> >
> > > I just wish the bot would stop telling me that the images Ive uploaded
> > > that dont have a known source (and were released under Sharealike 1.0
> > > which doesnt require a source) are candidates for deletion.
> >
> > Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 *requires* attribution.
> > In fact, all the Creative Commons licenses require attribution.
> >
> I didn't say Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0, I said Sharealike 1.0.
>
Right, the (disused) CC-SA doesn't have the full attribution requirements of
CC-BY-SA.
Nevertheless, I think some indication of source is, if not legally required,
then a really good idea, and I think this is true even for works explicitly
released into the public domain (as opposed to, say, trivial ones ineligible for
copyright, or stuff with obviously expired copyright).
If nothing else, we'd want some sort of attempt to establish that it really was
released into the public domain (or under CC-SA).
Regards,
Dan
On 08/09/06, Ligulem <ligulem(a)pobox.com> wrote:
> May I ask you to approve my last posting shown below to WikiEN-l?
Your posts are through and you're unmoderated. I forgot to check
wikien-l this week and it looks like everyone else did too ...
Our apologies to all those whose messages have been held up in the
queue, I'm applying the plunger now.
(wikien-l mods! There's less completely fucked-up penis spam! Really!
Well, a bit less! Come on in, the sewage is fine!)
- d.
.. and they're going to spam our e-mail queue:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/wikipedia_youre_on_notice.html
It would be nice to get some evolutionary biologists to review our
entries on the respective topics systematically. I suspect there's
probably a lot of creationist POV creep already.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
I get asked this by the press a lot. So I thought I'd come here and
ask how it actually works.
1. What is the actual process?
2. How are new living bios spotted?
3. Who watches edits in them, on what sort of schedule?
And 4. the big one:
Is there anything that can be done to make the living bio patrolling
volunteers' work easier and more efficient? What magical software
features would you like? Is there anything that some as-yet-unwritten
bot software could do to assist?
I'd love to be able to answer "we have a volunteer patrol who look out
for any rubbish going in living biographies. We're not perfect but I
think we do pretty well" and be able to give more detail if they ask
;-)
- d.
On 9/7/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/6/06, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/6/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
> > > ScottL wrote:
> > >
> > > >maru dubshinki wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>On 9/5/06, ScottL <scott(a)mu.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>Guettarda wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>Actually one of the major issues in the dispute is whether BC/AD
violates
> > > >>>>NPOV because it requires Wikipedia to make an assertion the Jesus
is the
> > > >>>>Messiah/God. BCE/CE merely describes the condition, and thus does
what the
> > > >>>>NPOV policy asks.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> If I am not mistaken the beginning and ends of the months etc were
> > > >>>originally set up based on astrological principals. Would it
violate
> > > >>>NPOV (since we would then be making astrological assertions) to
keep
> > > >>>using months?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>But those astrological measurements are objective and empirically
> > > >>verifiable in a way that AD/BC is not, and often track significant
> > > >>events, such as the changing of the pole star.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >According to [[March]], the month is named after Mars the god of war.
> > > >The fact that he is the god of war is empirically verifiable?
> > > >
> > > We also need to abandon our days of the week. It is clearly a breach
of
> > > NPOV to go around celebrating a barbarian God like [[Thor]] every
seven
> > > days.
>>>
>>> A significant difference being that nobody worships the
>>> Norse/German/Roman gods these days
>>
>> I know some neopagans who would be quite insulted by that statement.
>I doubt their numbers are in the billions, or that they exert a
>dominating influence on Western culture.
Ahh, if only NPOV were such. Numbers, or influence, has absolutly 0 to do
with NPOV. Just because a group is popular does not mean it's POV is more
dangerous then one not so popular. I prefer CE/BCE, but your argument is so
ludicrous as to actually damage the rationale to use it.
-Brock
I know there's a formal desysopping process, but I can't remember what
it is. I'd appreciate it if someone with the authority to do so would
please remove my sysop privs from the English Wikipedia.
Cheers,
--
Mark Gallagher
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
I am forwarding this message on to the list because JDG appears to be
having some technical issues preventing the sending of mail to the
mailing list.
