On my home Wikimedia1.7 copy, I have this Template:C,
[[Category:{{{1}}}]][{{fullurl:Category:{{{1}}}}} {{{1}}}]
usage example
{{c|486.3875}}|{{c|DCS 072}}
What I really would like to do is have something like the ISBN stuff
in Parser.php, for every time a VHF radio frequency is encountered, so
the user wouldn't have to type in {{c|...}}. I dare not hack
Parser.php as months later upon update my brain will be 1000 km. away...
And I use the fullurl because otherwise the user is given the edit box
whereas on my wiki project, I have a thousand categories with members
but no text that I wish should stay that way.
Any tips on easier implementation?
> Isn't it more or less tuned so we get an average of one new Featured Article
> per day?
Isn't "getting my article on the main page" a motivator for FAC? 1 FA/day would
seem to follow of necessity.
Dan
I think there is a point you are missing. If I ask someone else to
take a photo of me with my camera, then (if nothing is otherwise
said) both of us normally assume that the photo and all its rights
will be mine. Such a shared assumption can be considered an
[[implicit contract]]. If so, an actual (not just imagined) transfer
of copyright has occurred.
Zero (who knows nothing about it).
> From: Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org>
> On 9/11/06, Jason Potkanski <electrawn(a)electrawn.com> wrote:
> > Disclaimer: IANAL
> >
> > Copyright in the US seems rather clear. Copyright is designed to
> > protect ideas and to a limited extent the expression of those
> ideas.
> > Follow the money.
>
> As was pointed out, copyright protects creative expression, not
> ideas.
> However, I think you're on the right track here.
>
> What is copyrightable in a photo? Assuming everything in the photo
> is
> public domain (or incidental fair use/fair dealing), what's
> copyrightable is the choice of a particular place, direction, zoom
> level, and moment in time. In more sophisticated photos (not point
> and shoot) there's the choice of F-stop, exposure, etc, but we'll
> ignore that as it doesn't really apply.
>
> > Who is the creator, who is the producer? The person
> > owning the camera had the creative idea and the funds (by owning
> the
> > camera and developing the film) to take the picture at that
> location.
> > The random tourist just plays the role of the photographer, but has
> no
> > claim to copyright.
> >
> In the case of a photographer who literally just presses the button,
> there would be almost no creative input (I suppose the exact moment
> in
> time was chosen), and therefore s/he would probably have no copyright
> interest. I say probably because there is of course that issue of
> moment in time.
>
> More likely the photographer also chose to some extent the zoom and
> the framing of the photograph, so they'd probably have an argument
> that they have some copyright interest. But if you set the scene,
> posing with your friend in front of the Eiffel tower at 6 PM on a
> cloudy evening, then you put creative input into the photo too, and
> you probably have some copyright interest too.
>
> I believe the preceding is fairly standard across different
> jurisdictions. The following is more likely to be US-specific.
>
> Copyright law has rules for such situations where more than one
> person
> has put creative interest into a work. There are two possibilities -
> it is a work for hire or there is a joint copyright. I don't think
> such an unpaid scenario would qualify as a work for hire so more
> likely there would be a joint copyright.
>
> What are the rules of a joint copyright situation? Any joint
> copyright holder can grant a non-exclusive license (such as CC-BY-SA
> or the GFDL) to anyone, for any reason, but the joint copyright
> holders must share any financial gain they derive from exclusive use
> of the work.
>
> Of course, in conclusion, yes, this is sort of a long discussion in
> pointlessness, because the fact of the matter is that the person who
> pushed the button on your camera almost surely just doesn't care.
> But
> some Wikipedians like to cross their Ts and dot their Is, and they
> even like to force other Wikipedians to do so. So in some sense it
> is
> useful to think about this for the case of those Wikipedians, just to
> get them off our backs.
>
> > "my camera, my idea, but you held it and pushed the button." Your
> > idea, you own it.
> >
> > -jtp Electrawn
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x?a=dl&s=50009562&f=174096756&x_id=…
You'll see the usual opinions in there, expressed reasonably articulately.
Now, today's challenge: How would you answer the clearly (to you)
erroneous opinions without saying or expressing "you're wrong"?
Especially when they are. Your mission is to *convince* otherwise.
- d.
