Could the whole discussion on Erik issues over Mother
Teresa MOVE to the english list where it is relevant
The whole discussion on watch list issues move from
the english list to the general list, where it is
could we just swap mailing list names since
discussions relevant on english matter are on the
general list, while discussions relevant to the whole
community are on the english list ?
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> But we already incorporate fair use images. It's not fair use to uses
> someone's image to advertise your product - so what's theproblem with
> this licence?
I agree. As long as the image is usable in a commercial mirror, I think we
should allow it. Since Wikimedia refuses to define freeness itself, I'll go
to http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/free-encyclopedia.html. This page says
that a free encyclopedia requires permission of modification of images, but
the examples it gives are related to editorial modifications. I think this
license is well within the spirit of this definition.
> The problem is that one (for-profit) publisher of wikipedia which is not
> the wikimedia foundation could say: "hey, look what terrific
> images we have got in this publication"... And AFAIK that
> goes against that very license.
Seems to me that this would go against the license even if it was a
non-profit publisher doing that. But I don't see the big deal. The
publisher can just use a different image for eir ad.
> GFDL implies absolute freedom or nothing at all. In this spirit,
> Richard Stallman had two or three interventions in this mailing list
> some months ago.
I think you're thinking of public domain, not GFDL. GFDL is not absolute
freedom. Furthermore, we haven't committed ourselves to the GFDL, only the
spirit of the GFDL.
> But IANAL (and probably those images are not THAT terrific though :)
I'm not a lawyer either, so I'm relying on Jimmy Wales' assertion that
mixing *any* image with GFDL text is legally permitted. The question here
is whether or not we *should* use these images, not whether or not we
legally *can* use them.
Andrew Lih wrote:
> It's up to you to consider the value of responding to these folks. :)
Ah, but the problem is that, as a grassroots effort, we have no control
over the impulses of our participants. Our more... fanatic... devotees
are likely to respond to this latest slight with mouths a-foaming and
I plan to counter El Reg's criticisms by improving articles. AFAIC it's
the only appropriate response.
Ed Poor wrote:
> If there are a dozen or 6 dozen separate, tiny articles with a common
> theme, then why not:
> * Copy the text of each article into one new comprehensive article
> [[List of Apprentice contestants]]
> * Turn the text of each old article into: #REDIRECT [[List of
> Apprentice contestants]]
> This is how Maveric asked me to handle the Simpsons, way back when...
That's what I voted for, and indeed, that was the overwhelming consensus
of the VFD vote, and is what has been done.
And indeed, that could have been boldly done by someone without needing
a VFD vote. But I would say that (a) there would have been a guaranteed
edit war following it; and (b) there WAS a definite minority opinion
that these people didn't deserve to be in the Wikipedia AT ALL, being
merely "game show contestants".
Me, I see the whole affair as further proof that VFD is not at all
broken, and continues to excellently serve the community.
This email and its attachments are for the sole use of the addressee and may contain information which is confidential and/or
legally privileged. This email and its attachments are subject to copyright and should not be partly or wholly reproduced without
the consent of the copyright owner. Any unauthorised use of disclosure of this email or its attachments is prohibited. If you receive
this email in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender by return email.
This poll on an amendment to the deletion policy:
has become a bit of a mess, due to my slightly unfortunate choice of
words when I opened the poll.
I have now added a statement acknowledging the problems but I have
requested that the poll results be respected despite the (arguably not
However I feel that any further steps towards codifying the proposed
rule might be frowned upon if I take them.
I would like to ask our admins to help
I would like to request that an admin (preferably a few admins) look at
the situation and see if it can be sorted out without a repeat poll.
I don't think a repeat poll is a good idea because with every poll
there will be deviating preferences and minor criticisms.
I feel that if that were enough to invalidate a poll then every poll
would have to be invalidated and we could never make any decision.
We'd end up holding polls on whether we can accept a poll on whether we
can accept a poll.
Again, I'd like to ask for some "old hands" (admins) to please look at
things and provide some guidance and leadership as regards this issue.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
See my post at
Jongarrettuk, David Remahl, Benc, Neutrality, and Mikkalai have "voted"
to delete this short article (which I wrote) because it's "Non-notable
I beg to differ. It's one of the 3 most significant speeches of George
W. Bush's career, and if it's propaganda then we SHOULD have an article
in which some political expert SAYS it's propaganda.
I suspect the motive to "delete" is really censorship, i.e., the desire
to make it harder for Wikipedians to find out what Bush is saying about
world affairs. Part of this dovetails with the Kerry campaign's POV, the
constant refrain that Bush has nothing of substance to say about Iraq or
anything else for that matter.
A major service Wikipedia provides is to bring hidden facts to light. If
one politician says "My opponent A has NEVER spoken about X", then it
can make a big difference to our readers whether a quick Wikipedia
search turns up:
* nothing by A about X, or
* an obscure reference by A about X, or
* a public speech by A to a major world body about X
Maybe the article should be moved to a more bland title. Instead of "We
believe in human dignity", call it [[George Bush speech at the United
Nations on September 21, 2004]]
... Or whatever our naming convention is for speeches.
>From: Matthew Larsen <mat.larsen(a)gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Matthew Larsen <mat.larsen(a)gmail.com>,English Wikipedia
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Zero0000 has blocked
>Lance6Wins....apparentlycontray to Blocking policy
>Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:44:50 +0100
>Anyone can make a harmless mistake, and Zero has clearly blown this
>issue out of all proportians. Is it really worth making all this fuss
>over something as silly as 'where did this quote come from'
I think there is a more important issue here, and that it is not just Zero
who has "blown the issue out of all proportions." The tolerance for editors
who willfully damage Wikipedia is astounding; known repeat offenders are
agonized over, sometimes for weeks at a time, before action is taken, and
even then actions are watered down in the hopes that one day, perhaps, with
the right tutoring, the editor might make some valuable edit or
contribution. Even people who have been permanently banned for outrageous
behaviour are allowed back in on special "parole" conditions in the hopes
that enough Wikilove and supervision will turn them into productive
citizens. The RfC, mediation, and Abitration processes work so slowly and
intermittently that many admins describe them as broken and essentially
useless (see, for example, [[User:Ambi/Thoughts_on_Dispute_Resolution]] .
