
> > > > The Foundation can't, because it doesn't own the copyright to the
> > > > material. It's up to the copyright holder to enforce their licencing.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Could The Foundation sue /on behalf of/ those authors whose copyright
> > > has been violated?
> >
> > INAL but my understanding is.
> > Under US law they could if given permission to do so by the copyright
> > holders (the situtation is compicated in the case of minors. The
> > foundation would probably need their parents/gardians permissions).
> >
> At the very least it would certainly be possible for anyone who can
> enter into a contract to assign their copyright to the foundation.
>
> How many people you need permission from depends if you consider
> Wikipedia to be a work of joint ownership or not (the other
> alternative is that each work is independently created as a derivative
> of the previous).  I tend to believe it would be considered a joint
> work, as it makes the application of the GFDL a lot cleaner.
> Actually, I think the cleanest interpretation would be that Wikipedia
> is a collection of joint works, where in some cases those works
> consist of single articles and in other cases they stretch out more
> widely (due to copy/paste/etc).  But I don't really buy into the
> interpretation that each version of each article is independently
> created under permission of the GFDL, in part because the GFDL simply
> isn't being followed.
>
> Anyway, with a joint work all joint copyright owners (anyone who has
> contributed copyrighted material) has "an equal right to register and
> enforce the copyright".
> [http://www.techtransfer.fsu.edu/jointownership.html]
>
> > I don't know how chinese copyright law works and international
> > copyright law tends to get very complex very fast.
>
> Especially when the company in question is working directly with the
> government in question.  Hence, "good luck with that".
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Jonathan Daugherty

subject:
[Wikitech-l] [ANN] PHP OpenID 1.1.0 patch for MediaWiki 1.5.8
	released

body:
JanRain, Inc. is pleased to announce the release of a patch to include OpenID
support in MediaWiki 1.5.8.  This patch incorporates support using the PHP
OpenID library, release 1.1.0 or later.  The PHP OpenID 1.1.0 library supports
the Simple Registration OpenID extension.  Users can use Simple Registration
data to update their MediaWiki accounts.

  Patches for 1.5.8 using PHP OpenID 1.0 and 1.1.0:
  http://www.openidenabled.com/software/mediawiki/mediawiki-openid-patch

  Simple Registration:
  http://www.openidenabled.com/openid/simple-registration-extension/

Enjoy!

--
  Jonathan Daugherty
  JanRain, Inc.


from_name: Berto

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Conflict re:Belarusan WP

body:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yury Tarasievich" <yury.tarasievich at gmail.com>
>Now, folks, as your attention was already drawn to the
> issue, I guess we could benefit from some third party mediation.

I would support what you propose in BE: from inside the community, I am more
doubtful as per an external intervention. Not meaning that I totally oppose
an external intervention, I am just asking myself what will be impact of it
on such a radicalised situation.

I agree with you that the best way to definitely kill a weak culture is to
break it in pieces. Most people sart to find the language as "vulgar" and to
attach a sort of moral judgment to it (like: those who speak it never will
have a good social position, etc). At this point the community of people
defending the language restricts to those who have a somewhat "political"
vested interest in it, and obviously different sectarian "churches" are
born, with the attached implication of even stronger moral-like judgments
attached to this or that way to speak/write the language. And yes, this is a
deadly grip. So I understand and support your concern to keep all the
language flavours toghether. I guess this should be the goal for any
intervention.

The problem is in that if we get directly involved in the BE: internal
affairs this is going to be read as a political victory of one side on
another. My proposition hence regards ONLY the formal side of the
intervention. I propose not to start a judgement on BE itself, but to
produce a general mandatory policy for a wider set of such cases. That is,
the situation IMHO does require a third party intervention, but it must be
made in the softer possible way. Policies should ensure that wikis are not
used as a means of political propaganda from EITHER side. The aim of a wiki
is to ensure an instrument for speakers of a language to work with it, and
nothing else.

B?rto


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
geni wrote:
> I wasn't makeing a dirrect comparision. Just knocking out a poorly
> framed argument.

?  Bringing up a completely irrlevant and rather obvious red herring
does nothing to knock out the fact that our community has repeatedly and
constantly rejected the notion that behaving in a divisive and
inflammatory fashion is bad.


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request: linkable images

body:
Thanks. I gather from that the functionality to do this has been
around since 2004. It was reinvented in February 2005. Any idea why it
didn't make the main branch?

