Among many other examples, if a reader were looking for the person
commonly known as [[Robert Harley]], on Wikipedia they'll be pleased to
find them under the ridiculous title of [[Robert Harley, 1st Earl of
Oxford and Mortimer]], a name not used except in the context of giving
his title. Now, while the said Robert Harley may indeed have been 1st
Earl of Oxford and Mortimer, it's nonetheless a plain fact that his name
was Robert Harley, and it is by this name that he is and was commonly
called.
This seems to be a proliferation on Wikipedia, and indeed there is a
proposal, currently with a wide degree of support, being discussed on
[[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage]] to make this official Wikipedia
policy: where someone holds a title, it must be part of their name,
without exceptions. At least for British titles; perhaps other
countries' titles will be dealt with more vaguely.
I'd argue that simply using peoples' names, except where their titles
are commonly used or necessary for disambiguation purposes, is best in
keeping with our standard "use the most common name in English" naming
policy, and far preferable to the one currently being proposed.
In either case, those of you with an opinion might wnat to head on over
to [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage]] and vote.
-Mark
Jimbo wrote:
>I agree. But if the topic is _itself_ valid, then the right thing to
>do with a bad article is to fix it, not delete it or redirect it.
>It's usually pretty easy to go to an article, and move the bad parts
>to the talk page along with a courteous request for more
>documentation, or rewriting of some biased terminology or whatever.
As I said before; if the article contains only chaff and no wheat then an edit
link is more informative (the validity of the topic is a side issue).
Sometimes this cannot be determined by just one person or other times the
amount of wheat in the heap of chaff just isn't worth the effort to salvage -
thus the VfD process is invoked. But of course if that process results in
somebody fixing the article (which it often does), then great.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
> User:Anthony DiPierro claims on Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements
> that Wikipedia is violating his copyright by not releasing the entirety of
> an article he modified under GFDL (Al Gore) including images, some of which
> may have been used under fair use. The images were included after his
> modifications. He claims the entire article, including images, must be
> released under GFDL to avoid breaking the license. I'm not a lawyer, I'm
> just confused (heh) and worried that this may become a problem.. probably
> just me being weird.
> - Evil saltine
Firstly, legal questions should be posted to wikilegal-l (or resolved on wikipedia, of
course). I'm cross-posting this one.
Some claim that we only release Wikipedia text under the GFDL, (see
[[meta:permission grant extent]]). As far as I know, Jimbo has not explicitly clarified
this. However, this claim is not sustainable when the images are embedded within
the article using "inline links". In this case, the image and the text form a single
document.
My reasoning is based on the various cases where people created HTML pages that
embedded content from another server - there are a bunch of examples at
http://www.linksandlaw.com/linkingcases-framing.htm. In these cases, it was argued
that inline linking creates a derivative work. Note that the GFDL only gives
permission to create a derivative work if the resulting work is also released under the
GFDL.
If the fair use image (or, indeed, quote) would probably also be fair use for all
(reasonable) downstream users, and its copyright status is explicitly marked, then
we're probably ok, but we do typically ask the image uploader to add as much detail
as they can on the image description page, so sub-licensees can decide whether to
take the risk. However, if the fair use claim relies heavily, on, for example,
Wikipedia's non-profit status, then we should remove it, and may be in danger of
infringing our contributors copyright.
If an image is vital, note that normal linking (not "inline linking") does NOT create a
derivative work.
-- Martin "IANAL" Harper
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>Nothing about VfD is Policy with a capital P, laid down or decreed by
>me. It's just a social custom, no more and no less. If the VfD
>process decides that an article like "Palestinian views on the peace
>process" should be redirected or deleted, there's absolutely nothing
>to prevent the next person who comes along from trumping the VfD
>process by just editing the page.
Except that, until we have reversible delete, someone who wants to edit
a deleted page is deprived of the opportunity to build on the previous
form.
-M-
Re circumcision: it looks to me as if the current article has pictures of
both a circumcized and an uncircumsized penis, so what's the problem?
Re pictures of genitalia. As a reference point, the Encyclopedia Britannica,
11th edition, the index word "penis" references the article "Reproductive
system." This article contains a number of detailed line drawings
(engravings?), mostly from Cunningham's Textbook of Anatomy. None of them
are, however, what I'd call a picture of a genital. The male section shows a
transverse section of a "young Prostate" (eeewwwww); a transverse section of
a testis and epididymus (eeeewwww); a sagital median section of bladder
prostate, and rectum, and a three-dimensional-looking detailed view that
looks to me like a dissected cadaver (EEEEEwwwwww), showing a "view of the
base of the bladder, prostate, seminal vesicles, and vasa deferentia." The
female section offers a cadaverous view of the uterus and broad ligament, and
a diagram of the vaginal cavity, cervix, and uterus.
In other words, I infer that their policy is "an encyclopedia should have
pictures," and also that their policy with respect to genitalia "cadavers and
transverse sections only, and no erectile tissue at all."
