SPUI wrote
> So you'd like to fill up road articles with reports of maps that show
> them still existing, or not existing, or going incorrectly? Talk about
> "cruft"...
There is certainly room for comments on glaring errors in satnav maps.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
> On 20/10/06, SPUI <drspui(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_Road_913_%28Florida%
>> 29#A_bulletproof_argument...
>> Am I right or is the IP right? Do commercially-produced maps that
>> show
>> an unsigned designation continuing along a causeway trump
>> Department of
>> Transportation sources?
SPUI, what are you seeking from this mailing list?
A final and binding judgement that you're right, from all the road
experts on this mailing list?
A formal recognition that you are to be regarded as the authority on
the subject of roads, and granted control over the content of all
road-related articles in Wikipedia?
On 21 Oct 2006 at 15:52, SPUI <drspui(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> > Why not, if it's verifiable? Surely that is an interesting and useful
> > piece of information?
>
> How is it interesting that maps make mistakes? In an article about a
> town, would we say that a map once spelled it incorrectly?
One error in one edition of one map... probably not notable enough to
include. A widely-repeated error that has propagated across multiple
maps by multiple publishers, and found its way mistakenly into
various reference sources as a result, might be a notable enough fact
to warrant mention. It's a judgment call.
--
== 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/
> From: Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net>
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:07:40 -0400, SPUI <drspui(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Because normally we don't report on errors on maps. We don't say
>> "FDOT
>> turned over part of SR 2 to Nassau County in the 1980s, but some maps
>> still show it as a state road."
>
> Why not, if it's verifiable? Surely that is an interesting and useful
> piece of information?
I'd have said that the general principle is that normally we don't
try to adjudicate truth or resolve conflicting sources.
If there are conflicting sources and you're pretty sure one is right
_and nobody else cares,_ just put in the one that's right. If
_somebody else cares_ then, even if they're an idiot, put in both and
source them both. Why not?
No idea how we're going to unravel this one.
We have received, over a period of months, numerous reports to OTRS
regarding copyvios from the www.marvunapp.com web site. That site
publishes character summaries for scores of comic book characters
ranging from the well-known to those obscure figures that make only
cameo appearances. The summaries are written by a fairly small number
of contributors to the the site and are generally not edited once they
are posted.
Their site content is making its way to Wikipedia. There are three
problems:
a) Cut and paste copying of text
b) Paraphrasing of text
c) Unattributed copying of images the site has scanned from comic books
(a) and (b) are copyright violations. The problem goes back at least
six months and is ongoing.
(c) while not strictly speaking a copyvio since marvunapp.com is merely
making scans of flat art, is upsetting the site operators due to the
volume of material involved and the lack of attribution. If left
unaddressed (c) is likely to make them more pedantic about their rights
regarding (a) and (b). So far they've been pretty understanding and
supportive, considering.
Right now we don't know the extent of the problem because we've only
investigated cases that the marvunapp.com people have reported, which
cover perhaps a couple dozen pages all together. I've investigated a
couple myself and it is very time consuming since often there is just a
paragraph or two in the middle of a longer Wikipedia article that's a
copyvio and the use of paraphrasing makes automated tools unhelpful.
Addressing these in a meaningful way is difficult because ongoing edits
after the copyvio leads to a badly polluted page history that no one
wants to delete, and I've ended up having my removals reverted over the
course of time by people who show up two weeks later and don't realize
when and why the text was removed, so they re-add it from the history.
The copyvios have been added by more than one user, probably because
unrelated people trying to expand our comic coverage have found
marvunapp.com so helpful.
I've asked for some help on WP:AN/I and so far no real takers although
there at least has been support for my block of one of the perps.
Here's what I think needs to be done:
* The pages marvunapp.com has reported to us need to be reviewed by
experienced editors and any copyvios found and dealt with at least in
the current version of the page.
* Ideally, the history should be purged. In cases where this isn't
practical, notes should be left on the talk page so that people don't
erroneously assume they can re-integrate content from the history.
* The perpetrators should be re-educated about how big of a deal this is
and how much work it is to clean up.
* Pages where marvunapp.com was used as a reference should include
marvunapp.com in the list of references.
* Images taken from the marvunapp.com should be properly attributed even
if copyright doesn't apply.
* If we ever get everything else done, we would want to try to be a
little more vigilant in going through the comic articles ourselves
rather than waiting for the marvunapp.com people to report them.
Volunteers for all this drudgery should be IMO selected from a pool of
people who still believe that the main deciding factor in
inclusion/deletion debates should be the cost of hard disk space.
The Uninvited Co., Inc.
(a Delaware corporation)
Some anon-IP user on [[Talk:OmniCode]] has been rattling sabers about
threatening to sue people for failing to acknowledge a company named
Omnicode, which apparently has a registered trademark on that name
which is being allegedly infringed by the geek-coding system called
OmniCode which is featured in the Wikipedia article of that name.
It's certainly possible that the creator of that coding system is
committing a trademark violation by using the name, but would
Wikipedia or its editors have any liability for writing an article
about it? It would seem that a noncommercial, encyclopedic use of
the name in the course of discussing something that the name has been
used for (legally or illegally) wouldn't itself be actionable, but
I'm not a lawyer.
--
== 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/
---- Matt R <matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
=============
--- "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> And the other /other/ take-home message is that if you're going to
> revert someone, and they revert back, discuss it with them! I'm sick and
> tired of finding user accounts with many many contributions which were
> all reverted as "vandalism", and yet there is nothing on their talk page.
Discussing is good practice in most situations, but I think in this type of
instance the onus is on the blanker to provide some reason. If a new user
blanks an article without explanation, the odds are overwhelming that it's
vandalism (or a test, or whatever). Just revert; it's simply not worth the time
to drop a note with such odds. Moreover, it's very likely is that someone with
a genuine reason to blank the article will communicate his reason very shortly
thereafter (did that happen in this case?)
-- Matt
=====================================================
As WP:BLP points out, blanking content is often the first method that the subject of an article will use to fix an inaccurate entry. This is really an newbie issue as much as anything else. It is perfectly reasonable for them to remove information that they know to be false.
For an experienced user to simply revert the blanking without any attempt to communicate with the user is more problematic to my mind than the blanking.
We need to determine if it is vandalism or an attempt to correct incorrect information and act accordingly.
Take care,
Sydney aka FloNight aka Poore5
Paraphrased can still be a copyvio in most jurisdictions, including the
U.S., when the overall sentence and paragraph structure remains the
same. It starts looking like a derived work when the ideas are
organized and presented the same way even though the word choices are
different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judy_Genshaft&diff=82245476&oldid…
Yes, the University already saw it, and no, they're not happy.
This is not an isolated incident and I'm not trying to pick on the admin
who did it. It reflects poorly on all of us that we have a culture that
puts twitch-game vandalism reversion on a lofty pedestal to the point
where people don't read the edits they're reinstating.
Bots are doing this too. I've contacted the bot writers and asked them
to help prevent it but nothing gets done.
Yours in frustration,
The Uninvited Co., Inc.
(a Delaware corporation)