Delirium wrote:
> I think Britannica goes for a different style than we do, largely
> because it *is* paper. In a paper encyclopedia, cross-references are
> much more of a hassle, and the reader can't flip between articles and
> volumes in the click of a mouse. Thus, articles tend to be longer and
> fewer. With Wikipedia, there's no trouble breaking up a major topic
> like, say [[United States]], into an overview article with separate
> articles on [[History of the United States]], [[Economy of the United
> States]], and so on, because it doesn't place much of a burden on our
> users to click through if they want the long articles. Even the way
> we format it---"Main article: [[History of the United
> States]]"---really only makes sense in a hyperlinked encyclopedia.
>
> It does bring up the interesting point that perhaps there should be a
> little more editing in making a paper version besides just validating
> articles. For example, it might make sense to collate these all into
> one article for print publication.
That would probably be necessary if we try to produce a massive
multi-volume encyclopedia on a scale similar to existing print models.
On the other hand, less editing is required, and in fact this structure
is quite handy, when considering a smaller reference work focused on a
particular subject. For example, an "Encyclopedia of the United States"
would do quite nicely with exactly these articles, plus those about the
individual states, each US President, and whatever other articles are
deemed necessary and appropriate for the topic.
I suspect our efforts are more likely to head in this direction at least
for now, as the efforts to produce WikiReaders already show. I don't
know if this path will lead us to the encyclopedia model of the past, or
if we should encourage people to reconceive of the full encyclopedia as
a collection of individual specialist encyclopedias.
--Michael Snow
Yes, I know that I have entered into an ongoing problem.
But the actions of the Admins involved have clearly been in the wrong -
policy violations of Assume Good Faith, and especially violations of policy
concerning using admin powers to gain the upper hand in content disputes,
abound.
There is also the matter of the behavior of the admins towards the two users
in the case, who are clearly not sockpuppets.
>From: <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
>Reply-To: <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
>To: Cranston Snord <enviroknot(a)hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Ah, I get it now. You're protecting yourself.
>Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 19:15:34 -0600
>
>If you can give me a convincing explanation as to why your editing
>pattern is identical, I'm certainly willing to reconsider, but in the
>absence of such an explanation, I won't be responding to any more
>e-mails. I've left a note of our discussion for the other admins; if
>anyone feels I've done the wrong thing, you'll be unblocked.
>
>Sarah
>
>On 5/23/05, Cranston Snord <enviroknot(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > First of all, you did not give me much time to edit anything before you
> > blocked me; you appear to have swung instantly to action to protect
>Yuber,
> > who made the false allegation against me.
> >
> > Secondly, I Wikipedia has a policy reminder about this:
> >
> > "Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start
> > participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, particularly in
> > controversial areas such as articles about the conflict in the Middle
>East,
> > cult figures, or Wikipedia:Votes for deletion."
> >
> > As I stated, you and your fellow admins are in the wrong. I understand
>that
> > it is only natural for you to want to protect yourself, and that it is
>all
> > too easy to fall prey to the trap of using your admin powers to do just
> > that, but you ARE in the wrong.
> >
> > >From: <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
> > >Reply-To: <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
> > >To: Cranston Snord <enviroknot(a)hotmail.com>
> > >Subject: Re: Ah, I get it now. You're protecting yourself.
> > >Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 19:05:36 -0600
> > >
> > >Please feel free to send an e-mail to anyone you want.
> > >
> > >If you're not ElKabong and KaintheScion, do you have an explanation
> > >for your editing pattern being the same as theirs?
> > >
> > >Sarah
> > >
> > >On 5/23/05, Cranston Snord <enviroknot(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > If you do not respond I shall have no recourse but to send an email
>to
> > >the
> > > > EN-L mailing list.
> > > >
> > > > >From: <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
> > > > >Reply-To: <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
> > > > >To: Enviroknot <enviroknot(a)hotmail.com>
> > > > >Subject: Re: Ah, I get it now. You're protecting yourself.
