> So let me give a hypothetical. Say my grandmother takes a really
> awesome photograph. She doesn't want to create a Wikipedia or Commons
> account. In fact, she doesn't even have a computer. Furthermore, she
> doesn't want her name up on the Internet. But she is willing, after
> some persuasion from me, to license her photo under Sharealike 1.0.
>
> Can I put this image in Wikipedia and/or Commons without lying?
>
Why not? If you ask me, just say so. Good enough. If you don't want to use your
name either then use a throwaway account, and say so.
I'm pretty sure I've seen things like this (for public domain rather than CC-SA).
Dan
>From wikipedia talk @ WP:BLPP
State of BLP Patrol: Week ending Sep 9th
Done:
- Consensus reached that group will only focus on BLP articles, Group
Renamed to BLP Patrol.
- Critical Mass reached. Consensus reached simply that this group
should exist.
- Consensus seems to be to leave NPOV:Undue Weight issues up to local
editor consensus?
To Do:
- Devs are at work on software assistance and monitoring tools.
- Alter IRC Bots and/or irc channels for active monitoring.
- Develop templates in support of BLPP.
- (Low)Develop userbox/category for BLPP wikipedians.
- (High)Agree on what specific Libel patrol will target. Current
proposal is to focus on USA definition of Defamation per se.
- (High)WP:LIBEL </wiki/WP:LIBEL> is way to short to be an effective
policy.
- Agree on methods to minimize resulting edit wars.
- Agree on methods for dealing with editors who insist on violating
BLP and Libel policies.
- (Low)Elect a Project Manager. I, User:Electrawn</wiki/User:Electrawn>,
offer myself to manage as the original creator. If anyone else feels they
are better qualified, I will bow to someone more experienced.
I may have missed somethings for the todo or done, add below.
Electrawn</wiki/User:Electrawn>05:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
"Managing the project" can be re-termed "herding particularly stroppy
cats" ;-) The main reason Wikipedia is so keen on consensus is that it's
less headaches. If we can agree on obvious things that will help immediately
(simple checking of as many living bio edits as possible), then more
difficult things can wait for consensus to shake them out. - David
Gerard</wiki/User:David_Gerard>12:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Yup,
I'm herding them in from Wiki-en. There are many different directions
various folks are taking from technical to process to policy to active
patrollers. I am a big fan of Divide and Conquer. :)
Electrawn</wiki/User:Electrawn>20:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC) -Jason
"Electrawn" Potkanski
I get asked this by the press a lot. So I thought I'd come here and
> ask how it actually works.
>
> 1. What is the actual process?
> 2. How are new living bios spotted?
> 3. Who watches edits in them, on what sort of schedule?
>
> And 4. the big one:
>
> Is there anything that can be done to make the living bio patrolling
> volunteers' work easier and more efficient? What magical software
> features would you like? Is there anything that some as-yet-unwritten
> bot software could do to assist?
>
> I'd love to be able to answer "we have a volunteer patrol who look out
> for any rubbish going in living biographies. We're not perfect but I
> think we do pretty well" and be able to give more detail if they ask
> ;-)
>
>
> - d.
>
>
The vexed question may be solved by technical means!
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Neil Harris <neil(a)tonal.clara.co.uk>
Date: 05-Sep-2006 08:41
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] BC vs BCE era names
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Bill Clark wrote:
> I've added the ability to specify a preference (or no preference) for
> era names in dates (BC vs. BCE). I've also fixed a couple bugs in the
> regular expressions that match for dates, that were preventing the
> parser from recognizing (and converting) dates that ended in BCE or
> which were written in ISO format and fell between -999-01-01 and
> 999-12-31 (i.e. had a one-, two-, or three-digit year).
>
> I'm not an actual committer so I'm submitting this as a diff -ru to
> the mailing list. I'm sure that's the wrong procedure and I'll be
> scolded for it, but hey I'll learn.
>
> I've tested this and it works on my local version (checked out of svn
> a few hours ago) but I imagine it should be tested more.
>
> -Bill Clark
>
>
That's a great idea. It might also be useful to make the code also
switch 'AD' and 'CE', for dates such as, for example, 4 AD / 4 CE.
-- Neil
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I've made a few minor tweaks and built a prototype using the current MWT
code. See http://draicone.googlepages.com/mwt-blpp-binsrc.zip<http://draicone.googlepages.com/mwt-blpp-bin+src.zip>
(including binaries and source, as you may have guessed by now) for the
win32 version. Should work in Windows98+. If someone wants to port this to
Java, go ahead. I think Simeon / TehKewl1 got it running under WINE, Linux
users can try that.
