I wrote:
>>As is usual for vague new proposals, there's a tension between being
clear enough to let people know if they really want to be involved, and
vague enough so that they might feel they can have a shape in how it's
going to be formed. ^^^^^
Not "shape," "stake"! :-)
Also, I'm glad Stephen Gilbert and Toby Bartels gave their blessing as
well, thanks guys.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com>
> >...
> >Whatever becomes a professional review mechanism
> >for Wikipedia, let me tell ya how I think it should
> >work: the reviewer should look at a candidate
> article,
> >perhaps make a few last minute changes on Wikipedia,
> >and then press a button, and it's posted as
> certified.
> >End of story.
> >After our experience with Nupedia, I think it should
> >be *that* simple. On this conception, *Wikipedia* is
> >the editing mechanism; the review mechanism consists
> >of qualified people *just* pressing *one* button.
> >(I'm just offering this as an idea--I'm not saying
> >that it's *definitely* what we should do. But I do
> >strongly feel it should be that simple, or
> >nearly that simple. Once we determine the venue,
> >we can discuss the details fo the mechanism.)
> >
> >Larry
>
> Wow Larry, I really like this idea. It is simple,
> fast, easy, doesn't require freezing of a Wikipedia
> article during a review and most importantly it would
> not represent a version fork.
Yes, this is really important to me, so let me explain why. From the very
beginning we were encouraging people to move articles from Wikipedia to
Nupedia--nobody did it. If we were to propose doing that again now, I
can't see why it would be significantly different from before. To be
sure, a revitalized Nupedia could be greatly simplified; but I think it's
pretty safe to say that Nupedians will insist on being on more than just a
subset of Wikipedia. But in that case, if we had a greatly-simplified
Nupedia just borrowing articles from Wikipedia, and also adding articles
of its own, running a parallel project, that would be great, but because
it *would* be a different project (I don't like the word "fork" in this
context), Wikipedia would still probably have grounds for a certification
process of its own. It couldn't *predict* that Nupedia would serve as a
"best of" Wikipedia; a revitalized, simplified Nupedia might simply ignore
Wikipedia, as it did before, when Nupedia was active.
The present proposal is to create a functionally and editorially
independent project that *only* uploads selected Wikipedia articles, and
does not change them at all.
> There could even be a
> second level pass by somebody else with even higher
> qualifications.
That's sort of what I thought Nupedia could do.
> They would review the Wikipedia
> article sometime after the first reviewer, make some
> needed changes (possibly reverting some less than
> stellar edits since the last review), click a button
> and presto!
>
> I have a Bachelors degree in Biology with an
> unofficial concentration in microbiology so sign me up
> to review some basic biology and microbiology
> articles. There would be criteria for a reviewer to
> follow, right? We need to work this stuff out. I
> suggest we create a Metapedia page to work-out some
> details. I would like to also go over Nupedia's review
> guidelines and see if we can get some good ideas on
> what to do and not to do from that. We also need to
> dig-up your original mailing list post on this subject
> in the archives. There were some great posts made
> during the great beta/stable debate several months ago
> that should also be mined for ideas.
I'm sure we could learn something that way. An essential aspect of the
project as I conceived of it is that it would be potentially attractive to
college professors who want to work with colleagues and who do not want to
have to debate (or check up on) changes made by people whom they think
aren't yet their equals in terms of qualifications or ability. The entry
bar would therefore necessarily have to be high in terms of
qualifications. I think all this entails that, for planning purposes,
once we have decided we're really going to do this (and I at least am
pretty sure I want to get behind it), we should set up a separate mailing
list for the project. It's only appropriate that the project be more
specifically defined, and guided, by the future participants.
But these things (the new mailing list included) is contingent to a
certain extent upon Jimbo's intentions vis-a-vis Nupedia itself. I hope
we'll hear more from him about all of this. He's probably out having fun
on the weekend now, as usual, so we might not hear from him about this for
a few days.
Larry
How do I do a cross-language image? I just translated the [[Rosetta Stone]]
article into French and made an [[en:Image:]] link, which ended up at the top
of the page next to the link to the English article looking odd.
phma
Chas wrote:
>I recently noted that in the article on [[New Age]], there are several
>quote lengthy direct quotes (with attribution and permissions), but
>these quotes are 7 or 8 lengthy paragraphs long; and contain some POV
>material (as well as some incorrect material, as noted in the wiki
>commentary for the article).
