CB low
> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 01:10:02 +0100
> Rowan Collins wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Jens Ropers wrote (to WikiEN-L):
>
>> Can I suggest we implement a "cover all" redirect, whereby ALL
>> [[Wikipedia:Some stuff here]] kind of links can alternatively be
>> written [[WP:Some stuff here]]?
>
> [snip]
>
>> Not all "Wikipedia:(...)" pages have "own" their redirects (meaning
>> redirects such as WP:SB), but it still seems like a good idea to
>> ALWAYS
>> allow the "Wikipedia:" bit to be abbreviated as "WP:" -- so that if
>> I'm
>> writing e.g. [[WP:Dispute resolution]], this would automatically
>> redirect/be expanded to [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]]. Again, I'm
>> asking whether we can do the WP: to Wikipedia: redirecting/expanding
>> stuff on a GENERIC basis. (I know it /could/ be done on an individual
>> article basis, but that's not my point.
>
> And this is even more useful for namespaces with longer names, of
> course: Wikipedia_talk: is just a pain to type!
>
>> It would help, be really convenient and it would not get in the way of
>> anything. Pages can still have actual own redirects such as [[WP:SB]].
>
> Of course, if it were a real aliasing system such as I am imagining, a
> page "called" [[WP:SB]] would actually be called [[Wikipedia:SB]], but
> I don't see that that would matter much - we'd just have to move all
> pages called WP:xxx to Wikipedia:xxx before activating the alias (with
> a bot, or a database script).
We don't actually have to move anything -- it's just a matter of
precedence during the URL resolution process:
If the WP: to Wikipedia: conversion ONLY kicked in AFTER all other
option have been tried (but before the "Wikipedia doesn't have such a
page yet - do you want to create it"-screen got resorted to, then it
would just work.
Pity I can't code.
Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers
There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the
ones who watch progress bars.
http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683
----- Original Message -----
From: Christiaan Briggs <christiaan(a)yurkycross.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 09:51:41 +0100
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] When can an article be considered public domain?
> On 14 Aug 2004, at 6:39 am, Jim Cecropia wrote:
>
> > To go to an extreme, you obviously cannot quote an entire article and
> > then make some comments and call it fair use.
>
> Could you quote the whole thing verbatim and sign it author unknown?
>
> Christiaan
>
I wouldn't. Suppose I write an article for a local newspaper, signed, copyright notice and all (just so there's no doubt I take it seriously). Someone likes the article and posts it on his web site, no copyright, no author's name. It has just been pirated. If someone else then copies it off the web site thinking it's public domain, it's still a violation of my copyright.
You can always quote points from the article for critical analysis, something like: "In an unsigned article at www.blahblah.com, it is said that 'the Caballah is originally of Indo-Siamese origin before the year 650 CE,' but it is well known that this is a factual error, because..."
And so on...
It is almost never safe to quote an entire anything without knowing where you stand.
Cheers, C
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
> (I do like the idea of somewhere I can put all the pics of buildings,
> monuments and so on that I took a pic of because I thought they'd be a
> nice idea for Wikipedia if I ever write the article ...)
Why not just use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_images ?
Can I suggest we implement a "cover all" redirect, whereby ALL
[[Wikipedia:Some stuff here]] kind of links can alternatively be
written [[WP:Some stuff here]]?
Not all "Wikipedia:(...)" pages have "own" their redirects (meaning
redirects such as WP:SB), but it still seems like a good idea to ALWAYS
allow the "Wikipedia:" bit to be abbreviated as "WP:" -- so that if I'm
writing e.g. [[WP:Dispute resolution]], this would automatically
redirect/be expanded to [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]]. Again, I'm
asking whether we can do the WP: to Wikipedia: redirecting/expanding
stuff on a GENERIC basis. (I know it /could/ be done on an individual
article basis, but that's not my point.
It would help, be really convenient and it would not get in the way of
anything. Pages can still have actual own redirects such as [[WP:SB]].
Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers
There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the
ones who watch progress bars.
http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683
First IANAL, but have worked for years with issues involving intellectual property.
The first question is: When was the material you want to use created? Since it was created during the '90s, it is in copyright, where or not a copyright notice appears.
Second. Who is the copyright owner? This is almost always the author, unless the work was done for hire AND the author contractually transferred his/her rights to another, or has otherwise assigned these rights. So assume it is the author, unless someone else can prove otherwise.