> > > > >Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 18:32:49 -0600
> > > > >
> > > > >You're Elkabong/KaintheScion, currently blocked for 3RR. You edited
> > > > >from an IP address that resolved to the same city, you reverted to
>the
> > > > >same edits, removed the sockpuppet notice, and are now starting
>with
> > > > >the abusive-admin accusations. Give it another few minutes and I'll
> > > > >getting an e-mail from "me me" telling me that I'm an f-ing
> > > > >POV-pushing pile of dog's vomit.
> > > > >
> > > > >Sarah
> > > > >
> > > > >On 5/23/05, Enviroknot <enviroknot(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Like it or not, more people than you read Wikipedia. Some are
>even
> > > > >intelligent enough to discern patterns such as Yuber's.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your attempts to protect him are fairly transparent, you know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith requires that
>everyone,
> > > > >especially administrators, act in good faith. I made the edits I
>was
> > >making
> > > > >because I do not believe you or your brethren are acting in good
>faith,
> > >and
> > > > >I would appreciate it if you would allow me to finish presenting my
> > >case
> > > > >rather than blocking out voices you disagree with.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's
> > >FREE!
> > > > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
> >
> >
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
--- Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
> It does bring up the interesting point that perhaps there should be a
> little more editing in making a paper version besides just validating
> articles. For example, it might make sense to collate these all into
> one article for print publication.
That can be done via transclusion. A container article would have =Level 1=
headings that would have the names of each component article. Then in a print
version, {{main|blah}} would need to be changed from 'Main article: [[blah]]'
to 'For further detail see [[blah]]' (might be a good idea anyway).
-- mav
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
I notice that lately articles on the Featured article Candidates are
often longer, sometimes almost twice, than the recommended size of 32k
and nobody complains anymore about it. Personally, I do not object to
articles that have a size <64k but I do have a problem with the
inconsistent enforcement of standards for size that are now used.
For example, some contributors oppose to an article about [[Germany]]
larger than 32k. A comparable article like the [[United States]] has a
size of 61k.
I request consistent enforcement of this recommendation or a more
lenient recommendation e.g. <64k.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Germany
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size
Andries K.D.
Besides the 100K milestone, the project also received an honorary
mention at this year's Prix Ars Electronica. Please help with the
distribution and translation of the press release at:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Press_releases/100K
The online copy also includes various media examples.
NB: The Commons now has more than half as many files as the English
Wikipedia and more than any other project. Soon it will be the single
largest repository of files in the Wikimedia world.
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:First_steps for
information on getting started to use the Commons.
All best,
Erik
100,000th file uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, a free media repository
Free images, sounds, and videos can be used by anyone for any purpose
St. Petersburg, Florida, United States
May 24, 2005
The Wikimedia Foundation announced today that the 100,000th file had
been uploaded to its online repository of free images, sounds, and
videos, the Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/). These
files have been chosen or created by 5,259 registered users from more
than 12 different languages gathered in a single lively community. The
young project received additional encouragement and recognition on
Monday in the form of an honorary mention at the 2005 Prix Ars
Electronica awards.
The Wikimedia Commons, launched on September 7 2004, is a unique free
and open media archive (including images, sounds, and video), using the
same "wiki" technology that has made Wikipedia, a community-written
encyclopedia, the second most popular reference website on the web
(Hitwise.com report, April 2005). Wikis are websites that anyone can
edit, allowing for rapid growth and constant peer review of all
contributions. All files uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons are available
royalty-free for any purpose. Most files require attribution of the
creator, and some are under copyleft licenses, meaning that derivative
works also have to be made available for free re-use. Both Wikipedia and
the Wikimedia Commons are operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.
The 100,000th file was an illustration drawn by a French Wikipedia user
named Stephane Tsacas. He manages the computer network of the Curie
Institute, a research center on biology and physics in Paris. "I
recently did some searches in the French Wikipedia and discovered some
incomplete information in a few articles in the field I know, computer
science. I then decided to register and do the modifications myself."
