>
> > digging, it does seem to be disallowed. For rationale, I get pointed
> > back to either Jimbo's posts on disallowing non-commercial-use media
> > licenses, fair use, or discussion of downstream use.
> >
> > None of these reasons seem to apply here. For the free encyclopedia,
> > a CC-BY-ND media license, for example, is perfectly redistributable,
> > allows for possible commercial use, and poses no issues for forks or
> > other downstream use, right?
>
> When we talk about Wikipedia being free, we refer to the 4 freedoms of
> free software, as defined by Richard Stallman many years ago:
>
> 0. The freedom to copy
> 1. The freedom to redistribute
> 2. The freedom to modify
> 3. The freedom to redistribute modified versions
>
> CC-BY-NC violates at least the last of these.
>
This is just an unfortunate typo, and you mean CC-BY-ND. Right?
> Why do we care? Because we want people to be able to adapt our work for
> their own purposes. It is difficult for us to foresee what those
> purposes might be.
>
> Perhaps an artist wants to create a Digital Dream Booth... you walk into
> it, and say some concept like "Iraq" and dozens of images drawn from
> Wikipedia, interspersed with snippets of text, cascade down around you
> dissolving and forming in unusual ways. The images are digitally
> morphed, one into the next.
>
> This is clearly going to involve making derivative works of our images.
>
> --Jimbo
>
This is well explained. Thank you.
Regards,
Daniel
On 21/09/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to second this - don't relax requirements whatsoever.
Of course, it would make the goal silly to do so. I'm putting
[[WP:100K]] as working to the Featured Article criteria ...
> But don't be afraid to reform the process. The meaning of FA should
> not be to be one of 365 produced each year to show up on the front
> page.
... but am explicitly not assuming the current FA process.
[[WP:100K]] seems to have a nascent process outlined:
1. Check various sources for better-than-average articles. (FA, GA,
A-rated by a project, collaboration-of-the-week, etc.)
2. Rate these per the FAC. I expect FAs and probably GAs will get an
automatic pass to save effort.
An idea I have for step 2 is: no self-nominations. I am *suspecting*
self-nominations are why FA has to explicitly say "don't take it
personally" - they've set up an environment almost designed to make it
personal.
Now then, for the bilinguals ... does translating FAs from one project
to another sound like something that would arouse your interest at
all?
[cc: back to wikien-l]
- d.
> Who are you to say that we won't edit the video? Maybe you won't, but
> maybe someone else will, in a way that makes it more useful, and then
> link that on Wikipedia. That's the point of viral licensing and
> ShareAlikes. I'm afraid "you're not allowed to edit it" is a deal-breaker.
Eh, why is that anyway? I understand why we would dislike it, of course, but I'm
not sure why, exactly, we would want to make it a deal-breaker. (We, english
Wikipedia, rather than say, Wikimedia Commons which has slightly different goals.)
For starters it isn't mentioned in the copyright FAQ at all. With a bit more
digging, it does seem to be disallowed. For rationale, I get pointed back to
either Jimbo's posts on disallowing non-commercial-use media licenses, fair use,
or discussion of downstream use.
None of these reasons seem to apply here. For the free encyclopedia, a CC-BY-ND
media license, for example, is perfectly redistributable, allows for possible
commercial use, and poses no issues for forks or other downstream use, right?
We would, obviously, rather have everything under one license. But we allow
incompatible media copylefts, like CC-BY-SA and GFDL, even though it means we
can't, say, make a derivative image based on two images with incompatible
copylefts. We even allow "fair use" under some restricted circumstances. This
does not allow for derivative works either, and in fact poses downstream
problems. (Again, we, english Wikipedia. The Commons does not allow fair use.)
So it's obvious why we would rather not have no-derivative media licenses, but
it's not obvious to me why we would absolutely insist upon it, the way we
absolutely insist upon allowing commercial use or what have you.
At least, we could use some better documentation on this point.
Regards,
Dan Mehkeri
It is very very important that everyone vote.