Third. Can you use the material because the copyright owner can't/doesn't want to be found? -- No.
Fourth. Can you use the material because you think the copyright owner wants it to be freely distributed? -- You'll need some kind of explicit proof of that, such as a statement by the copyright owner saying you can do it, or a dedication to the public domain.
Fifth. So you are essentially left with "fair use." Fair use is not a bright line. Generally, you may quote reasonable portions of a work in order to honestly critique it, especially if this is part of an intellectual or educational effort. You cannot quote so much as to spoil the copyright owners ability to market and profit from his own work. It is not your decision whether or not the work is commercially viable, etc. To go to an extreme, you obviously cannot quote an entire article and then make some comments and call it fair use.
Again, IANAL, but I hope this helps.
JC
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert <rkscience100(a)yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 12:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] When can an article be considered public domain?
> I am writing an article on the [[Kabbalah Center]], the
> for-profit religious group led by former insurance agent
> Feivel Gruberger, who now claims to be "Rabbi Philip Berg".
>
>
> There is a lengthy and carefully referenced article about
> him and his work called ''The Truth about the Kabbalah
> Centre'' which I got a photocopy of. It was published by
> the ''Task Force on Cults and Missionaries'', Los Angeles,
> CA in 1995. The references and facts stated therein match
> the claims in other articles, from newspapers. (Berg and hs
> group have been investiagted by journalists from the US and
> Israel; he is accused of running a cult and brainwashing
> some of his disciples, as well as scamming them out of
> large amounst of money, and endangering their health.)
>
>
> etc. etc.
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
coxcustomer3 at cox.net wrote:
"Mintguy has this stuffy, toffee-nosed, Upper Class, British POV, Canonical
Fascism about every article and doesn't allow for American contributions on
British and British related topics by me."
I'm an American, I've never been accused of an 'aristocratic' bias, and I
use American English spellings. As the main author of a number of UK-related
articles (e.g., British Empire), I've only gotten to know Mintugy as a
helpful, diligent, and competent user.
If he is reverting American contributors, I bet that it's because their
edits are unconstructive, not because they're Americans.
-User:172
_________________________________________________________________
Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and
more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx
Jens Ropers asked whether this is likely one of the "few rare cases" where
we desperately need an image which is unavailable under fair use.
Looking at the details, this image is used in [[Nudity]], [[Vietnam War]],
[[Strategic bombing]], [[Kim Phuc Phan Thi]], [[History of the United States
(1964-1980)]], and [[Huynh Cong Ut]]. I don't see any arguable "deperate
need" for the image in any of the articles other than [[Kim Phuc Phan Thi]]
and [[Huynh Cong Ut]], and the image is most likely fair use in those
articles.
I think we should remove the image from [[Nudity]], [[Vietnam War]],
[[Strategic bombing]], and [[History of the United States (1964-1980)]].
I'd suggest that we only link to it in the other articles (assuming it is
available somewhere online outside of Wikipedia), but I could see an
argument for keeping it, as it is essentially impossible to replace, the
cost to buy a free license would be prohibitive (at least at Wikipedia's
current stage of development), and it is most likely usable by at least the
noncommercial reusers. I don't see a problem with asking for permission to
use the image in those two articles if we decided to keep it.
Just my opinion, though. I'd like to here Jimbo's assessment.
Anthony
As you might be aware of, I was the one who originally asked for the deletion of this image. After extensive discussion on this thread http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-August/000822.html I changed my mind about the need for deletion. I agree with your assessment of the situation. I too look forward to Jimmy's comments on the issue, however due to the Hurricane currently flooding his house with up to 5 feet of water, I somehow doubt he will be replying any time soon :(.
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:46:33 -0400, Anthony DiPierro <anthonydipierro(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jens Ropers asked whether this is likely one of the "few rare cases" where
> we desperately need an image which is unavailable under fair use.
>
> Looking at the details, this image is used in [[Nudity]], [[Vietnam War]],
> [[Strategic bombing]], [[Kim Phuc Phan Thi]], [[History of the United States
> (1964-1980)]], and [[Huynh Cong Ut]]. I don't see any arguable "deperate
> need" for the image in any of the articles other than [[Kim Phuc Phan Thi]]
> and [[Huynh Cong Ut]], and the image is most likely fair use in those
> articles.