The file Stephane Tsacas uploaded is a diagram of the experimental
dataflow computer architecture. It is used in the detailed French
article http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_Dataflow. As soon as a
file is uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, it is instantly available for
use on all Wikimedia projects without needing to be uploaded to the
local project. This feature is encouraging the Wikimedia projects to
move towards a multimedia approach rather than the simple text-based
approach they relied on in the past.
"Wikimedia Commons is of critical importance for all the Wikimedia
projects, and beyond that, it is critically important for the entire
free culture movement," said Jimmy Wales, president of the Wikimedia
Foundation. Since the inception of the project in September 2004,
thousands of Wikimedia contributors have joined to make their multimedia
available to the larger community. As such, the Commons is one of the
most diverse collections of files imaginable. It includes many
independent collections of free content:
* 7,733 pronunciation files in various languages, notably Dutch
(5,926), German (499), Farsi (464), and Italian (249). These voice
recordings made by editors of the project are mostly used in Wiktionary,
a wiki-based dictionary and thesaurus.
* Reproductions of 10,000 public domain paintings from ancient to
modern times, donated by Directmedia Publishing, a German publishing
company. This includes the works of artists like Leonardo da Vinci,
Vincent van Gogh, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Hieronymus Bosch, and many
others. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Yorck_Project.
* Hundreds of public domain recordings of classical music by
composers like Bach, Brahms, Beethoven, Mozart, and Tchaikovsky. See
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Classical_music.
* A growing collection of videos of historical speeches, excerpts
from public domain films such as Charlie Chaplin's "The Bond", and
scientific videos such as bacterial broths being deposited into a Petri
dish or the Space Shuttle Columbia going through the sound barrier. See
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Video.
Besides these collections, it is the work of individuals which defines
the Wikimedia Commons -- like Wikinews user "Belizian", who took photos
during civil unrest in the small Central American nation of Belize in
January 2005 for the Wikinews article on the subject
(http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Unrest_in_Belize), or Wikibooks author
Robert Engelhardt, who has added photos of various beekeeping tools to
his growing reference work on the topic
(http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Beekeeping). From lovingly drawn subway
maps to print quality photos of insects, from physics diagrams to photos
of exotic locations, the members of the Wikimedia Commons cover
virtually all areas of human interest with great attention to detail.
Like Wikimedia's other projects, the Wikimedia Commons is open for
everyone to edit, to enrich it with new content, to help in the
categorization of existing media, and to remove problematic materials.
Given the proven successes of the wiki model, it may soon become the
largest repository of free media on the web.
Additional information
For questions and interviews, please contact:
In English only:
Jimmy Wales, Chair, Board of Trustees, Wikimedia Foundation
Phone: (+1)-727-644-3565
Email: jwales(a)wikimedia.org (mailto:jwales@wikimedia.org)
Angela Beesley, Executive Secretary, Board of Trustees, Wikimedia Foundation
Phone: (+44)-208-816-7308
Email: angela(a)wikimedia.org (mailto:angela@wikimedia.org)
In English or French:
Florence Devouard, Vice President, Board of Trustees, Wikimedia Foundation:
Email: anthere(a)wikimedia.org (mailto:anthere@wikimedia.org)
Prix Ars Electronica
The Prix Ars Electronica is a yearly prize in the field of electronic
and interactive art, computer animation, digital culture and music. It
has been awarded since 1987 by Ars Electronica (Linz, Austria), one of
the world's major centers for art and technology.
The 2005 honorary mentions can be viewed at:
http://www.aec.at/en/prix/honorary2005.asp
Incidentally, article size is one area in which "Wikipedia is not
paper" serves us poorly. In the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia
Britannica, the article on the Bible is approximately one megabyte in
size. That decision was presumably made on the basis of style,
organization, and readability. You can riffle through twenty pages a
second or more and still glimpse running heads. And the articles in the
old Britannica are so well-written that you can sit down with them and
read them from beginning to end.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
I think this probably should go also to wikien-l. I've already updated
our copyrights page.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] HMSO Crown copyright FOIA Request
From: David Newton <davidp.newton(a)gmail.com>
Date: Mon, May 23, 2005 18:40
To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
It has long been nagging me about the policy of HMSO with respect to
Crown copyright material outside of the UK. Inside the UK the position is
clear: published material from 1954 or earlier is out of copyright as it
was published over 50 years ago. Outside the UK the position of Crown
copyright material has long been ambiguous.
