Hi all, new user here. I hope to get the lay of the land here soon and
contribute some articles and edits on Egyptology. Particularly I'd like
to do write-ups on Sneferu and his pyramids, which often seem to get
overlooked in favor of the Giza group. Any thoughts would be most
welcome. See you all on the web...
Sorry--I'm sure Ec didn't mean that in a harsh way.
The thing is, we're a pretty live-and-let-live bunch
here--the feeling is that there are plenty of things
that deserve articles, so just write what you feel
like, and eventually it'll get done. No offense was
meant, and I understand that it's hard to get into the
mindset. Best,
Meelar
Steve Parsons wrote:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Well Ray, not to put too fine a point on it, but
> screw you.
>
>
>
>
>
> Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
> Sent by: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
> 05/28/2004 12:23 PM
> Please respond to English Wikipedia
>
>
> To: English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> cc:
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Greetings
>
>
> Steve.Parsons(a)inveresk.com wrote:
>
> >Hi all, new user here. I hope to get the lay of
> the land here soon and
> >contribute some articles and edits on Egyptology.
> Particularly I'd like
> >to do write-ups on Sneferu and his pyramids, which
> often seem to get
> >overlooked in favor of the Giza group. Any
> thoughts would be most
> >welcome.
> >
> Yeah. Just go ahead and write.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
There is another solution to this problem in discussion at Japanese
Wikipedia and Wiktionary. It is a bit easier than the migration to GNU Free
Content License, though I would love to see it happen soon.
We may introduce another license - so-called "intra-site public domain
license" or "intra-wikimedia public domain license." What the license says
is something like this:
"by contributing to Wikipedia, you allow others to use your contributions
within Wikipedia's projects as if they are in public domain."
Copying and pasting of GFDL texts are against GFDL in a small way. And it
happens in many contexts. (Moving Village Pump discussions to appropriate
talk pages, dividing an article into two pieces, using a boilerplate texts,
using {{subst:}}, etc.)
It is a bigger concern in Japanese Wikipedia, partly because fair use
usually have to include attribution according to the Japanese copyright law,
and because we do not yet have solid evidence to think that substantial
compliance in spirit is safe enough. In other words, if a troll says, "hey,
you violated my copyright, because you copied and pasted my contribution
into another page without following GFDL, and I am going to sue you," that's
not something we can laugh at.
The introduction of the PD license is also a way to reduce interlingual
troubles - the required level of compliance at Japanese Wikipedia is a bit
more strict/ literal than that suggested at en:Wikipedia:Copyright. But some
English Wikipedians may not know about it, and bring an image or translate
an article to English Wikipedia from ja. without fulfilling the requirement.
That, again, is a violation of GFDL, and therefore likely a copyright
violation.
If we introduce the "intra-wikimedia public domain license," we don't have
to worry about it.
If English Wikipedia can also introduce similar license, that would make
things more convenient.
Also, just in case it matters, we would still promote the GFDL-compliant
preservation of attribution, the purpose is just to reduce the risks from
legal technicalities, not to trivialize the attribution altogether.
Regards,
Tomos
_________________________________________________________________
Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage!
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/
Ahhhh, hmmmm, welllll, there are some similarities then yes ;-)
Though I fear we are a bit disruptive kids then
------------------
Here's what goes on.
Everyone, after preliminary greetings, sits silently. When the spirit moves
them anyone in the congregation may speak. This does not result in a
spirited conversation or an argument but again the group sits quietly until
the spirit moves someone else.
The group as a whole will not take a position not supported by all after
delibration.
As noted in the original post, the spirits which move some are given more
weight than others and occasionally the athmosphere of quiet contemplation
is disrupted.
Fred
> From: Anthere
> Reply-To: anthere9(a)yahoo.com, English Wikipedia
> Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 21:56:57 +0200
> To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia and Quaker meetings
>
> Sorry, what is particular to a quaker meeting ?
>
> dpbsmith(a)verizon.net a �crit:
>> Subject line says all: is there an organizational similarity between
>> Wikipedia and Quaker meetings?
