I thought the list had died down all of a sudden, died down quite a
bit, but apparently everything has been going into my spam mail box.
Now, ya'll are thinking, oh, she changed the settings on her something
to mark this spam by accident. However, those of you who edit with me
know the probability of my somehow finding a page or place or whatever
it is called whereby I could change anything is 0, so obviously it had
to be the list that did something.....
Has something changed on the list lately that would impact this?
This morning, I did a survey of 100 image uploads. The sample size
with relation to
the overall quantity of image uploads per month is not statistically
it is terrifying nonetheless. With that grain of salt in mind;
I found that 44% of images uploaded were tagged as being under a non-free
Let that sink in for a bit. 44%
That's nearly HALF our image uploads.
Reviewing five days worth of uploads, we are (at least this month)
going to upload
about 76 thousand images. Fully 33 thousand of them are or will be tagged as
Let THAT sink in for a bit. 33 thousand per month. Over a year, assuming
growth, we're looking at a whopping half million images uploaded over the
next year under a non-free license.
We need a culture change. We need it now.
The English Wikipedia is no longer a free content encyclopedia and is
not working towards our mission of providing neutral educational content
under a free content license.
Either we need to drop the charade that we are a free content encyclopedia,
or we need to harshly restrict image uploads until better tools are in place
to handle the overwhelming deluge of non-free content we are being hit
with on a daily basis, and the overwhelming mass of non-free images
we are currently suffering under is reviewed.
If the people are on this mailing list are unable to make decisions on
this, who should I take this matter to? I'm of the understanding that Jimbo
wanted this list to be the main source of business work, so to speak.
Yet, the support I've seen regarding fair use issues brought up in an
earlier thread is weak at best. Is there another place I should be taking this?
Has anyone been able to verify whether or not the
pages-meta-history.xml dumps for 20070716 are correct?
http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20070716/ is showing
pages-meta-current.xml.bz2 at 4.8 GB and pages-meta-history.xml.bz2 at
5.0 GB. I can't imagine the full history dump is only 4% bigger than
the current dump.
By the way, what exactly is stub-meta-current.xml. Just stub
articles? By what definition of stub?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_dumps doesn't mention the file.
Re: Signifying Rapper
Would some editor apart from myself care to look at this article for a
second opinion? I have doubts on the inclusion of an external quote
which refers to Jimmy Page as a "cocksucker", a "prick" and implies he
is a thief. Wikipedia doesn't censor in regard to language but I find
the tone of that quote inappropriate, unbalanced and opinionated for
an encyclopaedia. Maybe it's just me but I would like another opinion
on the inclusion of that passage.
>From: WikipediaEditor Durin [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 08:24 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fair use redux; the second coming of hell; Are we a free content or aren't we?
>If the people are on this mailing list are unable to make decisions on
>this, who should I take this matter to? I'm of the understanding that Jimbo
>wanted this list to be the main source of business work, so to speak.
>Yet, the support I've seen regarding fair use issues brought up in an
>earlier thread is weak at best. Is there another place I should be taking this?
Yes, there probably is. Our public mailing lists are becoming progressively less useful. Only a few participate and of those few only a small fraction have actual gravitas in terms of the working of Wikipedia. Since you're talking about images, perhaps the Commons community is where this issue should be fully considered and something done.
To address the issue, I fear we are accepting fair use for trivial purposes. Great public issues are one thing, a fair use image of an entertainer is quite another. A fair use image should be vital for understanding of a significant issue.
Lots of stuff comes directly from Wikipedia, and quite a lot of the
pages were just cut'n'pasted over and are in need of fixing ... but
I wonder if they'll do much toward making video editable. Imagine how
far Wikipedia wouldn't have gotten if every edit was a PDF of a scan