And yet, when an admin who has made extremely valuable contributions to the
project appears to step over the line in a fairly mild way, the immediate
response *from the top* is that this person should be de-sysopped.
Now it's true no action has yet been taken, and given the glacial pace of
the various abuse "remedies" on Wikipedia, it's likely none ever will be
taken. And I understand and support the need for holding an admin to a
significantly higher standard than a regular editor. However, I still see a
big imbalance here between the way valuable contributors are treated and how
known trolls are coddled. A number of extremely knowledgeable editors have
privately (and even publicly) stated that they would no longer edit articles
*in their areas of expertise* because the abuse and harassment they receive
from POV warriors and ad hominem abusers is so great that it is simply not
worth it for them to bother, particularly as there is no remedy for this
problem - or rather, there are remedies, but Wikpedia cannot or will not use
I admit that some of the frustration I'm expressing here is based on two
solid weeks of daily personal attacks on me by 3 Wikipedia editors, and in
particular my feeling that there is little, if any, point in attempting to
use the various Wikipedia remedies to try to fix this situation. And
perhaps it is character building for me to simply ignore the "slings and
arrows of outrageous fortune" rather than "take arms against a sea of
troubles, and by opposing end them," particularly when I think the arms in
question are ineffective. Nevertheless, the underlying question is general
and remains; how many of Wikipedia's most valuable resources will be forced
to take lengthy or permanent self-imposed Wikibreaks as a result of this,
before the issue is not only taken seriously, but actually addressed?
Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen
Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the
first two months FREE*.
If there are a dozen or 6 dozen separate, tiny articles with a common
theme, then why not:
* Copy the text of each article into one new comprehensive article (like
[[List of Apprentice contestants]]
* Turn the text of each old article into: #REDIRECT [[List of
This is how Maveric asked me to handle the Simpsons, way back when...
"very good, always helps" <--- 40 WikiBonus points if u can ID this
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Lih [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 8:42 PM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A plea - live and let live
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 07:31:33 +1000, David Carson
> <david(a)hemiware.com> wrote:
> > Mark Richards wrote:
> > That's a fairly large misstatement of the actual situation, seeing
> > that virtually all of the "over 70 new listings" are a list
> of over 70
> > esoteric programming languages listed for VFD by one person.
> Note that over a dozen entries on VfD were "The Apprentice"
> contestants, added in one big shot. As Wikipedia's popularity
> grows, the listing on VfD will too.
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
I did a search for "kerry purple heart" and got nothing of significance.
Google quotes Wikipedia as saying:
:Hibbard and Elliot have alleged, respectively, that Kerry's first
Purple Heart and Silver Star were undeserved."
I don't see how this justifies creating a vote on "swift deletion" or
whatever they call their proposal to let 3 admins collaborate on
deleting a page.
1. There are too many admins. It would be very easy for a
politically-motivated clique to abuse an "admins only" vote and
eliminate political information merely because they don't want anyone to
read about it.
2. The best way to deal with political bias is to LABEL IT POV and WRITE
ABOUT IT. If Kerry opponents make an issue of his Purple Hearts, then
include some info about this in an article, or write an article about
the [[Kerry Purple Heart controversy]].
We have the ability to write neutrally on controversies. Deleting stuff
that one side doesn't want mentioned, is not the solution.
By the way, this is the 2nd "delete what makes Kerry bad or Bush good"
issue I've uncovered today. I see an unsettling trend.
We can write articles about Bush speeches or Swift Boat veterans'
claims, without censorship. Just as we can write articles about Bush
drunk driving or using privilege to evade combat or doctor's
appointments, or assigning huge contracts to his VP's former company --
First Amendment Champion
> Sorry to only pick up on one point out of a whole e-mail, but we are
> absolutely committed to the GFDL, whether we like it or not: anything
> that we use 99.99% of the content already submitted for has to be
> compatible with the GFDL, because that is the licence it has been
> submitted to us under.
As I said in the very email you replied to (see what happens when you pick
up on one point and ignore the rest), Jimmy Wales has already said that all
images, regardless of license, are compatible with the GFDL.
> As I say, we can do two things with images:
> (1) distribute a GFDL version of Wikipedia with only those images that
> are compatible with the GFDL, and a separate version which includes
> all images, but is under a more restrictive licence that is compatible
> with the licence of *all* images used; fair use images, strictly,
> should not appear in the former; and the latter may actually breach
> the GFDL's terms for "derivative works" for all I know.
> or (2) throw out any image that is not GFDL-compliant
I suggest you read the GFDL, specifically, clause 7.
"A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and
independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or
distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting
from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the
compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. When the
Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the
other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of
> AFAIK, currently, we are following option (0), which is "fudge it by
> saying we haven't decided yet, and offer the images for reuse under a
> label saying 'these may or may not actually be legal for you to
> reuse'; and rely on the fact that nobody hates us enough yet to
> challenge us over it". I may be wrong on that bit, but that's my
There really hasn't been an official determination made by the board, as far
as I can tell, and the statement on [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] is ambiguous as
hell, but the position that the website is an aggregation of both GFDL and
non-GFDL documents is certainly plausible. I'd say the bigger problem right
now is that we don't have a compliant title page or history section.
> Rowan Collins BSc