On 27/01/07, wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:15:01 +0100
> From: "Oskar Sigvardsson" <oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An obscene example of remote loading
> If they follow the GFDL, then no. If they don't (which it appears that
> they don't, since they don't credit us; the history link doesn't
> work), we could sue, but really, do we even care that much?
If it's remote loading, as in, pulling content from our servers live,
then we *can* stop it, and such mirrors should be reported to us on
IRC in #wikimedia-tech (on Freenode, as usual) or else reported to our
mailing list at wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org.
Remote loading is not helpful for us; it creates a small amount of
additional, illegitimate load on our cache servers and it facilitates
loading the site into frames and so forth...this is not necessarily
illegal, but quite often, remote loading sites won't really care about
the GFDL and it becomes so.
Legitimate mirrors and people who want to reuse our content are free,
and encouraged, to download a database dump and process it for their
needs. There is also an OAI live repository service, which I think we
charge for (and I don't know how many parties actually use it).
If the licence our content is released under is violated, then
individual contributors to that content have a right to sue for
copyright infringement; Wikimedia doesn't actually *have* the
copyright and so may not be able to do the actual litigation (but I'm
not a lawyer, hate lawyers, and am not completely sure of that).
Rob Church
Marc Riddell wrote
> I bring this up because, when I first came to WP, the one policy I found
> most disturbing was the one concerning ³incivility².
<snip>
> If a particular word or phrase offends you hit delete and move on.
>
> What are your thoughts and feelings about this?
That I would like to treat Wikipedians I encounter on the site as colleagues, and to be so treated by them. Is there any particular epithet or slur you feel ought to be allowed, as helping in this?
Bear in mind also that it is not possible to assume that (American) colloquialisms will be taken as intended.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marc Riddell [mailto:michaeldavid86@comcast.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 08:11 AM
>To: 'Wiki-EN-L (new topics)'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Freedom of Speech in WP
>
>Hello,
>
>Recently the Mayor of a small town in Texas tried to pass an ordinance
>making it against the law to use the ³N² word within the city limits. Fine:
>$500 for each offense.
>
>He went into this believing the ordinance¹s passage would be a slam dunk
>it wasn¹t. The vast majority of the multiracial citizens of the town
>protested to such a degree that he finally gave up and abandoned the idea.
>The citizens' basic argument: what word is next?
>
>I bring this up because, when I first came to WP, the one policy I found
>most disturbing was the one concerning ³incivility². Most especially the
>practice of banning (punishing) members of the WP community for using words
>and phrases considered by whoever made up the policy to be ³offensive².
>This, to me, made WP free in every thing but speech.
>
>I know this issue has been touched upon several times in this Mailing List
>just since I started participating in it, but I wanted to speak directly to
>the policy and its practice at this time.
>
>If a particular word or phrase offends you hit delete and move on.
>
>What are your thoughts and feelings about this?
>
>Marc Riddell
>From the same article:
"One thing is clear, however: the uncivil participants are driving away the civil ones. The result is an acceleration of the cycle, and an increasing proportion of hostile remarks."
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marc Riddell [mailto:michaeldavid86@comcast.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 08:11 AM
>To: 'Wiki-EN-L (new topics)'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Freedom of Speech in WP
>
>Hello,
>
>Recently the Mayor of a small town in Texas tried to pass an ordinance
>making it against the law to use the ³N² word within the city limits. Fine:
>$500 for each offense.
>
>He went into this believing the ordinance¹s passage would be a slam dunk
>it wasn¹t. The vast majority of the multiracial citizens of the town
>protested to such a degree that he finally gave up and abandoned the idea.
>The citizens' basic argument: what word is next?
>
>I bring this up because, when I first came to WP, the one policy I found
>most disturbing was the one concerning ³incivility². Most especially the
>practice of banning (punishing) members of the WP community for using words
>and phrases considered by whoever made up the policy to be ³offensive².
>This, to me, made WP free in every thing but speech.
>
>I know this issue has been touched upon several times in this Mailing List
>just since I started participating in it, but I wanted to speak directly to
>the policy and its practice at this time.
>
>If a particular word or phrase offends you hit delete and move on.
>
>What are your thoughts and feelings about this?