On 9/7/06, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco(a)mac.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 6, 2006, at 11:16 PM, Akash Mehta wrote:
>
> > I'll see if I can
> > hack away at the code and build a prototype with the latest stable
> > release.
> That will be great. And it would be greater yet, if it could be
> ported to Java so that your app could run on a Mac, Linux or other
> non-Windows OSes... :)
>
> -- Jossi
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
On 9/8/06, Gregory Kohs <thekohser(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I am curious if there is any factual data about how many clicks per day,
on
> average, that a run-of-the-mill outbound link receives in the "External
> links" section of a typical Wikipedia article? My guess is that it's
> somewhere around 3 or 4, but that's just me looking at it as a [[Fermi
> problem]].
+++
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 14:52:31 -0400
From: "Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>
You should know, you spammed your blog on a number of pages.
If your customers are really interested in this data, perhaps you
could fund wikimedia to perform a proper study.
+++ +++
Surprise, surprise, that past mistakes would come back to haunt me. Still,
I felt that the content so linked on my blog would be of informational use
to the community. Being that the 3 or 4 inbound hits per day that I
received tended to spend an average of 1 to 5 minutes on the article, I
guess it actually was of some value to most people, until the links were
(appropriately) removed. (Remember, even Jimmy Wales edited his own article
a number of times before "learning the rules".)
Anyway, you surely won't believe it, but my customers are not at all the
reason I'm asking this question. Instead, I have a larger, more universally
interesting reason for asking; but I'm not quite ready to disclose my
agenda. I will assure you, though, that it is in the interest of
underscoring a major "conflict of interest" problem within Wikipedia -- not
for my personal financial gain.
As for funding Wikimedia to get a legitimate answer to the question... since
I've already been a multi-time donor to Wikimedia fund drives, I would
certainly entertain that. How much do you think it would cost to conduct
such a study? Or, were you being facetious?
Greg
On 04/09/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> "Who Writes Wikipedia?" ( http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia )
> "This fact does have enormous
> policy implications. If Wikipedia is written by occasional
> contributors, then growing it requires making it easier and more
> rewarding to contribute occasionally. Instead of trying to squeeze
> more work out of those who spend their life on Wikipedia, we need to
> broaden the base of those who contribute just a little bit.
> Unfortunately, precisely because such people are only occasional
> contributors, their opinions aren't heard by the current Wikipedia
> process. They don't get involved in policy debates, they don't go to
> meetups, and they don't hang out with Jimbo Wales. And so things that
> might help them get pushed on the backburner, assuming they're even
> proposed."
This means that if we want the content to grow and be *good*, we need
to be more newbie-friendly.
This is also a BIG stick to use on Byzantine overengineered processes
and policy. Excessive process is actively newbie-hostile.
Look at Debian, bogged down in process, to the point where Richard
Stallman failed to make it in as a Debian maintainer for his own
software because of excessive process. Look how it took Ubuntu to give
it a much-needed rocket up the arse. Without Ubuntu, we'd still be
waiting on Etch. Will it take someone doing a successful fork to
decalcify Wikipedia policy?
Greg - you might want to ask Aaron for what he ran, in case you can
run better numbers across the whole database more easily.
- d.
hi all
i just joined this list so i'm not sure if this is the correct forum to
ask this, but how do i get a master list of
all wikipedia categories and sub-categories? i looked a the database
download page and took a peek at
pages_articles.xml and see that one can parse out Categories from the
mediawiki tags embedded in the
text. but is there some other dump with all the categories (even ones
that may not have articles) as well as their
subcategories available somewhere?
apologies in advance if this was the wrong list to post this question
to, but if someone could direct me to the right one
it would be most appreciated.
thanks much!
> > If nothing else, we'd want some sort of attempt to establish that it really
> > was released into the public domain (or under CC-SA).
> >
> A name isn't going to do very much to establish that. I could always
> make up a fake name and say that's the author. Or I could just lie
> and claim that I'm the author. Either way, you'd just have to take my
> word for it.
>
Some sort of attempt, not a foolproof attempt.
> But I'd rather not lie.
Exactly. I'd be happy to accept the claims of the uploader unless and until
there is reason to believe otherwise.
> So I suppose anonymous works which aren't PD-OLD are prohibited?
A really good question, Anthony. I don't know. On the other hand, an anonymous
work doesn't appear out of nowhere, either, does it. (Unless you yourself
created it and want to submit it anonymously, in which case why not just make a
throwaway account and use PD-SELF or something?)
Dan