Steve

On 5/15/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=539


body:
On 5/15/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> Speaking of which, I see that was finally released:
> http://wikipedia.answers.com/main/download_answers_wikipedia.jsp
>
> Taking a look at one of the results, apparently Answers Corporation
> claims copyright on the page, and doesn't acknowledge any of the
> authors.  Go figure.

They've also implemented a nifty new feature. Apparently the tool
gives "accurate" facts.

Steve


body:
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 08:47:14PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 5/15/06, Elliott F. Cable <ecable at avxw.com> wrote:
> > Well, just a credits link - not a tab, a link in the footer. And the
> > special credits wouldn't only have image credits, so perhaps a link
> > called 'Article and image credits'.
> >
> > I must be dumb, cause I don't see why so much importance and thought
> > is put into the relatively un-important images. I could stand a
> > wikipedia with 0 images at all just fine, I go there for the text -
> > yet there isn't all this hullabaloo over content copyrights ^^/
>
> Actually a credits tab would make an awful lot of sense from a GFDL
> compliance point of view. It would provide full credits of text (top 5
> contributors, plus list of others) and images (all contributors with
> licence details for each image).

Keep optimizing, Steve; I like this even better.  ;-)

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?


from_name: Ben Garney

body:
On 5/15/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Please, remember that wiki has a patrolling feature, to mark changes as
> 'patrolled' or not. It's simply not enabled on (most) wikimedia projects.

Is this currently functional? In theory I have it enabled on my MW instance,
but all I see are occasional, intermittent patrol links that don't seem to
obey any obvious set of rules, or do much of anything... :)

--
Ben Garney
Torque Technologies Director
GarageGames.Com, Inc.


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] automated welcome template

body:
"Ray Saintonge" wrote:
> The other thing to remember is that you are welcoming people, not
> computers.  The personal touch helps to make people feel involved.
> Commenting in a friendly and positive way about something in one of
> their edits goes a lot further than an automated list of links to rules.
>
> Ec

Yes, i think it's a bit cold being received by "Automated bot". It could be
done.. if it's not too obvious the mechanical being of the welcomer ;)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Request: linkable images

body:
 On 15/05/06, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Thanks. I gather from that the functionality to do this has been
> around since 2004. It was reinvented in February 2005. Any idea why it
> didn't make the main branch?

It seems there was problems with not linking to the image page, so image
license information was not shown and they were afraid of GFDL problems.
The first idea i had to solve that was to show a text similar of the
redirected pages. "You've been redirected through Image:Foo. [[See Image
info]]"  On a reread Magnus Manske suggered so (see #18) but was forgotten.
Would be any problem with that approach?

Comment #18 talks about 'images with external (or interwiki) targets' but
we're not supposed of having to support it, are we? Redirect doesn't work
with interwiki targets, neither.

Ok, that's not really an argument for not supporting it. A possible trick to
have interwiki-redirects within wikis. Use
http://xx.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ArticlePage&redirectedfrom=en:Image:Article_Icon.png
So a referer can be set from the URL. It even allows setting the referer
from links from external webs. A cleaner url would be
http://xx.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArticlePage?redirectedfrom=en:Image:Article_Icon.png.

Note that'd like having
http://xx.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArticlePage?printable=yes on the 'Printable
version' link, not the dirty one (it already works). When you print the
article, it usually gets the URL on the top/bottom of the page, and users
would 'get' easier if we showed the easy one.

Platonides


from_name: Joe Anderson

subject: [WikiEN-l] GFDL lawsuits - who can sue?

body:
Personally, I would be unwilling to waive all my copyright's at once to the
Foundation, but one or two edits I would.