~Mark Ryan
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jaydee Gee <JDGee1(a)gmail.com>
Date: 02-Sep-2006 08:30
Subject: [Fwd: Dealing with a famous photographer]
To: ultrablue(a)gmail.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jaydee Gee <JDGee1(a)gmail.com>
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:41:40 -0400
Subject: Dealing with a famous photographer
Hello folks. I (longtime editor "JDG") stopped monitoring Wikipedia
lists long ago, but I'd like to ask some advice on dealing with a rather
famous photographer in my attempts to include at least one of his images
in the English Wikipedia's Bob Dylan article.
To be honest, this photographer's 1966 portrait of Dylan was up there as
the lead photograph in the article for almost all of `05 and most of
this year, until the Fair Use crackdown. I'll suppress my opinion of
that crackdown and go on to my question: given the following
correspondence, what's the best way to reel the photographer (let's call
him "Mr. K") in?:
<start correspondence>
"Hello J,
Thanks for your email requesting use of my photograph of Bob Dylan for
the lead photo in your Wikipedia article about him. All in all, I'd
like to go forward but I'll first need a moment to re-read and fully
understand the "GNU Free Documentation License" material. I do not want
to lose control of this iconic photograph. Anything you can say about
that would be helpful.
If we go forward, what is the smallest size file you can use for good
Internet photo reproduction? The file size you've picked up was made
for press use and for my part,is far too large for Internet use. The
picture has my copyright notice on the photograph (on Dylan's shoulder)
and I would do the same for the new file I would provide. Where would
I send it?
Please let me know your deadline for getting this done. Yes, I would
like to be linked to my website - what information must I provide?
.
Best regards,
K
----------------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Mr. K,
>
> I'm one of the thousands of drones working on Wikipedia. Some of us
who have been overseeing the Bob Dylan article
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Dylan) very much want to use one of
your excellent portraits as the lead photo in the article, but copyright
concerns have forced us to use a very inferior picture. The portrait we
wish to use is the one shown here: >
http://www.cleonproductions.com/flotsam/Bob_Dylan_by_DK.png
>
> Would you consider giving Wikipedia explicit permission to use it at
the resolution shown at the above link? We can offer no payment, but we
can offer a link back to your own website, in addition to the standard
photo credit by name. As Wikipedia is currently the 17th most used site
in the world, this link may prove valuable, particularly if you ever try
selling photographs from your site or from a site linked to your site
>
> If you choose to give us permission, this particular digital file of
the photo will then fall under the "GNU Free Documentation License" (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_L…),
with a stipulation that whoever re-uses Wikipedia content must also
display the photo credit as well as a hypertext link of your choosing.
Of course, all rights to the original photo, as well as digital
reproductions at higher resolutions, remain with you.
>
> Thanks for your time and consideration,
>
> JDG
>
<end correspondence>
Sorry for the length, but you can see it raises some halfway tricky
questions. I'm not especially knowledgeable about copyright law nor even
of Wikipedia\media's own policies in this area... So, how would you
answer Mr. K (with a view, of course, to "getting" his fine photograph)?
Thx,
JDG
> True, we should care for newbies, but we should have the good of the project
> at number one. I can't find a single policy that we don't need (can you?).
> Policies we don't need probably won't get promoted to policy to begin with.
>
Even if you can't point to a policy page and say "we'd be better off if that
whole page were deleted", it seems to me that after promotion to policy level,
the process of annotating and expanding that policy happens slowly, under much
less scrutiny, and at a much lower threshold of acceptance.
I have in mind WP:U. The general idea -- no offensive usernames -- may be good,
but read all of the fine print that has accumulated over time. Do not think this
is idle policy cruft that nobody acts upon. Newbies now get instantly and
permanently blocked for what in my opinion are really stupid, arbitrary offences.
Perhaps WP:U is an extreme case, but I suspect something like this happens on
many policy pages, and never mind guidelines.
Dan
On 6 Sep 2006 at 9:44, "Oskar Sigvardsson"
<oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> but unlike most spears, I'm remarkably un-skinny
Including Britney?
--
== 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/