>
>What is the correct approach here? Summarize with attribution?
I would reduce that drastically. IMHO 7 or 8 paragraphs in almost any wikipedia article is too much to be "fair" use (most of our articles are probably not even 7 or 8 paragraphs long!). It's also a backdoor to insert bias, since you can't change direct quotations. I'd edit furiously, and summarize. But that's just me, and you're you, so there's that. ;-)
kq
koyaanisqatsi(a)nupedia.com
> Ortolan88 wrote:
> >We have no guarantee that the entries will remain the same either.
> >The bioastropedia is an excellent web site, but we aren't going to
> >import their articles wholesale and leave them untouched forever, are
> >we?
>
> Well, no, I didn't expect us to. I guess the question is "at what
> point have articles changed enough from the source that
> it's ok to remove the citation"? I would (today, anyway) urge people
> to leave the citations in and change "works cited" to
> "works consulted"--if for no other reason than that several notable
> academics have been caught plagiarizing lately.
I recently noted that in the article on [[New Age]], there are several
quote lengthy direct quotes (with attribution and permissions), but
these quotes are 7 or 8 lengthy paragraphs long; and contain some POV
material (as well as some incorrect material, as noted in the wiki
commentary for the article).
What is the correct approach here? Summarize with attribution? Leave it
alone? The latter seems inconsistent with the spirit of wiki, the former
may result in a reduction of credibility by removing some referenced
source.
Cheers - Chas
Hi Members,
As a moderator of one of the nupedia mailing lists, I do encourage some of
you to volunteer to Jimmy to moderate one of the three wikipedia mailing lists.
This is not hard. It just requires that you check your e-mail a few times a day.
If a message is posted to the list from an e-mail not on the subscribers'
list, a message goes to the moderator to approve or not to approve the message.
Or you can reject with a reason, like, "Sorry, but you are not subscribed under
that e-mail address. Please use your usual e-mail address or change the e-mail
you are subscribed under."
I bet at least a few people came up with the same suggestion...
As Ever,
Ruth Ifcher
--
> Toby Bartels wrote:
> > >I am aware when such posts happen. For regular contributors, I just
> > >ignore them. For newcomers, I try to respond.
> >
> > So if I accidentally send a post from the wrong From: address
> > and it gets sent to you for moderation, then you ignore it?
> > I'd much rather that you posted it!
>
> In a perfect world, that would be the best thing. But there's no time
> for that.
>
> Instead, the message should say: "Hey, you sent them from an
> unsubscribed address, so it's going straight into a blackhole never to
> be seen again."
>
> Alternatively, someone could volunteer to be the moderator for the
> list. (The list is not moderated, mind you, it's just that the
> moderator has the power to take care of this kind of administrivia.)
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>...
>Whatever becomes a professional review mechanism
>for Wikipedia, let me tell ya how I think it should
>work: the reviewer should look at a candidate
article,
>perhaps make a few last minute changes on Wikipedia,
>and then press a button, and it's posted as
certified.
>End of story.
>After our experience with Nupedia, I think it should
>be *that* simple. On this conception, *Wikipedia* is
>the editing mechanism; the review mechanism consists
>of qualified people *just* pressing *one* button.
>(I'm just offering this as an idea--I'm not saying
>that it's *definitely* what we should do. But I do
>strongly feel it should be that simple, or
>nearly that simple. Once we determine the venue,
>we can discuss the details fo the mechanism.)
>
>Larry
Wow Larry, I really like this idea. It is simple,
fast, easy, doesn't require freezing of a Wikipedia
article during a review and most importantly it would
not represent a version fork. There could even be a
second level pass by somebody else with even higher
qualifications. They would review the Wikipedia
article sometime after the first reviewer, make some
needed changes (possibly reverting some less than
stellar edits since the last review), click a button
and presto!