On 5/15/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 5/15/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Rob Church wrote:
> > > > On 12/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > >>> And if that's the case, can we sue?  Please?
> > > >>>
> > > >> Good luck with that.
> > > >
> > > > The Foundation can't, because it doesn't own the copyright to the
> > > > material. It's up to the copyright holder to enforce their
> licencing.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Could The Foundation sue /on behalf of/ those authors whose copyright
> > > has been violated?
> >
> > INAL but my understanding is.
> > Under US law they could if given permission to do so by the copyright
> > holders (the situtation is compicated in the case of minors. The
> > foundation would probably need their parents/gardians permissions).
> >
> At the very least it would certainly be possible for anyone who can
> enter into a contract to assign their copyright to the foundation.
>
> How many people you need permission from depends if you consider
> Wikipedia to be a work of joint ownership or not (the other
> alternative is that each work is independently created as a derivative
> of the previous).  I tend to believe it would be considered a joint
> work, as it makes the application of the GFDL a lot cleaner.
> Actually, I think the cleanest interpretation would be that Wikipedia
> is a collection of joint works, where in some cases those works
> consist of single articles and in other cases they stretch out more
> widely (due to copy/paste/etc).  But I don't really buy into the
> interpretation that each version of each article is independently
> created under permission of the GFDL, in part because the GFDL simply
> isn't being followed.
>
> Anyway, with a joint work all joint copyright owners (anyone who has
> contributed copyrighted material) has "an equal right to register and
> enforce the copyright".
> [http://www.techtransfer.fsu.edu/jointownership.html]
>
> > I don't know how chinese copyright law works and international
> > copyright law tends to get very complex very fast.
>
> Especially when the company in question is working directly with the
> government in question.  Hence, "good luck with that".
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Request: linkable images

body:
On 5/15/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems there was problems with not linking to the image page, so image
> license information was not shown and they were afraid of GFDL problems.
> The first idea i had to solve that was to show a text similar of the
> redirected pages. "You've been redirected through Image:Foo. [[See Image
> info]]"  On a reread Magnus Manske suggered so (see #18) but was forgotten.
> Would be any problem with that approach?

I understand this problem, but I really don't see why that should
prevent implementation of this technical enhancement. Sure, people
will have to come up with other ways to make sure the image info is
accessible. But in the case of the main page linking to an article
which has the image available, not a big issue.

I do like Manske's suggested approach.

Steve


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Conflict re:Belarusan WP

body:
On 15/05/06, Berto <albertoserra at ukr.net> wrote:
...
> The problem is in that if we get directly involved in the BE: internal
> affairs this is going to be read as a political victory of one side on
> another. My proposition hence regards ONLY the formal side of the
> intervention. I propose not to start a judgement on BE itself, but to
> produce a general mandatory policy for a wider set of such cases. That is,
> the situation IMHO does require a third party intervention, but it must be
> made in the softer possible way.
...

Right. And exactly the reason for my proposals in the first place -- I
believe that the conflict could be resolved on basis of general WP
rules/policy per se, which would resolve the situation "quietly", with
no cheering and sneering.

But those folks somehow just can't make themselves believe that my
requests are valid. :)

-regards


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Conflict re:Belarusan WP

body:
Berto schrieb:
> Me thinks that we should really stop to even mention BE:wiki as such, and
> confront ourselves with a strictly technical problem, regarding all
> editions. I also suppose it's time we think of the possibility of creating a
> technical comitee for small endangered languages, in order to deliver common
> policies, general purpose marketing tools and information.
>
> There definitely are two classes of languages (although many of the editions
> may actually find themselves in a grey area between the two): strong and
> weak languages. And they do have different technical problems. So maybe what
> is good for english can be a killer for maori, and the opposite may also be
> true. But in the end we all need the very same thing: to produce a good
> edition and to be helpful to users, while developing a wide user community.
>
Well ... maybe now I am risking to be killed ;-)

That is a blog about the problem with rare and minority languages:
http://sabinecretella.blogspot.com/2006/05/languages-languages-languages-and.html

Fact is, the problem persists ... and it will become more and more
problematic the more people in regions that today are not well connected
get access to the Internet.

When I started to write the text it was programmed ... then while
writing thoughts just came along and istead of writing what was
programmed a completely different concept came out ... and re-reading
it: it makes sense ...

Curious about your thoughts ...  :-)

Ciao, Sabine

*****
Sabine Cretella
Translations IT-DE, EN-DE
Evangelist for WiktionaryZ
s.cretella at wordsandmore.it
skype: sabinecretella
phone +39-340-1809828

___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 5/15/06, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> I've been following this thread with some interest, both as a
> photographer (who has actually contributed original work to WP) and as
> a usability guy, who understands that icons should behave the way icons
> *behave*...
>
> and I like Steve's suggestion here a *lot*; I think it's probably the
> best balance between people getting credit for their work, and websites
> working as websites are -- these days -- expected to work.
>
> I've unthreaded this, so this proposal doesn't get lost in the noise.

