Robin Shannon wrote:
Okay i have just gone through all the last bajllion
emails from this
list in the last couple of days when i should have been editing
[[victor chang]], but never mind.
firstly, re: wikinews, it will be released under GFDL yes? which means
that if CNN or BBC or ABC or NZBC or the guardian or even slashdot or
a blog wanted to reproduce our wikinews article, then they would have
to also reproduce the entire GFDL license (or did i read the GDFL
incorrectly), which may well be twice as long as the news article. Has
anyone else thought of this problem and come up with any solutions.
Other than this my position on wikinews is not active support, but
certainly close interest.
It's not necessary to quote the GFDL inline with the text, you just have
to have a short license note and a link. You don't see the full text of
the GFDL in each of our articles on Wikipedia do you?
A printed version would presumably have to have the full license attached.
secondly, What the hell is the difference between
wikicommons and
wikisource? They both seem to me to be depositories for pd/gfdl
primary sources.
The major difference is that Wikicommons is for images and Wikisource is
for text.
thirdly, who's bright idea was it to make a user in
wikipedia not a
user in wiktionary, metawiki, etc. (and vice versa), is it too late to
make every user a cross-wiki user, or are there already cross-overs
(for example a [[user:jondoe]] in wiktionary and a different user but
with the name [[user:jondoe]] in wikibooks?
Whose bright idea was it? Rephrase your question please. MediaWiki was
written by volunteers in their spare time for the benefit of people like
you. Be thankful there is a wiki at all.
fourthly, yes parenthisis are wonderful things.
(perhaps this is in
reply to en.wikpedia list, i cant remember)
It's spelt "parentheses".
fifthly, what would wikiverstiy offer that wikibooks
doesnt? i fail to
see how a wiki is capable of producing anything that a university
offers other than text books (and class notes ect.). How is it going
to be able to do dems and pracs, and class discussions?
I really want to like the idea of wikiversity, but I'm gonna need some
clarifying before ill do that.
It can't offer pracs and class discussions, the proponents were very
clear on this. There's no need to be so negative about it.
sixthly, there is no sixthly.
seventhly point one, re: the latin traslation, could this be included
as class work in wikiversity?
seventhly point two, i think that mediawiki should have some built in
thingo to make translation and peer-review of translation easier for
things such as trasnlatin between different language wikipedias ect.
There are lots of people who might be able to roughly translate
something (ie, fluent in one language, and half decent in another),
but not up to the standard required for addition into wikipedia,
however if collaborative traslation was allowed then this might be
overcome. i dont know exactly how this would work, just an idea
A method for easy translation has already been implemented in EmacsWiki, see
http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/community/MultilingualExperiment
The author of that feature (Mattis Manzel) has promoted potential
applications for Wikimedia, especially on meta.
seventhly point three, re: the idea of footnotes raised
for latin
translation, i think this could apply to lots of other things (and i
know that footnotes have been debated before) but i would like to add
to this debate by saying that these footnotes should act as another
meta-page, like discussion, page history etc. if people are interested
in this idea, ill post a more detailed RFC.
Don't bother with the RFC, just post PHP.
-- Tim Starling