Let me say as clearly as I can that I present that just as a data point. I am
not, repeat NOT suggesting that this is the appropriate policy for Wikipedia!
We have too many crucial, urgent pages about articles
and people. I can't follow all of them. I can't even
figure out how to use half of them.
All we need is vandalism in progress and pages
requiring attention.
The [[Wikipedia:Pages requiring attention]] article
should be for problems that YOU can't solve but want US
to solve for you:
* What was the name of the guy who said X?
* Could someone please speel czech this?
* Mediator needed at [[talk:Y]] (Heckle and Jeckle are
at it again)
* Please help me describe Z neutrally.
* Someone posted their resume, and I'm not a sysop;
please delete it for me.
If an article has a problem that is so unclear that we
want to debate it or vote on it, that's usually because
there is a genuine Policy Disagreement. It's not really
about the article in question; rather, the article is only
one example of a class of similar articles. So, let's take
it to the mailing list and hash out the /issue/.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
User:Anthony DiPierro claims on Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements
that Wikipedia is violating his copyright by not releasing the entirety of
an article he modified under GFDL (Al Gore) including images, some of which
may have been used under fair use. The images were included after his
modifications. He claims the entire article, including images, must be
released under GFDL to avoid breaking the license. I'm not a lawyer, I'm
just confused (heh) and worried that this may become a problem.. probably
just me being weird.
- Evil saltine
_________________________________________________________________
There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Learn more.
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1
Ed Poor and others wrote:
> This issue keeps coming up, but the solution is always
> the same:
> LET THE ARTICLE SAY THAT X REPORTS Y ABOUT Z.
Mav and others repeatedly claim to agree:
> Exactly!
However, I am beginning to question the sincerity of my
critics on this issue. The fact remains is that the deleted
material *did* do precisely this.
Danny and Zero simply didn't want this information made
available. They have an anti-Zionist agenda (which is their
right), and they do not want quotes from Palestinian
leaders made available at all, if it hurts their political
views (which is not their right.) To claim that they don't
have anti-Zionist agendas is untenable; they are very clear
on these issues.
As for the repeated claim that every single quote was taken
out of context, that is just wishful thinking.
First off, please stop misrepresenting the content of the
articles. It does _not_ claim that every Palestinian leader
says the same thing; it quotes from a variety of leaders, a
variety of sources, and provides a variety of views.
Secondly, when someone repeatedy says that they want to
destory Israel, and they repeatedly admit that they lied to
the Israelies, and that they have no intention of ever
having a real peace with them, we are obligated to report
these facts. We may not censor these facts and claim that
"Those silly Arabs don't really mean what they sa". When
we do this, we push am obviously anti-Israeli agenda, and
we also infantilize Arabs. We may agree or disagree with
them, but let's stop treating them like children incapable
of expressing simple thoughts.
There has developed two standards of intellectual integrity
among the Wiki-En contributors. One standard is for Arabs,
and the other standard is for the rest of the world. This
double-standard must end if Wikipedia wants to be taken
seriously outside left-wing circles.
Robert (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! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Viajero wrote:
>It is fine in principal to be against deleting articles but that implies
>ACTION in concrete terms, but since we are a collection of volunteers,
>this doesn't always follow. While I have nothing against incomplete
>articles, of which there are obviously many in WP, I am strongly against
>have genuinely *bad* articles -- such as the Palestinian viewpoints
>article -- in the encyclopedia. They should be fixed immediately or
>deleted -- one or the other.
Nicely put! As a group of volunteers we can't expect that somebody will want
to fix a bad article. So giving a bad article exposure for one last chance to
at least become a stub is a good thing.
Furthermore, the mere existence of bad articles encourages more bad articles
to be added. Incomplete is one thing - that is relatively easy to fix - but
bad is another and if often much more difficult to fix.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Hi all- on the Anarchism talk page jack lynch has stated;
"External links within the article are against wiki policy."
To which I replied;
"PS. Where is it wiki policy not to use external links in articles? I always
thought citations were a standard way of referencing, if it is policy it
should be changed forthwith."
Which admit I wrote whilst feeling a bit snotty towards this individual,
however, I've never seen anything which says external links are against
'policy', I use them all the time in much the same way i'd use citations,
and can't see what's wrong here, please can i have some clarification from
the rest of the community.
Personally i'd like to see MORE external links/citations, and was even
thinking of proposing a feature for including citations or attributiuons
within articles (for example, I've used some stuff that has been told go me
personally by people (ie, by ex-members of Crass for the Crass article,
which can't be verified by Google, but is none the less useful and
encylopedic (or even vice versa- Micheal claimed someone from Crass was in a
band called Trapeze- google verified this because someone else had written
it on a dodgy unresearched website, but my primary source (ie, the people
themselves) confirmed it was bollocks. Iyt would be nice to have a
'citation' feature that linked to quoted sources, much as the end of a
chapter in an academic book has a 'notes' section at the end...
Cheers Graham burnett (quercus robur)
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.554 / Virus Database: 346 - Release Date: 21/12/2003