Click for the big version (where copyright data is harmless) is the
expected behavior for the common case of illustrations (vs
navigational aids).  I don't think we should change that behavior for
most things due to usability reasons... so if we want something else
for icons/navigational aids, and mainpage images then we still need to
establish another kind of image tag.

I think a credits page is a good thing. Just like the mediawiki bottom
credits which we disable due to performance reasons.

These things are not mutually exclusive.


subject: [Wikitech-l] automated welcome template

body:
On 5/15/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, i think it's a bit cold being received by "Automated bot". It could be
> done.. if it's not too obvious the mechanical being of the welcomer ;)

Oh, I don't - especially if the message contains the names and means
to contact of actual human beings who run the bot.  "Hi, I'm JoeSmith
and I'm sending you this automatic email, please contact me *here* if
you any questions, no matter how dumb". But it's a question of taste,
obviously.

Steve


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] [WikiEN-l] Tearing down the Chinese Firewall

body:
2006/5/15, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org>:

> I was thinking about this.  Now I know there are tons of mirrors of
> the English Wikipedia, but what about the Chinese one?  I guess I
> could just do my own study, but if someone happens to know already
> that'd be easier :).

I did a small search, and could only find one:
http://wikimiki.us/zh/%E9%A6%96%E9%A1%B5

My methods weren't nearly perfect though, so if anyone else thinks
they can find other ones, I think they might well be right.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


body:
Hi all,
  I brought this up a little while ago, but have thought some more.
Here's what I'd really like:

* To see a list of articles that have changed since the last time I
"okayed" them.
* To be able to "okay" changes to an article, by marking it on this
list. Such an "okay" would not necessarily be visible to anyone but
me.
* For any change made to an article to by default be considered "okay" for me.
* To show this list sorted by the last time I modified it, most recent first.
BONUS: show a grouped summary of all changes (diffs) made to the
article since the last time we touched it, possibly with grouped edit
summaries

Does this interest anyone else?

Rationale:
I think a lot of people implicitly work on this kind of basis. This is
why we have watchlists after all - we are interested in an article we
have worked on, and want to check changes made to that article, to be
sure they don't compromise it. However, we end up checking and
rechecking the same articles in our watchlists, while missing articles
that have scrolled past. Such a tool would formalise the basic
workflow: Check changes made to our favourite articles, and sign them
off as 'ok' once we've checked them.

Steve


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Err, just a little question: FireFox is rendering all the Chinese
> characters as ? - anyone know what I have to do to make them appear? I
> don't speak Chinese but it would be prettier...Arabic and Hebrew
> characters tend to show up fine. FireFox 1.5.0.3 French btw.
>

What operating system? Which version?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060515/f110f888/attachment.pgp


body:
Rob Church wrote:
> On 12/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>>> And if that's the case, can we sue?  Please?
>>>
>> Good luck with that.
>
> The Foundation can't, because it doesn't own the copyright to the
> material. It's up to the copyright holder to enforce their licencing.
>

Could The Foundation sue /on behalf of/ those authors whose copyright
has been violated?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060515/f6b2af11/attachment.pgp


body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 5/12/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/12/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>> If they are and they aren't citing authors, aren't they in breach of the
>>> GFDL.  And if that's the case, can we sue?  Please?
>> The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't hold the copyrights over Wikimedia
>> content, it is merely a user that must follow the terms of the GFDL
>> like any mirror or fork. Wikimedia could, however, provide financial
>> or legal assistance to the authors whose copyright is infringed in a
>> lawsuit.
>>
> That would be fairly hypocritical, though, since Wikimedia itself
> doesn't even follow the GFDL.
>

*hauls out text of the GFDL*

Right. Section 6: Collection of Documents:

> You may make a collection consisting of the Document and other
> documents released under this License, and replace the individual
> copies of this License in the various documents with a single copy
> that is included in the collection, provided that you follow the
> rules of this License for verbatim copying of each of the documents
> in all other respects.
>
> You may extract a single document from such a collection, and
> distribute it individually under this License, provided you insert a
> copy of this License into the extracted document, and follow this
> License in all other respects regarding verbatim copying of that
> document.