I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and
Mindspillage.
Oscar is an amazing Dutch Wikipedian with strong support from that
community but who does not have broad exposure in the English
Wikipedia... I hope we can change that by introducing him to people.
Mindspillage is Mindspillage. We all know and love her. Give her some
votes.
There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are
entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly
unable to work well with the community.
Please, everyone, vote... and vote for people who you can know and trust
and care about as human beings.
I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your
community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
--Jimbo
"Andrew Lih" wrote
> I'm curious if there is a reasonable reason against Wikipedia serving
> this function, other than "encyclopedias are not news", which I would
> argue is old-style thinking (and something I've heard from more than
> one so-called "academic" committee.)
It's a reasonable argument, re current affairs and 'first draft of history', that two-steps-forward-and-one-step-back is less convincing. It is not one I support - I'm with Andrew on this. After all, in science, this is the norm, and we have no problem with saying that when the science changes, we change the articles.
The second-order point on that is, well, WP shouldn't _anticipate_ the scientific revision, so the same should apply to history. But I think the policy on original research then enters: it can correctly be said of WP that its current affairs coverage should _not_ be doing the job of historical synthesis, ahead of the historians.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Just pointing out that Weird Al Yankovic's new video shows (though clearly
photoshopped) the nerd vandalising the Wikipedia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xEzGIuY7kw&eurl= (at about 1:50)
--
Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
On 21/09/06, daniwo59(a)aol.com <daniwo59(a)aol.com> wrote:
> There are so many ideas out there as to how we can do it. Let's share them.
> Other, easy steps--
I've added this to [[WP:100K]].
- d.
[re-add cc to wikien-l - please preserve this]
G'day Carl,
> On 9/20/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:09:54 -0700, Ray Saintonge
> > <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Since we also have five members of the Board, was this intended
> to be an
> > >allegory?
> >
> > No, it's *ape*, not alligator.
>
> Allegory: a story with a deeper level of meaning, where elements
> of the
> stories generally represent something else in real life. The
> question was if
> the apes were supposed to stand for the Board, not if "alligators"
> wereintended instead of apes.
That joke is either a wonderful example of deadpan humour so subtle and profound that a poor pleb like me can't hope to understand it, or you missed Guy's point completely. Apparently AGF compels me[0] to believe the best of the situation, so one must assume you're just taking Guy's joke to another, more beautiful, level.
In which case: well played, sir. Well played.
[0] One day I'm going to post a long list of the CW-like
misunderstandings of policy I've seen put forth by CVU
types[1]. I suspect there isn't a single policy that hasn't
seen someone bitten by an officious Enforcer who
doesn't actually know what the policy really means.
[1] Actually, "AGF means you can't say someone is wrong"
is quite common, and even one or two admins have
been known to spout it. I've tried to bring this silliness to
the admins' attention, but they just think I'm assuming
bad faith on their behalf.[2]
[2] But this post isn't about AGF. I'm actually being
humorous and not at all political. So you can stop
looking at me like that and start assuming GF.
--
Mark Gallagher
http://www.micropersuasion.com/2006/09/wikipedia_adver.html
I've removed almost all external links from the article in question
(see talk page) and suggest a few people keep an eye on the article.
And for any other interesting Google search results.
- d.
"David Gerard" wrote
> Date: 2006/09/21 Thu AM 10:40:52 BST
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Wikipedia a News Portal (among other things)?
>
> Peter Jacobi wrote
> > If a Wikipedia article is "the best source available", it has
> > become original research.
> Or just the best-researched. Your assertion appears trivially false.
No, you are both right, with slightly different senses of the word 'research'. This is where it gets to be an interesting discussion. Wikipedians are para-academic para-journalists with the completely wild idea that 'policy' can adequately constrain and define a 'generic' research method, to the point that it produces material of actual value. Our idea of 'value' is not however a _market_ value or a _career_ value or a personal _prestige_ value (well, qualify that perhaps). It is not perhaps surprising that the outside world has fairly systematically misunderstood all this.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information