Track them to see who is doing the bad editing/trolling. This would be more
useful than tracking IP addresses because it wouldn't chage. We could then
ban the cookie. Would that be too harmful? (IP addresses change every time
for dialup users and sometimes cycle around for broadband users).
>For Daniel
>What do you mean by a trackable cookie ? Another
>spying intention on people ? Invasion privacy ?
>Tracking exactly what ?
>
>Yours
>
>Athypique
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Should user pages should be protected for that username only? It would make
sense, because that's who it's intended for. But maybe not because then
someone could post any libelous or offensive content they wanted. Maybe
sysops and the user should be able to edit the users page. What do you
think? Would it destroy the Wiki concept or help free speech and protection
of the page? Is it worth changing or thinking about?
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
--- Daniel Ehrenberg <name12323(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Should user pages should be protected for that
> username only? It would make
> sense, because that's who it's intended for. But
> maybe not because then
> someone could post any libelous or offensive content
> they wanted. Maybe
> sysops and the user should be able to edit the users
> page. What do you
> think? Would it destroy the Wiki concept or help
> free speech and protection
> of the page? Is it worth changing or thinking about?
Hello list
Maybe the username page could be protected against any
edition done by any other user except the logued in
user. If the logued in user is abusing us in posting
insanity, discussion with him would be enough to drive
him out of the idea. Just like some users were asked
by the community to change their user name because it
did not please the community. The choice of a user
name and of a user page content is free as long as
community is happy with it. Similarly, regular sysop
have no possibility now to change a user name; why
would they have the right to change the content of the
page ? The user name and the user page are his image.
Yours
Athypique
___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
--- Daniel Ehrenberg <name12323(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds good, but only a sysop could change that
> status of the page. Or
> maybe there could be a cookie identifier on each
> person's computer so we
> could track them? The cookie would be blockable.
Hello list,
For Tannnin
I don't like very much the idea of adding another
class level on Wikipedia. I think it is a slow
constitution of a very rigid hierarchy, where more and
more people forget being a sysop imply more duties
than rights. And it would make very obvious that
non-loggued in people are not trusted.
For Daniel
What do you mean by a trackable cookie ? Another
spying intention on people ? Invasion privacy ?
Tracking exactly what ?
Yours
Athypique
> >Maybe it is worth considering having a special
> class of Wikipedia
> >article that is not a completely protected page,
> but can only be edited
> >by logged-in contributors. I'm not sure if this
> would work or not, or
> >if it would be practical to implement. I'm just
> thinking aloud. Any
> >bright ideas out there? Comments?
> >
> >
> >Tony Wilson
> >(Tannin)
> >list(a)redhill.net.au
___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
On Friday 21 March 2003 10:51 am, wikien-l-request(a)wikipedia.org wrote:
> That is a noble project, and if you stick to public domain or GFDL
> pictures, it will be much nobler still. Please familiarize yourself
> with the wealth of image resources listed under
>
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_image_resources
>
> I think Jimbo's suggestion of a free photo resource site is great. It
> could work pretty much like the GIMP photo archive
>
> http://gimp-savvy.com/PHOTO-ARCHIVE/
>
> with a wiki-edited set of keywords for each photo, except it should
> allow uploading of course, and needs to keep track of the license (or
> lack thereof) and origin of each photo. Initially, we could seed the
> database with all the photos from the public domain sources. Could be a
> bit resource hungry though.
>
> Axel
Great idea but this is something of Wikipedia-wide importance, no?
Everybody, please remember which mailing list you are writing to and send your
posts accordingly. :-)
Yours in WikiLove, mav
WikiKarma
I'm writing a response that will be posted to wikipedia-l
I have been having a problem with user Fred Bauder on the
Chiropractic medicine article, and it has no reached the
point of vandalism. He is openly and repeatedly committing
academic fraud; i.e. bald-faced lying.
In recent days he kept repeatedly citing a paper that
specificly attacks chiropractice as frauduent...and somehow
claimed that this paper *supported* chiropractic practice.
He also rewrote the article to make it sound as if all
spinal manipulation was chiropractic, which again is a
bald-faced lie. In fact, many medical doctors would
consider it actionable libel if their spinal manipulation
was referred to in print as "chiropractice". Most medical
doctors do not want their work to be tarred with a label
that see as pseudoscience. And, in fact, chiropractic
theory has nothing to do with mere spinal manipulation.