The articles themselves are licensed under the GFDL, and Wikipedia is a
collection of articles - so the individual copies are replaced by a
single copy *included in the collection*. IANAL but it's good enough for
me, /and most other contributors/. What's *not* good enough is mirroring
us without even *attempting* GFDL compliance, at least to the same
extent that Wikipedia itself complies with the GFDL.

Again, IANAL.
--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060515/349ac13a/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikitech-l] Request: linkable images

body:
On 5/15/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Not just GFDL. Most free content licenses require attribution to be provided.
>
> We've previous received complaints from copyright holders when their
> CC-BY-SA-2.0 content was copied from commons to en (for protection)
> without attribution data.
>
> Most licenses require us to provide adequate attribution in a manner
> which is standard for our format.  It would be highly inadvisable to
> make attribution on the main page less accessible (causing copyright
> complaints from people over those) or more accessible (providing basis
> for complaints elsewhere in the Wiki).
>
> I believe the the Mangus Manske suggestion would make attribution data
> far too obscured.

Could it be done in the ALT tag? It seems to me that there is a
mismatch between those who want attribution to be readily available,
and what people actually want when they click on the image. I think if
people actually want to know who created the image, it's pretty easy
to find out. But honestly, have you ever wondered who made an image
that you clicked on somewhere on the web? Why would you care?

So, it makes sense that the information is available to anyone who
goes out of their way to look for it - but I don't see the value in
forcing it down people's throats, when they're actually trying to get
more information on a topic, and aren't per se interested in the
image.

Magnus' suggestion would actually be the most visible, especially if
the attribution information was displayed directly on the page.

Australia
(You clicked on [Australian flag.svg], created by Jim Smith)
Australia is a great country...

etc. The real problem is that we don't actually have attribution data
in a readily packaged form. On many images, there are actually several
authors (due to touch ups etc). And there's no obvious way of working
out mechanically who actually "created" the image.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Block messages

body:
Rob wrote:
> On 5/12/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>   I note in the previous message that the user was given the block
>> message "3rr, evasion with sock" - I wonder, how could any new user
>> possibly understand what that means? Wouldn't it be better to use
>> plain language, even if it does mean taking slightly longer to block?
>> In this case "Repeatedly undoing other people's changes to an article,
>> using alternate accounts to get around having their account blocked".
>>
>
> New users should get multiple warnings about the 3RR, so they've had ample
> opportunity to read or inquire about the 3RR.
>

3RR should be expanded to {4,5}RR for first-time offenders who haven't
been notified of its existence, for the sake of courtesy and not biting
the newbies.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060515/46fae774/attachment.pgp


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] (fwd) Wikipedia e-mail

body:
Appears that the offending article has been speedied, in any case.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] GFDL lawsuits - who can sue?

body:
On 5/15/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> Is it illegal to claim you have copyright control over something you
> do not?  I'm sure there are plently of laws against claiming you
> *wrote* something you didn't, but if you properly attribute the
> authors but tack on a false claim of copyright, I don't see how that
> can be illegal.

I'm not sure what you're meaning here - are you talking about falsely
claiming that you own the copyright on the material, but attributing
the authorship correctly?

-Matt


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Conflict re:Belarusan WP

body:
Hi!

> But those folks somehow just can't make themselves believe that my
> requests are valid. :)

Well, some resistence is obviously going to come up, as long as you have
this talk directly connected with ANY wiki. Partly because small wikis are
born as a small team project, and some admins may regard "their" wiki as a
personal possession, in which they are kings and zars... artly because when
there is a clear vested political interest any change in policy is obviously
going to mean a change in power distribution among the involved parties.

Me thinks that we should really stop to even mention BE:wiki as such, and
confront ourselves with a strictly technical problem, regarding all
editions. I also suppose it's time we think of the possibility of creating a
technical comitee for small endangered languages, in order to deliver common
policies, general purpose marketing tools and information.

There definitely are two classes of languages (although many of the editions
may actually find themselves in a grey area between the two): strong and
weak languages. And they do have different technical problems. So maybe what
is good for english can be a killer for maori, and the opposite may also be
true. But in the end we all need the very same thing: to produce a good
edition and to be helpful to users, while developing a wide user community.