>>
>> Anyone is theoretically authorized to speak/contribute; some (elders/sysops)
>> are slightly more equal than others; subtle social mechanisms make the
>> overall process more orderly than one might expect; decision-making is done
>> by consensus; deliberately disruptive behavior occasionally occurs and is
>> dealt with but the process is not easy...
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
Hi Tomos
I do think this kind of discussion do not belong to the english mailing list.
The issues you are raising are not only relevant to the english wikipedia. Articles could be copied from other languages than english to the japanese wikipedia, so that makes it at a minimum wikipedia-l issue, and since you are mentionning wiktionary, I guess it should go to foundation-l.
There are more and more discussions about copyrights. They spread over several mailing lists. It would be nice that they are all at the same place, especially as Tomos wisely remind us "when someone translate a gfdl article from one language to another language, history from original authors is usually lost - unless the translator thinks of mentionning the origin of the content. Even when the origin of the article is mentionned, it is tough for a user to go to the original article and consult the original list of contributors as defined at the moment of the translation. In short, most of the time, when trade of content is done, we do not respect the gfdl requirements."
Since translations happen quite often between all languages, I think any discussion of change of cp status or addition of new status or recommandation to have PD content rather than gfdl, should be project wide.
Note : I would like to know whether all wikimedia projects are under gfdl, or if some are not, or if it is planned that some will not be
Greetings
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 10:36:04 +0000
From: "Tomos at Wikipedia"
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: w to properly use articles from an outside
GFDL source?
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
There is another solution to this problem in discussion at Japanese
Wikipedia and Wiktionary. It is a bit easier than the migration to GNU Free
Content License, though I would love to see it happen soon.
We may introduce another license - so-called "intra-site public domain
license" or "intra-wikimedia public domain license." What the license says
is something like this:
"by contributing to Wikipedia, you allow others to use your contributions
within Wikipedia's projects as if they are in public domain."
Copying and pasting of GFDL texts are against GFDL in a small way. And it
happens in many contexts. (Moving Village Pump discussions to appropriate
talk pages, dividing an article into two pieces, using a boilerplate texts,
using {{subst:}}, etc.)
It is a bigger concern in Japanese Wikipedia, partly because fair use
usually have to include attribution according to the Japanese copyright law,
and because we do not yet have solid evidence to think that substantial
compliance in spirit is safe enough. In other words, if a troll says, "hey,
you violated my copyright, because you copied and pasted my contribution
into another page without following GFDL, and I am going to sue you," that's
not something we can laugh at.
The introduction of the PD license is also a way to reduce interlingual
troubles - the required level of compliance at Japanese Wikipedia is a bit
more strict/ literal than that suggested at en:Wikipedia:Copyright. But some
English Wikipedians may not know about it, and bring an image or translate
an article to English Wikipedia from ja. without fulfilling the requirement.
That, again, is a violation of GFDL, and therefore likely a copyright
violation.
If we introduce the "intra-wikimedia public domain license," we don't have
to worry about it.
If English Wikipedia can also introduce similar license, that would make
things more convenient.
Also, just in case it matters, we would still promote the GFDL-compliant
preservation of attribution, the purpose is just to reduce the risks from
legal technicalities, not to trivialize the attribution altogether.
Regards,
Tomos
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
>The ip that posted that can be banned for a bit, of course. Jimbo has
>specifially asked folks to not delete stuff from his talk page. I think
>that probably should apply to all of us in the "cabal" so that
criticisms,
>unfounded or not are clearly visible.
>
>Fred
The reason that I am suggesting it, is because by allowing Wik to post
anywhere on wikipedia during a ban gives him a place to argue. All the
time he can argue with someone, he'll try to do so. If we cut off all
communication with him, he may decide to give up and go away. (we all
know he likes an argument). Anyway it's just a suggestion. I'll wait and
see what Jimbo says.
I'm off work for a week now (yeah half term! - working in a school is
brilliant!) so I won't be checking my email, if anything comes of this
thread that people think I really out to know about, you'll have to
leave me a note on my user page.