Plenty of medical doctors totally reject chiropractic
theory, yet still will manipulate the spine for a limited
number of medical conditions.
It gets worse. After being told about these gross erros,
Fred Bauder has refused to discuss the issue, refused to
address the specific points raised, and has engaged in a
series of reverts: Again and again he footnotes and quotes
from an article *attacking* chiropractice fradulent, and he
dishonestly is using it as if it offers support for
chiropractice.
My previous comments to him noted this error, but his
continued reversions of the article, and his repetition of
this falsehood, now leaves us little choice but to assume
that he is deliberately lying. This is vandalism.
If someone wants to cite a peer-reviewed medical report
that supports chiropractic theory, fine. If someone wants
to cite an article critical of chiropractic, that is fine
to. But no one has the right to lie about the views of
people who are against something (e.g. chiropractice), and
who explicitly write that it has no medical support.
Deliberately lying about the views of people (all of whom
are medical doctors and scientists) is grossly dishonest.
RK
=====
"I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous".
The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815]
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
Brion writes:
>I keep meaning to wander around LA with a camera
> and snap some pictures. Hopefully I won't get
> picked up on suspicion of planning terrorist
> acts!
You're only a terrorist if you challenge the status
quo or have a beard.
I got stopped once while taking a picture of a plant.
"Hey man, what are you doing?"
"Taking pictures."
"Of what?"
"Of plants."
...
"You might be robbing houses."
"On my bike?"
I haven't uploaded the offending photo yet because I
don't know what it's called. Attached, for anyone who
cares. Is there a botanist in the house?
kq
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
Ed Poor wrote:
>I beg you to donate this passage, which is from your book "Trust Us
>We're Experts" to Wikipedia, Sheldon. May we have your permission to
>incorporate it into the [[pseudoscience]] article?
Feel free to use or adapt it as you see fit. However, the Wikipedia
article already contains most of the ideas in the passage I cited. It
already mentions Karl Popper, it already talks about
"falsifiability," and it has quite a bit of other information that is
actually quite a bit more detailed than the passage I quoted from my
book.
>For that matter, what are the legal technicalities involved in the
>case where a published author wants to donate a tiny portion of a
>copyrighted work, to the public via the GPL? (I'm not saying Sheldon
>would want to do so in this case: this is brilliant prose, and he's
>entitled to make money off it; more power to him!)
I'm not an attorney, but U.S. copyright law, as spelled out in 17 USC
107, says that "fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching..., scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright." It goes on to specify
the following criteria to be used in judging whether the use made of
a work constitutes fair use:
>(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
>is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
>(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
>(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
>the copyrighted work as a whole; and
>(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
>the copyrighted work.
With regard to points (1) and (4), Wikipedia would be on solid ground
in quoting brief excerpts from a book or other published work of
significant length. Wikipedia isn't a commercial venture, and a brief
quotation or adaptation from a book wouldn't hurt sales. Assuming
attribution is given, it would probably *contribute* to sales. No
harm, no foul.
I'm not sure what point (2) is intended to address, but I think it
applies to unauthorized use of confidential documents or trade
secrets.
On point (3), the "amount and substantiality" of an excerpt is
subject to varying court interpretations, depending on the nature of
the work. Quoting a brief poem in its entirety could be a copyright
violation, but a 1,000-word passage from a book probably isn't.
If you wish to research this further, the following URLs may help:
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/clasguid.htmhttp://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/nov96/96a0357p.06.html
--
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------
Richard Grevers
>In general, if you are approaching someone for
> permission to use a photo they own the rights of,
they
> need to understand that once on Wikipedia it is free
> for anyone else to use within the terms of the
license.
> And if you really want a photo of a Koala, I have
one
> I took myself, which I amd happy to release, also
> kangaroos, wombats and a dingo.
This is the way to go, I think. I've been very
hesitant about the "fair use" photos from the
beginning, and would very much prefer people take
their own or use photos from various sources in the
public domain. The NOAA and NASA have some striking
photos, but of course those won't cover every
situation.
If I lived in New York, like Mr. Poor, I can assure
you there would be a wide array of photos of various
famous figures in the 'pedia. *That's* where the
current need is, since AFAIK the various
counterintelligence agencies are the only agencies
making it a point to photograph famous people. And,
for some reason, they don't usually release their
dossiers to the public.
kq
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com