Apologies if this has been discussed before (I'm a newbie to the list), but the Australian users on the "Wikipedia:Australian wikipedians' notice board" would like to use some images that we will not be able to license under the GFDL or any other copyleft like license. The reason for this is because Australia does not have any fairuse legislation, and we require permission for images that are under 50 years old - even if they are from the Australian government.
For instance, we have recently started collaborating on the Cyclone Tracy article and I took off my image and had to list it on Images for Deletion because I didn't secure permission before uploading it. Yes, very naughty I know! In the meantime I have found some extremely excellent images. I have purchased one (URL for the image is http://www.nla.gov.au/apps/picturescatalogue?action=PCDisplay&mode=display&…) and the other seems to be from the government archives and is probably OK to use also (see http://www.pictureaustralia.org/apps/pictureaustralia?action=PASearch&mode=…). My question is: will I be allowed to upload and use them in the article? I will have to apply a restrictive license.
I realise that this is not the best situation, but in some cases we will be unable to use images for some recent historical events if we are unable to upload such images. This would really be a shame :(
Anyway, apologies if this has been asked and debated before, but I would really appreciate feedback on this issue.
Chris (Ta bu shi da yu)
If you post to a Wikipedia mailing list from a different address,
please take the time to subscribe that address!
The wikien-l list only automatically forwards posts to the list when
you're subscribed to it. If you don't, it ends up in the moderator
queue - amongst piles of V*agra spam. Where the mail from real people
can easily get deleted accidentally!
If you want to post to a mailing list from an address other than
your normal one, it's generally worth the effort to subscribe from
that address too. You can set an option for 'no delivery'.
If you're subscribed, then your posts also show up straight away,
rather than hanging around until someone spots them in the queue
and lets them through :-)
The following news story has an anti-Israeli bias:
:Two Palestinians are killed by Israeli troops returning fire after an
Israeli soldier was killed at an observation post in the northern Gaza
strip. The troops have been engaged in that part of the northern Gaza
Strip since yesterday, September 29. (September 30 Current Events in
1. It downplays the killing of the Israeli soldier
2. It does not clarify whether the "Palestinians" who were killed, were
armed (although "returned fire" implies this)
3. It seems designed to give the impression that Israel is conducting a
campaign of indiscriminate slaughter.
If some advocate believes that Israel is killing "Palestinians" without
concern for international law or moral considerations, we should include
a comment attributed to that source, like:
* "This is another example of Israel's indiscriminate slaughter of
freedom-loving Palestinians. Those hypocrites say they love democracy,
but they don't even respect elementary human rights," said Mustapha al
Fahda, leader of the [[Alliance for Palestinian Democracy]].
I think the best way to describe armed violence is to mention who fired
the first shot, like this:
* An Israeli soldier is killed at an observation post in the northern
Gaza strip. Israeli troops returned fire, killing two Palestinians.
Please think carefully about the impression your writing makes, and try
hard to avoid letting bias creep in.
Last night, Wikipedia was so slow (at least 5 minutes from the time I hit SAVE until the article was actually saved, lucky if I didn't get an ERROR message) that I eventually gave up. And now today it seems to be in the same unuseable mode.
What's going on, and will it be fixed soon?
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
>> On the other
>> hand, it's a less free license than many we use.
<snip> but since to
>comply with our existing licencing obligations it would mean offering
>two copies of the database, I think anything that cannot be
>distributed under the GFDL should be avoided.
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
Some sources of photographs are available under "editorial purposes
only" licenses, often with an explicit "Not for use in advertising."
An example is photographs from the United Nations.
We have decided that "noncommercial-only" images are not acceptable,
but I don't see anywhere that a decision has been made about this
category. Editorial-only images are usable by commercial users as
well as noncommercial in an encyclopedia context, so their use would
not prohibit commercial redistribution of Wikipedia. On the other
hand, it's a less free license than many we use.
Is there a pre-existing decision here, or somewhere it should be hashed out?
This has come up on [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images]].
I am not a member of your service. I was, however, doing some
research and found a rather significant error in one of the entries.
Mark Hofmann, the Mormon counterfeiter and murderer, committed his
bombings on October 15, 1985 not on November 15, 1985.
----- End forwarded message -----
"La nÃ¨fle est un fruit." - first words of 50,000th article on fr.wikipedia.org
I looked at the original site. While some of the material was clearly copied,
and it seems obvious that the site mentioned was used as a source, other
material there was reworked and we added various wikipedia characteristics,
including a taxbox, which did not appear in the original article. I therefore
restored the article, and removed the material that was copied directly.
In general, we are getting an increasing number of complaints about copyright
violation. While we should always be on guard against this, we should not let
this tear down material that was created. Information per se cannot be
copyrighted. Our taxoboxes and other, similar features are uniquely Wikipedian. In
this case, some of the material was salvagable. It would be a pity to remove
The two articles in question have been listed on [[Wikipedia:Copyright
problems]]. The "author" of these pages has not made any contributions
since, but I left a note on the talk page just the same. I couldn't find
any other problems in the contribution history, or in the other articles
on this family of plants. I also emailed Dr. Struwe to let her know what
steps we were taking.