I have a Bachelors degree in Biology with an
unofficial concentration in microbiology so sign me up
to review some basic biology and microbiology
articles. There would be criteria for a reviewer to
follow, right? We need to work this stuff out. I
suggest we create a Metapedia page to work-out some
details. I would like to also go over Nupedia's review
guidelines and see if we can get some good ideas on
what to do and not to do from that. We also need to
dig-up your original mailing list post on this subject
in the archives. There were some great posts made
during the great beta/stable debate several months ago
that should also be mined for ideas.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
wikipedia is my hoe.
---
Earn free ringtones - go to:
http://www.earnfreeringtones.com/?src=jzcool
James's Domain - Your source for Nintendo, Sega, Playstation, Anime, Manga, and more! http://www.jzcool.net
On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 23:30:22
rose.parks wrote:
>Hi Members,
>
> As a moderator of one of the nupedia mailing lists, I do encourage some of
>you to volunteer to Jimmy to moderate one of the three wikipedia mailing lists.
>This is not hard. It just requires that you check your e-mail a few times a day.
> If a message is posted to the list from an e-mail not on the subscribers'
>list, a message goes to the moderator to approve or not to approve the message.
>Or you can reject with a reason, like, "Sorry, but you are not subscribed under
>that e-mail address. Please use your usual e-mail address or change the e-mail
>you are subscribed under."
>
> I bet at least a few people came up with the same suggestion...
>
> As Ever,
>
> Ruth Ifcher
>
>--
>
>> Toby Bartels wrote:
>> > >I am aware when such posts happen. For regular contributors, I just
>> > >ignore them. For newcomers, I try to respond.
>> >
>> > So if I accidentally send a post from the wrong From: address
>> > and it gets sent to you for moderation, then you ignore it?
>> > I'd much rather that you posted it!
>>
>> In a perfect world, that would be the best thing. But there's no time
>> for that.
>>
>> Instead, the message should say: "Hey, you sent them from an
>> unsubscribed address, so it's going straight into a blackhole never to
>> be seen again."
>>
>> Alternatively, someone could volunteer to be the moderator for the
>> list. (The list is not moderated, mind you, it's just that the
>> moderator has the power to take care of this kind of administrivia.)
>>
>> --Jimbo
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> Wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
>> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
__________________________________________________________
Outgrown your current e-mail service? Get 25MB Storage, POP3 Access,
Advanced Spam protection with LYCOS MAIL PLUS.
http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus&ref=lmtplus
I agree with Imran that fair use materials in a GFDL document are a
problem. In essence we tell our readers "we grant you the right to do
what you want with these materials, just follow the GFDL", but we are
in no position to make such an announcement: we don't own the copyright
to the fair use materials nor have we received permission from the
copyright holder. Our readers *cannot* do what they want with them.
Like Cunctator says, invariant sections don't provide a way out.
Short of dropping fair use materials altogether, we could clearly label
the fair use status of images on the image description page, maybe even
saying "This image is *not* under GFDL, it was copied from ... under
the fair-use doctrine." And our [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] should then
contain a notice that for the license of images, the description page
ought to be checked.
In essence, the image then becomes a separate document from the rest of
the article, with a separate license. It may not be completely clean
and is not very pretty, but I think it's the only thing we can do.
Axel
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
>I'm not really too sure about this one,
>but thought I'd better throw it in to
>your current copyright/fair use debate.
>Someone at 64.175.251.49 has just posted
>all the lyrics to the songs from an album
>called cowboys from hell
>(http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboys_From_Hell).
>Apart from the fact this doesn't seem like
>encyclopedia material, is it fair use to
>put these here? It doesn't seem safe ot me.
>I've heard that quite a few large lyric
>repositories have been shut down over the
>past few years.
>
>ASB
Sigh, 64 again... Thank your for noticing this. Zoe
and I have already found and removed a half dozen
possible copyright violations by this IP. These are
listed on
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Votes_for_deletion near
the end. I had hoped that the replacement of the
offending material with the 'possible copyright
violation' boilerplates would either clue this person
into learning a bit about not stealing the work of
others or at least prompt them into giving some
evidence that the text is used with permission. Since
these new violations of copyright have occurred well
after the posting of the boilerplates I have placed a
24 hour block on that IP so we can have enough time to
clean-up. If you want to help please visit:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=64…
--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
=====
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/