There's a peculiar copyright case for the governmental works
from Philippines.
Apparently, they are at the same time in the Public Domain
and under a Non-Commercial/Permission license, or at least
the current template claims so:
"this work is only available in the public domain under a
non-commercial and permission-based license"
Also, it claims that the images should be used "in accordance with
Wikipedia's fair use policy", but none of the 500+ images have any
fair-use rationale...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-PhilippinesGov
geni wrote
> More arbcom members in future can be arranged.
You can bring a horse to water, but can you make it drink?
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
[[User:Instant Karma]] recently made a posting to [[User Talk:Jimbo
Wales]] titled "The End Is Nigh", making a series of demands of
Wikipedia (such as the removal of most sex-related material, the
addition of an attempt to keep minors out of whatever remains in that
area, and the removal of most pop-cultural stuff including reducing
mention of Star Trek to a single article). It concluded with a
threat of unspecified retribution of a "Doomsday Machine" nature
which would allegedly result in the destruction of Wikipedia. Just
thought you ought to know that we're allegedly all doomed now... :-)
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Should we have a category which says that the subject of the article
(a mathematician) collaborated with another mathematician who
collaborated with another mathematician who collaborated with
with another mathematician who collaborated with Hungarian
mathematician Paul Erdős?
Well, according to the apparent CfD result, we should.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_Oct…
What is the limit of triviality? We have many people who love trivia,
but I think we should try to keep trivia outside of the category system
and keep only the defining characteristics for the articles.
On 13 Oct 2006 at 11:24, <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> It would be better of course to have a header for emails,
> reminding people to boot up their sense of humour.
Only British people have a "sense of humour"... us Americans have to
make do with a mere "sense of humor".
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
I've been tasked to deal with a defamitory article written about the
organisation of which I am a member.
I tried reasoning with the main editor but as I, and others who have tried,
have found that the guy acts like a tyrant and won't budge an inch. Even to
the extent of reverting NPOV warnings.
Obviously I am looking into all available routes to restore some kind of
balance on the page. I raised a Wikiettiquette alert now the next stop seems
to be mediation, which I am planning now. However there is absolute carnage
going on in the discussion page with other editors. Can't bear to look!
Right now I just want to talk with other more experienced Wikipedians who
can just help me to streamline my approach. This whole thing is taking a lot
of energy and is very damaging to the organisation. We are encountering
questions all the time from people who have read the article. Certainly we
are not expecting the article to be a glowing glorification of the
organisation but would gladly settle for a less hateful and a more neutral
account.
I have a hunch this isn't the best forum to discuss this but would
appreciate any pointers. I found an alt group but they seem to be focussed
on gripes and Wikipedia controversy more than mutual help.
Thanks & regards.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Where-to-discuss-best-approach-to-deal-with-defamitor…
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Okay, this has gone far enough.
It is remarkable that people have built all these theories on hypotheses as
to what happened with Fleshlight, without actually knowing the facts. It is
just ludicrous to think that I succumbed to pressure from a company. To begin
with Mark Gallagher's ad hominem suggestions on that point, I have dealt with
Walmart, Coca Cola, and GM (among other firms) on the phone. I have spoken
with Congressmen and Senators. I have spoken to their lawyers. I have spoken to
their PR people. I have spoken to their VPs in charge of advertising. I did
not give in to their cajoling, their threats, or their attempts at bribes.
To suggest that I did so with Fleshlight is simply ridiculous and does not
merit any serious attention. Instead I invite you to spend a day in the office,
or if that is too difficult, ask people who have been to the office and have
heard me on the phone how I deal with those kinds of people.
The fact is, we are dealing with a problem here. We have companies galore
trying to spam us. OTRS is just a small indicator of this. We have adverting
executives calling to see if what they can do to move their company to a higher
position on a list, or how much it costs to get them on the front page. We
are prime advertising. We will soon be the tenth largest website in the world,
and "anyone can edit." It is not only top notch internet advertising, but it
is free too. You see, these people dont see the difference between us and
MySpace. They know that we will push up their Google rankings. They know that
everyone will look them up on Google and find the Wikipedia article. And I
repeat, it is free. For the Americans among you, it is like getting a free
commercial slot in the last two minutes of the Superbowl. And I repeat, it is
free. And for this prime slot, they want to make sure they look as good as they
can.