Theresa
Subject line says all: is there an organizational similarity between Wikipedia and Quaker meetings?
Anyone is theoretically authorized to speak/contribute; some (elders/sysops) are slightly more equal than others; subtle social mechanisms make the overall process more orderly than one might expect; decision-making is done by consensus; deliberately disruptive behavior occasionally occurs and is dealt with but the process is not easy...
>It is very difficult to decide whether this or that
>sockpuppet is really Wik so we will certainly disrupt others if we are
too
>aggressive.
Most of the sockpuppets have been pretty easy to detect so far. The
chance of onnocent users being affected is minimal IMO. I'm not saying
we should be aggressive, I'm saying we should be firm.
>Removing stuff from Jimbo's talk page (if indeed it was Wik and
not some provocateur) is a really bad idea.
Why? Also if it isn't wik, but some provocateur then a ban of 7 days
seems a pretty apt punishment for impersonating Wik in order to stir up
trouble.
Theresa
Correction
"Jimbo would make an exception in this case please" -->
Jimbo would you make an exception in this case please?
I really should read emails before I send them:-(
Anyway I was asking him to make an exception, not stating that he would.
Theresa
Ignorance is one of the chief enemies of mankind, and encyclopedias like
Wikipedia are in a position to dispel this ignorance by providing
accurate and useful knowledge.
Often we are much quicker than other encyclopedias, but we are not bound
by the 24-hour news cycle. We need not "rush into print" to grab
headlines to promote newsstand sales or generate broadcast ratings. We
have gradually entered the top 1,000 of websites by simply being the
best at what we do.
Periodicals like the Washington Post or Business Week generally force
their workers to produce articles under a deadline. There's always a
point where they say, "That's good enough for this edition." But if
there are mistakes or significant omissions these are rarely corrected.
Why bother? Bolstering an old article with an additional fact or two,
putting a quotation into context, etc., doesn't generate additional
advertising revenue.
Ironically, it is the person or institution who is most willing to
acknowledge its ignorance which inspires the most trust. "We were wrong,
and have now corrected it." For those people who really want to know
what is going on, or what occurred, the most trustworthy source is that
which is most willing to correct itself. This is why science as an
institution inspires so much confidence. As the years and decades have
gone by -- especially in the last 100 or so years -- the body of
accurate, useful scientific knowledge has steadily increased. Old
hypotheses are refined or even discarded as new evidence is found.
Likewise, to the astonishment of many, the encyclopedia with the most
"corrections" is starting to be known as the most reliable. At least on
SOME subjects. It's so easy to correct a Wikipedia article. To submit a
correction, you simply click the SUBMIT button! No approving body is
needed -- except for a smattering of "protected" articles on the most
highly controversial subjects.
This works because everybody else who has contributed to that article
(or otherwise cares about it) can instantly see and review your changes.
Wikipedia breaks down the barriers that have kept collaborators apart.
Anyone, regardless of their "real world" credentials can edit any
article. What amazing freedom! No wonder BusinessWeek can't even GRASP
the concept. It's like Plato's cave: they can't even CONCEIVE of a world
outside of the shadows cast by the flames.
Wikipedia is not even 4 years old, yet Jimbo and Larry's idea has
captured the imagination of an entire world of contributors. I predict
that in coming years, academics will join in greater numbers.
Heretofore, the idea of open collaboration has not attracted enormous
numbers of highly regarded published authors or department chairmen. I
think this is largely because of two reasons: (1) lack of publicity for
the project, and (2) the incredible newness of the concept of using Wiki
software for collaboration.
This will gradually change, as public awareness increases. Imagine
Wikipedia as a top 100 website (it's already flirting with the top-500
boundary, you know). Forget the slashdot effect; think about Wikipedia
as a rival to Google!
With great power comes great responsibility. We must continue our
stewardship wisely. Let us work together in a spirit of harmony to
describe our world and its people and ideas as clearly and truthfully as
we can. This is the great task Wikipedia was born to fulfill.
Ed Poor