B?rto


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
geni wrote:
> On 5/13/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>> Err, not exactly.  From memory, a userbox was deleted under T1.  Some
>> damn fool recreated it in the article space with the name [[Userbox:User
>> hates admins]] or something like that, and then said "nyah nyah nyah you
>> can't touch it, it's not in Template: namespace".
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark Gallagher
>
> I think there have been a couple of attempts. been a long time though.
> In any case [[User:Sam Hocevar/burninhell]] still exists so it appears
> that userpages do provide some kind of protection.
>

Consensus provides the best protection of all.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060515/6a5632f4/attachment.pgp


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unfair block

body:
G'day Sadat,

> My username - Anwar saadat
>
> I was unfairly blocked by Nichalp. The reason given for the block is:
> "stalking, warned repeatedly, reverts without talking; see user's
> talk page".
>
> I did not stalk anyone. Please see my contribution log, talk page and
> archives. I reverted the vandalism of Zora who blanked whole
> paragraphs, sections and even supporting links without even a
> pretense of a discussion. Nichalp is a member of India project. So I
> suspect they ganged up and painted a different picture.

Nichalp is a Wikipedia bureaucrat in good standing.  You're going to
have to do better than impugn his name by suggesting he might be biased
by his nationality.

What's going on lately?  First Bhadani's near-incoherent complaints
about "treason", and now this?

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/339 - Release Date: 14/05/2006


subject: [Wikitech-l] Is this a bug (strikethrough doesn't carry onto lists)

body:
Seems like in this sort of text:

<s>some struck out text
*a
*list
*that should
*also be
struck out </s>

That only the text prior to the list is struck out (the phrase "some
struck out text" above). Not sure if this is an HTML rendering thing,
intentional, a bug, or what. Just thought I would mention it.

Steve


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
I never saw anything wrong with userboxes, but it is very clear that
constantly agitating or edit warring over them is very wrong.

Fred

On May 15, 2006, at 9:03 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
>>> It is pretty hard to overule arbcom. Possible but pretty hard.
>>>
>>>
>> Sure, admins tend to listen to the arb com.  That's very different
>> from saying anyone has to listen to them.
>>
>
> Anthony, you are free to ignore the ArbCom.  You are also free to
> be banned.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Another notch in the wall ...

body:
I think we will pass Amazon before we pass Microsoft. Amazon seems to
be loosing some ground in absolute terms.

Fred

On May 15, 2006, at 10:09 AM, charles matthews wrote:

> I see that Alexa has just nudged WP to #16 in its global list.
> This makes
> WP one below Microsoft's site, and two below Amazon.  That's some
> company to
> be keeping ...
>
> Oddly the numbers have been dropping just over the past few days.
> If this
> rise is sustainable it will be because the hardware position is much
> improved (kudos to all concerned).
>
> Another interesting comparison: if comScore says that WP's global
> audience
> is around 140 million, I read in my newspaper today that  BBC World
> Service
> has 160 million.  I don't know whether these numbers are credible,
> naturally.
>
> Charles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Request: linkable images

body:
On 5/15/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On *articles* I believe our behavior is ideal in almost all cases
> because we do exactly what is expected: we provide an enlarged copy of
> the image.  Most commercial news sites have the same behavior.

Agree.

> As far as I can tell, the problem is limited to the main page and
> potentially the portals. Do you agree?

Also, stubs, flag icons (for languages and so on), and icons in
general I suppose. For example, [[WP:GA]] - but that may be included
in "portals". Occasionally in an article it may be useful. See
[[Ch?teau de Chambord]] - you could make an argument that the
portraits down the left hand side would be useful as links to
[[Fran?ois I]] and so forth.

> We can't require people to 'go out of their way to look for it'. We
> need to provided attribution in roughly the same manner as we do for
> the articles, and we need to make it reasonably accessible.

Well, you have to draw the line somewhere. We could watermark the
author's name on the image if it was that important. We could state it
under the image (Photo credit: JoeSmith). Practicality and common
sense has to come into it somewhere.

Following on Magnus' idea, we could also recopy the image to the top
of this redirected page, and if you click on *that* image, you would
get the normal image page.

> There are people who argue that our current behavior is insufficient
> and whom want an inline byline.  But providing one runs the risk of
> just creating a greater mess (article authors don't get inline
> bylines, multiple editor images, and the requirements to provide
> historical data on GFDLed images).  Hiding it further is just not
> going to fly.

Well, there are people that argue that linking to other subjects
through images would be really handy, more so than the attribution
issues. How compelling are each sides' arguments? What are the
arguments? Do they stand up?