This is not hypothesis. We are dealing with it every day, from people who
threaten to sue us for violating their First Amendment rights to post about
their company to clueless people who think that if we put up a banner to their
online poker site we will all make money. We get it from the big Fortune 500
companies and we get it from the local car rental shop, from the sister of a
guy who is opening up a new real estate business in Durham North Carolina (I am
not kidding) to reps of Coca Cola ("The article is biased"). We get it from
Washington thinktanks led by former cabinet members to Flickr-like rip off
sites (they offered us $35 for every photographer we send to them).
As a site where advertising is anathema, we have to make a choice. Do we
allow this? Personally, I am opposed to paid advertising on Wikipedia, but I am
even more opposed to free advertising which we cannot monetize.
As editors, we end up having to make choices. With our goals in sight, How
do we continue being an encyclopedia, and not some advertising forum or
MySpace? What is the difference between an article about Budweiser (which I believe
we should have even though their beer is foul) and articles on every
micro-brewery in the state of Wisconsin?
Fleshlight is just an example of one such minor product. Yes, it was
mentioned in the Village Voice. Big deal. My mother was mentioned in the Toronto
Star in the 1970s, but that does not mean we need an article about her. Six
other products were mentioned in the article (which was a survey of male sex
toys, not a piece about Fleshlight per se), but that doesn't mean we have
articles about them (see my earlier email for a survey of the article). One hit on
Google News does not make something noteworthy, especially if it is not even
an article about the topic per se, but rather just a few lines in an overview
article (if you actually read the article online before citing it, you will
see what I mean).
For all those expressing indignation, I invite you to think about what
should be included in an encyclopedia, even one the size of Wikipedia. Once you
define that, consider what the definition excludes.
Which brings us back to Fleshlight. It was the subject of a subtle edit war
between the company that manufactures it, and a similar company which wanted
to have an external link on the Fleshlight page. Fleshlight wrote "We are
happy to let others view our
product, but would like to limit editing privileges. This product is seen
as taboo
to many, so they would just assume destroy our displayed page. Is there
anyway I
could be placed as moderator for that single page, just Fleshlight, so
changes can
still be made when necessary and not having the company product slandered."
By slandered they mean, showing a rival company. Their rival wrote, "I am
quite upset. While I understand that everyone can edit pages as they want, I
find it quite outrageous that I add and edit information about the Fleshlight
at _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleshlight_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleshlight) I am an affiliate of Fleshlight and got the word about rules at WIKI
that you can't link via affiliate links, but provide USEFUL links using your
own domains regarding an WIKI entry." He wanted to add "my updates regarding
facts, like unavailable colors of the Fleshlight." That was the slander. Add
to this mix a guy who runs a Fleshlight fansite, which is essentially a porn
site, who wanted sole control over links as well (i.e., link to his site
only).
Considering all this, I asked if Fleshlight really needs an article of its
own. I consulted with people too. The overwhelming response was that this is
spam and should be nuked. At first I thought it could redirect, but then I
asked myself the following question--do we really want redirects from every
possible product out there to generic articles? Ask yourself the same question.
Better yet, go into a dollar store, look at the display of products and ask if
we want redirects for all the rip-off brands in Wikipedia.
And I nuked.
Once again, I hope that this whole incident helps to clarify what the
criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia are. At least let it launch that discussion.
But to do that, we have to avoid all the rhetoric and be willing to make real
decisions based on the underlying principles behind what Wikipedia is all
about.
Danny
.
It's unlikely that any utterly fresh new insights on this topic are going to come to light.
Many have expressed their own points of view with great clarify. Danny has been party to the discussion and he has either heard and understood these points of view, or he has not. Either way, it is unlikely that further reiteration will change that much.
Similarly, the discussion may or may not influence his future activities, but whatever that influence may be, it is probably complete, and extending the discussion will probably not have much affect on his future actions.
I suggest the topic be put to rest.
FYI:
I'm always pleased when our CBC makes reference to Wikipedia.
This afternoon, after playing Tom Lehrer's "New Math", they refered to
our note about his invention of the jello shot. What more evidence do
we need for the usefulness of such information.
Ec
"David Gerard" wrote
> Please enlighten me as to why it is good for adminship to be a
> big-deal artificially scarce commodity.
I'm not aware of discussion (recent, anyway) of what would be an ideal number of admins. What are the criteria for that? One per 1000 articles as a rule of thumb?
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information