>
>Marc Riddell
Absent the policy, things would be much nastier than they are. This is the general pattern which occurs in other venues which do not have the minimal controls we have. The result is a wild west atmosphere where tough talk rules, in a sense. We have enough of that now.
>From a New York Times article, "THE YEAR AHEAD: TECHNOLOGY; Try to Play Nice, Wicked Wide Web"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE3DC1630F932A05751C1A960…
'As a Web 2.0 site or a blog becomes more popular, a growing percentage of its reader contributions devolve into vitriol, backstabbing and name-calling (not to mention Neanderthal spelling and grammar). Participants address each other as ''idiot'' and ''moron'' (and worse) the way correspondents of old might have used ''sir'' or ''madam."'
Fred
I have an issue with the third criterium of notability for web content,
which IMO should not exist at all:
<<
Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
3) The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and
independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or
magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.
>>
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web)
I have a blog on Blogger, which is a medium both well known and
independent of me.
According to the criterion, my blog is notable. Actually, all the
blogs from Blogger are notable, only the blogs hosted by their owners
fail this criterion of notability.
Notability only due to the medium which was published is not valid for
non-web content: not everyone who wrote an article for The Times or
NY Times is notable. Why should it be valid for web content?
The subject of the article should be notable BY ITSELF, not by
association.
On the article [[Rotherhithe Tunnel]], an editor removed the link to
this video "because the soundtrack is a copyright violation":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqTUEkju5j0
It's a video of driving through the tunnel, on top of the audio of
which the maker of the video has sardonically overlaid "Road to Hell"
by Chris Rea, which is faintly amusing.
[[WP:C]], quoted at the top of [[WP:EL]], says: "If you know that an
external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's
copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Is using music on a
video "a violation of the creator's copyright", or even "a work" in
which the quoted wording was intended to refer to?
--
Earle Martin
http://downlode.org/http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
On Jan 27, 2007, at 7:00 AM, wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> From: Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net>
>
> I would like to nominate [[User:I B Wright]]'s current endeavour on
> [[Pentagrid converter]] for [[WP:LAME]]. He keeps re-inserting a piece
> of text that is completely nonsensical. He claims that it's a
> "literary
> device" and insists that "all the vacuum-tube-savvy editors are happy
> with it". Four different people have already removed it (myself
> included) and he keeps reinserting it.
>
> Timwi
Specifically, it appears keeps reinserting a piece of text such that
the opening of the section, "The Pentode," reads:
"[Pentode? Are you quite sure? - Ed.] Absolutely. One UK company,
Mazda, produced a triode-pentode frequency changer, the AC/TP."
Just to make it clear, the interpolation "[Pentode? Are you quite
sure? - Ed.] Absolutely." appears in the text of the article itself,
not the discussion page. I don't see where he calls it a "literary
device," but I do see edit comments to the effect that "Reverted:
It's not inline discussion" and "Once again - IT'S *NOT* DISCUSSION."
But, hey, how can you argue with anyone whose username is "I. B.
Wright?"
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 08:26 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia', 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List',
>'Wikimedia Commons Discussion List'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Publishing group hires 'Pit Bull of PR' to fight open access
>
>(courtesy Mathias Schindler)
>
>http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,462845,00.html
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR200701250…
>http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070122/full/445347a.html
>
>Now, is there anything WMF can do to advocate free content? Is that
>political or entirely in accordance with our goals? Or what can
>individuals do?
>
>
>- d.
>From the Washington Post article:
"But there is a potential downside to hiring the likes of Dezenhall: If word gets out, you stand to be seen as on the ropes and willing to do anything to win."
Fred
Hi,
For a clearer idea of AAP's argument, please see:
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/3572.html
Thanks, George
en|irc : [[GChriss]]
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:03:49 +0000 English Wikipedia wrote:
On 1/29/07, jkelly(a)fas.harvard.edu <jkelly(a)fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Quoting David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>:
>
> >
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR200701250…
>
> "...Dezenhall told the association's professional and scholarly publishing
> division, he could help -- in part by simplifying the industry's message to a
> few key phrases that even a busy senator could grasp. Phrases like: "Public
> access equals government censorship..."
>
> They've hired Cplot?!?
>
> Jkelly
It would explain a lot. I tend to feel that one would be rather open
to a counter attack along the lines of:
montage of NASA images
"the Association of American Publishers would have you believe that
this is censorship"
--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l