I therefore sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the Office for
Public Sector Information (what HMSO has changed its name to)
requesting clarification of the length of copyright for published
Crown copyright material outside the UK. I received the following
reply from their Information Policy Adviser:
"Dear David,
Thank you for your email enquiry dated May 23rd, 2005. Crown
copyright protection in published material lasts for fifty years from the
end of the year in which the material was first published.
Therefore, to use your example, material published in 1954, and any Crown
copyright material published before that date, would now be out of
copyright, and may be freely reproduced throughout the world.
I hope this information will be helpful to you, but if you have any
further questions please feel free to get in touch with me again."
So, it appears that Crown copyright material that has been published in
1954 or earlier is considered public domain worldwide by OPSI and is thus
fair game for the Wikipedia to use.
David Newton
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Are we STILL discussing this?
If mention of religion offends you, too bad. Mention of autofellatio
offends me, but I'm not griping.
If you THINK that use of AD/BC implies "endorsement of the truth of
Christianity", then you're in a fantasy world. It's just a habit. Many
retail stores gear up for the Christmas holidays and even derive a
substantial fraction of their income from the Xmas season. Does this
mean they ENDORSE Christianity? (Hint: they are just being pragmatic.)
There are many calendars in use, throughout the English-speaking world.
Even the ANTI-RELIGIOUS Soviet Union continued to use the same numbering
system for years as the (Christian) West. Nobody EVER thought that this
usage implied any endorsement (or even TOLERANCE) of religion on their
part.
This whole thing smacks of an "anti-religious agenda", rather than any
sincere effort towards neutrality. When we couldn't agree on British vs.
American spelling, we chose this solution:
* Let each article use one consistent style throughout.
* If I as an American want to write theater and center, I should NOT do
so, if the article already uses theatre and centre.
* Above all, nobody should systematically go through articles purging of
the "hated style".
Ever hear of live and let live? Sheesh!
Uncle Ed
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com>
>
> --- Richard Rabinowitz <rickyrab(a)eden.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>> College term papers generally are double-spaced. Internet printouts
>> tend
>> to be single spaced. Sure you're not taking that into account?
>
> Hm. Good point. I went to a uni whose administration thought writing
> was very
> important. Thus single space. Last time I was asked to double space
> was high
> school.
????? The purpose of double-spacing is to
allow for editors' notes and proofreaders' marks.
I.e. double-spaced material = material intended for
eventual publication.
Our high school newspaper required triple-spacing.
Whether that was a normal journalistic practice or
peculiar to that high school (and/or its printer) I
don't know...
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
All images which are for non-commercial only use and by permission only
are not acceptable for Wikipedia and _will be deleted_. We have
tolerated them for some time, but only as an interim measure during the
time when images which were previously not properly tagged could be tagged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Non-commercial_use_only_imageshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_used_with_permission
Are the relevant categories.
Examples of images which must be deleted include:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:100_0062.JPG
(This is a standard photo of the Mission District in San Francisco --
getting a free alternative will be simple.)
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:167957_7674BoyVerticalBlindsSilhouette.j…
(This is a non-commercial only image for the purpose of illustrating the
concept "vertical blinds" -- getting a free alternative will be simple.)
As of today, all *new* images which are "non commercial only" and "with
permission only" should be deleted on sight. Older images should go
through a process of VfD to eliminate them in an orderly fashion, taking
due account of "fair use".
It is very unfortunate that such images are still being uploaded _new_
when we have not be happy about them for a long time. It is not fair to
contributors who are working on such things, since we have no intention
to keep them in the long run.
Therefore, these templates should be modified to warn people that these
images are temporary only and will be deleted soon.
--Jimbo