>
> I think we should remove the image from [[Nudity]], [[Vietnam War]],
> [[Strategic bombing]], and [[History of the United States (1964-1980)]].
> I'd suggest that we only link to it in the other articles (assuming it is
> available somewhere online outside of Wikipedia), but I could see an
> argument for keeping it, as it is essentially impossible to replace, the
> cost to buy a free license would be prohibitive (at least at Wikipedia's
> current stage of development), and it is most likely usable by at least the
> noncommercial reusers. I don't see a problem with asking for permission to
> use the image in those two articles if we decided to keep it.
>
> Just my opinion, though. I'd like to here Jimbo's assessment.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
--
Michael Becker
Robert wrote:
>A few years ago I wrote an article for a local newspaper on
>this issue, and tried to get permission to print the
>article from the ''Task Force on Cults and Missionaries''.
>Despite letters and phone calls, I was unable to track down
>anyone who held copyright to it; the people who sent me the
>article from LA told me that I was free to publish the
>entire article, or parts therein, and that they could not
>provide me with copyright information or the name of the
>author. They allow others to post the entire article on
>their website, notably Rick Ross, an anti-cult educator.
>
>I suspect that the author or authors of this article want
>to avoid being sued, and wish that this material be
>distributed.
>
>I notice that our article on [[Public domain]] states that
>"A copyright holder can explicitly disclaim any proprietary
>interest in the work, effectively granting it to the public
>domain, by providing a licence to this effect. A suitable
>licence will grant permission for all of the acts which are
>restricted by copyright law."
>
>What about cases when we can no longer track down the
>copyright holder, or they wish not to be found, and
>encourage distribution of their work? At what point can we
>reasonably presume that such work enters the public domain?
>
Copyright holders have no obligation to disclose contact information or
anything else that allows you to track them down. If a copyright holder
is untraceable, usually all you can do is wait for the copyright to
expire. This may not be easy to determine, since you probably will not
know in this situation when the author has died. Under current law,
among other things, the author needs to have been dead for 70 years. So
you can't reasonably presume that the work is in the public domain
unless you're pretty sure that the author died more than 70 years ago.
The possibility that the copyright holder encouraged distribution of the
work might be construed as some sort of license. But unlike the old
days, where failure to include a copyright notice might make a work
public domain, today there is no conduct that puts something into the
public domain by default. Simply encouraging the distribution of the
whole work or excerpts is not the kind of explicit statement I would
read as releasing the work into the public domain.
Furthermore, in the situation you describe, the providers of the content
act as if they know the author allows redistribution, yet they are
peculiarly unable to even name the author (which they should be able to
do even if they have since lost contact). This does not instill any
great confidence in me that these people can reliably restate the wishes
of the copyright holder.
In any case, I fail to see the need for us to reprint this work. If it
provides any useful information that is appropriate for our articles,
those facts can be written in a suitable NPOV fashion and the source of
the information cited.
--Michael Snow
This was taken from Jimbo's talk page:
User:Mats Halldin
This user is harrassing me to no end. Whenever I contribute anything, he calls me a troll and gets me blocked on the Swedish Village Pump. He's trying to do that here, too at the English Wikipedia. I was complaining about being sabotaged by some other Wikipedia user I don't know who, but likely on the English Wikipedia. What happens is, I open the English Wikipedia and it gets moved to another website. This effectively blocks me from seeing any articles and learning the things I want to know. I have two spy/ad/malware blockers and two web browsers now to combat this garbage. I hope the problems goes away soon because this behaviour is completely unacceptable no matter who it's done to. The website isn't supposed to be tampered with. I am very sure that it is only the English site that doesn't work when I have a problem accessing Wikipedia. Lord Kenneð Alansson 00:28, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
See User Talk:OlofE about possible implications in relevance to the Trump Family(Donald and Matthew) of NYC. Lord Kenneð Alansson 13:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Have you tried mediation? Basically, you and Mats can email each other through a mediator, and resolve your disputes in private. I don't think Jimbo needs to deal with this; we have a mediation committee to handle battles between users. Samboy 22:48, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This is about the security of the website. It shouldn't be so exploited maliciously. Jórvíkingr 06:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)