On 13/09/06, Carl Peterson <carlopeterson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/12/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > We've comparisons with Britannica are difficult because we are
> > different things. They work from the top down. We work from the bottom
> > up. They are to a large degree a general education. We are tending to
> > head towards the sum of all knowledge.
> > The sum of all knowledge. Before Wikipedia did anyone really think
> > what that meant?
I pictured the entire non-fiction section of a library. How many
articles would that be? (I assume we'd split that across projects.)
> > Comparisons with Britannica are of limited use because we are not
> > doing what they are doing. We are doing something that has never been
> > done before.
Yep. I'm not sure Britannica get that.
I don't particularly want to destroy Britannica (though it's been
losing money for how many years) - that will be a completely
unintended side effect.
(May I say, by the way, I really like it when you answer with several
paragraphs instead of a one-liner. Do please continue.)
> While we not be able to necessarily make a comparison on the basis of
> content inclusion, there is still something to be said for establishing a
> reputation for quality on the order of Britannica. I think that was more
> what was intended than a comment on what articles are included.
I think the concept of a core area of coverage is valid. The FA
process clearly doesn't work for this so far - out of a thousand
articles, most are weird specialist things.
> Theoretically, every article on Wikipedia should be able to be brought to
> the level of featured article.
It's such a pity this is as unlikely to be recognised by GA as it is by FA.
> That goal (and the goal of even 100,000 FAs)
Now, that's I think what we need to quantify. Just what is that dream?
100,000 FAs. That means 100,000 articles that meet the FA criteria:
* It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
* It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and
relevant WikiProjects, including:
(a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and
prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent
sections;
(b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and
(c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help).
* It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and
acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a
prerequisite for a featured article.
* It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic
without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
[Note that some of these are factually inaccurate - you won't get
through FAC without images (who was commenting that they could always
tell a Featured Article by a pointless image?), for example.]
Do we want 100,000 of the above? Are all of these what we want our
articles to be? (Are these criteria what we're actually aiming for or
has the above list been subtly warped by the FAC process over the past
couple of years?)
Let's assume we have a list of criteria pretty close to the above. How
many editor-hours does it take to get an article up to that standard?
(Assume you're a clueful editor who can both research and write well,
and think you can at least give your own article a usable initial
assessment on this checklist.)
- d.
A sampling:
Weekly Spin <weekly-spin(a)prwatch.org> wrote:
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:45:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Weekly Spin <weekly-spin(a)prwatch.org>
To: cmd+weekly_spin-46979(a)lists.democracyinaction.org
Subject: The Weekly Spin, September 13, 2006
THE WEEKLY SPIN, September 13, 2006
Sponsored by the nonprofit Center for Media and Democracy:
http://www.prwatch.org
3. CORPORATE SPIN CAN COME IN DISGUISE
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/09/10/news_pf/Worldandnation/Corporate_spin_can…
"If McDonald's makes the case that fast food is nutritious or
ExxonMobil argues against higher taxes, it looks like simple
self-interest. But when an independent voice makes the case, the
ideas gain credibility. So big corporations have devised a form of
idea laundering, paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to
seemingly independent groups that act as spokesmen under disguise.
Their views wind up on the opinion pages of the nation's newspapers
- often with no disclosure that the writer has financial ties to the
companies involved. A few examples: James K. Glassman, a prominent
syndicated columnist, denounced Super Size Me, a movie critical of
McDonald's. Readers were not told that McDonald's is a major sponsor
of a Web site hosted by Glassman. ... Steven Milloy, an analyst at
the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wrote a column in the
Washington Times that sided with the oil industry against windfall
profits taxes. Readers weren't told that groups closely affiliated
with Milloy have received at least $180,000 from ExxonMobil. By
having others deliver their talking points, the companies stay above
the fray, said John Stauber, whose Center for Media and Democracy
tracks corporate front groups. 'What these companies are doing is
paying somebody else to attack their critics while keeping their
fingerprints off the attack.'"
SOURCE: St. Petersburg Times (Florida), September 10, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/5163
4. MORE JOURNALISTS ON U.S. GOVERNMENT PAYROLL
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15466239.htm
Ten Miami journalists have been paid by the Office of Cuba
Broadcasting (OCB) for their involvement in programs for the
anti-Castro propaganda stations, Radio Mart? and TV Mart?. The OCB
is a unit of the the U.S. government-funded Broadcasting Board of
Governors. Three of the ten were journalists with El Nuevo Herald.
