On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam(a)fct.unl.pt>wrote:
> I forgot at least one of the rules (probably more) of this list, and
> (almost) always addressed my comments to the person who made the
> comment. The exchange went well, was mostly good humored, but that's
> not how things are supposed to happen here. I apologize for so
> blatantly disrespecting that list rule, and any other one, that I
> might not be aware at the moment. I appreciate the patience and
> understanding of all directly involved, and all the readers who had
> to endure my misbehavior.
>
> That said, there's no excuse for the overblowing of my comments and
> hyperbolic references to "personal attacks," by now a concept so
> overused that it has lost any credibility whatsoever.
>
> [...]
>
> To call the attention of ALL participants in the discussion to
> "Please focus on the comment, not the person making the comment." is
> absolutely right and appropriate. To make it in a message addressed
> to me smacks of "personal attack," and since it was made by a list
> moderator, I would say that is a very serious offense. We all should
> be aware of our responsibilities. We all have duties and rights here.
> One wrong, does not justify a worst one. Any moderator that fails to
> perform his duties appropriately, should take a leave of absence,
> graciously submitting a request to be relieved of his responsibilities.
>
> From them on, an exemplary participation in this list would be the
> best and only argument to ask to be reinstated as a moderator.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Virgilio A. P. Machado
>
This comment slipped by the first time, but I want to bring this up to
illustrate a point. Virgilio is referring to an e-mail I sent to him,
asking him to cool down in a somewhat heated discussion earlier this week.
I sent the e-mail while sleepy and probably could have phrased it better; I
also sent the e-mail to Virgilio only, rather than to all the participants,
who also could have used a reminder. I've apologized to Virgilio for
handling the issue poorly, but this is another example of why it's a bad
idea to send an e-mail when not in the right frame of mind!
Proof that we all make mistakes.
-Ryan
--
[[User:Ral315]]
Hi all,
I'm analyzing the OSM license change [0] and the effects it will have
on data interchange between Wikipedia and OSM. At [1] they say that
there should be no change for maps, but I'm not clarified on how (and
if) will I be able to import batches of OSM data in Wikipedia after
the license change (for instance add the postal codes of all the
villages in a country to an Infobox template). Can someone clarify
this and the reverse case (import data from Wikipedia in OSM) please?
Thanks,
Strainu
[0] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ#How_does_this_affe…
In a message dated 12/10/2010 2:12:44 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com writes:
> Well, lets backtrack.
> The original question was, how can we exclude wikipedia clones from the
> search.
> my idea was to create a search engine that includes only refs from
> wikipedia in it.
> then the idea was to make our own engine instead of only using google.
> lets agree that we need first a list of references and we can talk
> about the details of the searching later.
> thanks,
> mike
>
I search for "Mary Queen of Scots" and I want to exclude Wikipedia clones
from my results, because I'm really only interested in... how many times she
appears in various Wikipedia pages. Why would I not just use the Wikipedia
internal search engine then?
In a message dated 12/10/2010 1:31:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com writes:
> If we prefer pages that can be cached and translated, and mark the
> others that cannot, then by natural selection we will in long term
> replaces the pages that are not allowed to be cached with ones that
> can be.
>
> My suggestion is for a wikipedia project, something to be supported
> and run on the toolserver or similar.
>
I think if you were to propose that we should "prefer" pages that "can be
cached and translated" you'd get a firestorm of opposition.
The majority of our refs, imho, are still under copyright. This is because
the majority of our refs are either web pages created by various authors
who do not specify a free license (and therefore under U.S. law automatically
enjoy copyright protection). Or they are refs to works which are relatively
current, and are cited, for example in Google Books Preview mode, or at
Amazon look-inside pages.
I still cannot see any reason why we would want to cache anything like
this. You haven't addressed what benefit it gives us, to cache refs.
My last question here is not about whether we can or how, but how does it
help the project?
How?
W
Hi everyone -
First, let me thank you all for your concern about the recent banners. Michael Snow is right - we tested some things, thinking that we could manage to raise the yield slightly by deliberately attempting to clarify (not to confuse) for people that the Wikimedia Foundation was directly affiliated with Wikipedia. Yes, it'll come as a shock to all of you <tongue-in-cheek> but there are people who don't know that Wikimedia is anything more than a mis-spelling of Wikipedia. </tongue-in-cheek>. When we get letters saying things like "I'd donate, but only to Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia", it spells out for us that it's possible we could attract more people with the institution of Wikipedia than the institution of Wikimedia.
Did we think it would be "drahma free"? No. Of course not. But it was based on our best data and with nothing but the very best of intentions. Suggesting that it was criminal is... well, regrettable. I think that our data-driven approach has proven to be very successful this year, and this (hypothesize, test, measure, react) was in line with that method. Obviously, this topic was more sensitive than many other areas where we've taken this approach.
To anyone we offended, I offer my personal apologies.
With that said, the banners are being changed right now - they'll say Wikimedia.
pb
_______________________
Philippe Beaudette
Head of Reader Relations
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
ofc: +1 415 839 6885 x6643
mobile: +1 918 200 WIKI (9454)
pbeaudette(a)wikimedia.org
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://donate.wikimedia.org
In a message dated 12/10/2010 1:10:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com writes:
> My point is we should index them ourselves. We should have the pages
> used as references first listed in an easy to use manner and if
> possible we should cache them. If they are not cacheable because of
> some restrictions, the references should be marked somehow as not as
> good and people might find better references. In the end, like
> citeseer you will find that pages that are available and open and
> cachable will be cited and used more than pages that are not.