> Should read 'one of the problems with that proposal'.  :)
> What we currently do is fine, there is no great need to have an easily
> machine readable copyright holder with our current framework.

It would be handy if we do at any stage want to do some kind of inline
attribution. We have no means to do that currently.

> Many? Well.. certainly not a majority. I would assume that ones with
> multiple editors are almost as common as ones with multiple copyright
> holders ... which would put us back in the same boat of having a long
> list of copyright holders.

Dunno. Does the uploader of an image get any credit for having found
it? Does someone who takes an image created by another WIkipedian,
loads it into Picasa and presses "I'm feeling lucky" get any credit?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Google indexes quickly!

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 5/15/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>> Vanity isn't, but non-notable biography is, as is patent nonsense. If
>> John Q. Highschoolstudent writes a vanity page, it'll say (in general
>> terms) one of the following:
>>
>> 1. John Q. Highschoolstudent is on the track team and plays a mean
>> game of Halo.
>> 2. John Q. Highschoolstudent won the NBA Slam Dunk Competition in 2006.
>>
>> 1 is non-notable bio, 2 is patent nonsense. Those two CSD's alone are
>> the vanity fork--almost all vanity articles will fall within at least
>> one of tehm.
>
> What is:
> 3. John Q. Highschoolstudent is a brilliant basketballer and has made
> numerous appearences on TV.
>
> Presume that we can't find any google references to back this up.
> Presume (debatable) for the sake of argument that if the claim is
> true, this is notable enough. Do we classify it as unverifiable? Do we
> call it hoax? Is it still vanity, whatever that means?
>

"Appeared on TV" is verifiable, so it's not patent nonsense. However,
provided it's not a hoax, [[WP:HOLE]] applies.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060515/60d96ba5/attachment.pgp


body:
On 5/15/06, Jens Frank <jf at mormo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 08:47:14PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
> >
> > Actually a credits tab would make an awful lot of sense from a GFDL
> > compliance point of view. It would provide full credits of text (top 5
> > contributors, plus list of others) and images (all contributors with
> > licence details for each image).
>
> How do you find the 5 top contributours? Lines of changes? I don't
> believe in a technical way to find the "top" contributours.

wiki subpage? Add yourself if you want to be attributed. ;)


body:
It seems a sort of per-user patrolling. I'd add to the list accept edits by
X users i select as auto-Okeyed

"Steve Bennett" wrote:
> Hi all,
>  I brought this up a little while ago, but have thought some more.
> Here's what I'd really like:
>
> * To see a list of articles that have changed since the last time I
> "okayed" them.
> * To be able to "okay" changes to an article, by marking it on this
> list. Such an "okay" would not necessarily be visible to anyone but
> me.
> * For any change made to an article to by default be considered "okay" for
> me.
> * To show this list sorted by the last time I modified it, most recent
> first.
> BONUS: show a grouped summary of all changes (diffs) made to the
> article since the last time we touched it, possibly with grouped edit
> summaries
>
> Does this interest anyone else?
>
> Rationale:
> I think a lot of people implicitly work on this kind of basis. This is
> why we have watchlists after all - we are interested in an article we
> have worked on, and want to check changes made to that article, to be
> sure they don't compromise it. However, we end up checking and
> rechecking the same articles in our watchlists, while missing articles
> that have scrolled past. Such a tool would formalise the basic
> workflow: Check changes made to our favourite articles, and sign them
> off as 'ok' once we've checked them.
>
> Steve


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/15/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> I have no idea why anyone is talking about decrees.  CSD T1 is normal
> policy, created and confirmed in the normal way.  It is a very simple
> natural extension of all our other policies which, despite our ongoing
> tolerance of people trolling on the mailing list, *ahem*, have always
> urged people in no uncertain terms not to be divisive and inflammatory.
>
> --Jimbo

Err

[[Piss_Christ]]
[[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]]
[[Proof that 0.999... equals 1]]
[[Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars]] has a tendancy to be inflammatory

[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct]] is a case where being
inflammatory appears to have been built into policy (RFC on articles
ok RFC on people.. less so)

People seem to find our copyright policies inflammatory.

[[Alan S. Chartock]] is either heading in the dirrection of WP:OFFICE
or in the dirrection of being inflammatory posebly both (see some of
the history to understand why).

--
geni