"Pablo Alfonso, who reports on Cuba and writes an opinion column,
was paid almost $175,000 since 2001 to host shows on Radio Mart?
and TV Mart?. El Nuevo Herald freelance reporter Olga Connor, who
writes about Cuban culture, received about $71,000, and staff
reporter Wilfredo Cancio Isla, who covers the Cuban exile community
and politics, was paid almost $15,000 in the last five years," Oscar
Corral wrote. Alfonso and Isla have been fired by El Nuevo Herald
and Connor's freelance relationship terminated. The director of OCB,
Pedro Roig, defended the payments.
SOURCE: Miami Herald, September 8, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/5162
5. WAL-MART SENDS IN THE TANKS
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/business/08walmart.html
"As Wal-Mart Stores struggles to rebut criticism from unions and
Democratic leaders, the company has discovered a reliable ally,"
report Michael Barbaro and Stephanie Strom: "prominent conservative
research groups like the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage
Foundation and the Manhattan Institute," as well as lesser-known
think tanks such as the Pacific Research Institute. "Top policy
analysts at these groups have written newspaper opinion pieces
around the country supporting Wal-Mart, defended the company in
interviews with reporters and testified on its behalf before
government committees in Washington." What the think tanks haven't
done is disclose the more than $2.5 million in funding they've
received from Wal-Mart over the past six years. The National
Committee on Responsive Philanthropy has compiled a report detailing
the political objectives of Wal-Mart's charitable activities, titled
"The Waltons and Wal-Mart: Self-Interested Philanthropy."
SOURCE: New York Times, September 8, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/5161
9. PHARMA PR TRIES TO SPIN GOLD FROM YAWN
http://www.prweek.com
Americans may tire quickly of some pharmaceutical PR, but they've
got nowhere to turn (certainly not in bed) when it comes to a new
campaign sponsored by the makers of a sleep-fighting medication,
Provigil. Drug-maker Cephalon hired Dorland Global Public Relations,
which has spun consumers' disinterest in "sleepiness" into a
Homeland Security-like campaign for "alertness." The trick: target
employers. "No employer is going to allow you to bring advertising
into their marketplace," notes Cephalon PR director Sheryl William.
Instead, employers opened the door when Dorland created an
"education" campaign, including two ex-NASA scientists, to warn
employers that the lack of alertness at work could be dangerous.
Among other things, Provigil has FDA approval for treatment of
"shift work sleep disorder"--a condition that can result from
employers' rotating shift requirements. Dorland also created a
website and launched a pilot in Atlanta and Chicago that included
street interviews and visits to baseball games. The "alertness"
website (which gently leads the viewer to Cephalon) has reached four
times its hoped-for audience.
SOURCE: PRWeek, August 28, 2006 (sub req'd)
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/5155
Daily updates and news from past weeks can be found in the "Spin of
the Day" section of CMD's website:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin
Archives of our quarterly publication, PR Watch, are at:
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues
CMD also sponsors SourceWatch, a collaborative research project
that invites anyone (including you) to contribute and edit
articles. For more information, visit:
http://www.sourcewatch.org
political debates and public opinion. Please send any questions or
suggestions about our publications to:
editor(a)prwatch.org
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
We have a UK-based mailing list, wikimediauk-l, for Wikimedia-related
topics concerning the UK. It was set up as a discussion list for the
prospective Wikimedia UK organisation. I often post UK-related article
discussion, media stuff, etc. to it.
There appear to be a lot of UK-based readers of these lists who aren't
on it and probably should be.
List page: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
- d.
"Matt Brown" wrote
> IOW, if the overall quality of the
> encyclopedia increases, it's likely that FAC will become even pickier
> so that their criteria only pass the same proportion.
Isn't it more or less tuned so we get an average of one new Featured Article per day? Any less could be a problem, any more and people start adding bells and whistles to the criteria.
But then, we are talking about recognition. I suspect the mathematicians have pretty much given up on FAs, because (a) it is hard to justify the effort, compared with other things you could do in the time, and (b) other kinds of recognition matter to them.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information