>
> Right now, I dont know of a simple way to even get this list of
> references from wp. There is alot of work to do, and if we do this, it
> will benefit the wikipedia. Another thing to do is to translate the
> pages referenced.
>
> mike
>
I understand your point, but you're avoiding answering the points I raised.
They are archived at archive.org by permission. You tell archive.org to
archive your site, and they do. You tell them to stop, and they do.
What advantage would we have to repeat the caching yet again that
archive.org is already doing? You haven't answered that.
No matter what occurs, you're going to have trouble retrieving the list of
refs from a WP page (or any web page), without knowing some programming
language like PHP. Using PHP it's a fairly trivial parsing request. It's
that's your only problem, I can write you a script to do it, for twenty bucks.
You cannot translate a work, which is under copyright protection, without
violating their copyright. Copyright extends to any effort that
substantially mimics the underlying work. A translation is found to violate copyright.
You could however make a parody :)
W
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:54 PM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:48:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com writes:
>
>
> I am not talking about books, just webpages.
>
> lets take ladygaga.com as example
>
> Wayback engine :
> http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ladygaga.com
>
> Google cache:
> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1720lEPHkysJ:www.ladyg…
>
> here are two copies of copyrighted materials, we should make sure that
> our referenced webpages are in archive.org or mirrored on some server.
> Ideally we would have our own search engine and cache.
>
> mike
>
>
> I have no problem with the idea of pointing refs to a page on archive.org,
> however you must understand that even previously archived pages *may* be
> removed from archive.org at the owner's request or even at the request of a
> .robots entry.
>
> The only advantage I see over using archive.org instead of a plain link, is
> the ability to see what a page *looked* like in the past. I'm not sure
> that's a great advantage. Why do you think it is? If a page comes down,
> should we not err on the part of assuming the owner no longer wants it
> public and if the owner doesnt want it public, are we to make sure it stays
> public by caching it against their will?
>
> Both Google and Archive.org (much to my utter dismay) obey certain rules set
> up by web page owners to not index certain pages, or to remove them from
> caching history entirely (even old copies). Are you suggesting we disregard
> those rules? If not, then I see no advantage in our caching pages which are
> available in caches already.
My point is we should index them ourselves. We should have the pages
used as references first listed in an easy to use manner and if
possible we should cache them. If they are not cacheable because of
some restrictions, the references should be marked somehow as not as
good and people might find better references. In the end, like
citeseer you will find that pages that are available and open and
cachable will be cited and used more than pages that are not.
Right now, I dont know of a simple way to even get this list of
references from wp. There is alot of work to do, and if we do this, it
will benefit the wikipedia. Another thing to do is to translate the
pages referenced.
mike
I am not talking about books, just webpages.
lets take ladygaga.com as example
Wayback engine :
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ladygaga.com
Google cache:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1720lEPHkysJ:www.ladyg…
here are two copies of copyrighted materials, we should make sure that
our referenced webpages are in archive.org or mirrored on some server.
Ideally we would have our own search engine and cache.
mike
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:00 PM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 12/10/2010 11:55:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com writes:
>
>
> i mean google has copies, caches of items for searching.
> How can google cache this?
> Archive.org has copyrighted materials as well.
> We should be able to save backups of this material as well.
> mike
>
>
>
> Mike I believe your statement lacks evidence.
> I don't think either of these has available full copies of anything under
> copyright.
> If you can give an example, please do so, so I can look at your specific
> example.
>
> Google Books has copies, not Google. The full readable copies are all under
> public domain.
> The snippet views are not. The preview views mean that they actually
> received *permission* from the copyright holder to do a preview view.
>
> That's why it's very rare to find a preview view for any book that predates
> the internet! You either get snippet or full.
> Probably the author is actually dead, and they can't find who holds the
> copyright easily today. Or it's too much trouble for a book that fifteen
> people look at.
>
> W
--
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania
flossk.orgflossal.org
In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:45:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jayen466(a)yahoo.com writes:
> Apart from summarising COM:PORN*, all that the draft sexual content
> policy
> was meant to do, actually, was to address two cases:
>
> * Material that is illegal to host for the Foundation under Florida law
> * Sexual images of people uploaded without their knowledge and consent
>
I would think from the voting, that it's now apparent that this was not
conveyed in the draft policy, as simply as you express it here.
How long is the draft policy, and how short is your summary here.
Apparently something else got added or substracted in the meanwhile.
W
In a message dated 12/9/2010 11:06:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com writes:
> Google does it, archive.org (wayback machine) does it, we can copy
> them for caching and searching i assume. we are not changing the
> license, but just preventing the information from disappearing on us. >>
>
You are thinking of refs which are out-of-copyright.
Google books only gives snippet views of some books still under copyright
for which they've not gotten permission to show an entire page at a time
(which is preview mode).
archive.org as well has copies of works out-of-copyright (or otherwise in
the public domain)
Your original statement was that we should copy refs. Many or most of our
refs are under copyright still.
We would not be able to do what you suggest imho.
W