At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cool_Wall we had a complete list
of cars which appear on the BBC Top Gear "Cool Wall". I removed this
as being almost certainly a violation of copyright. It is now being
argued that reproducing the list in full does not violate copyright,
because it is not published in the show's magazine or on the website
and has been compiled by collating the lists from numerous shows. It
is further asserted that compiling the list from these shows does not
constitute original research, although there is no known reliable
secondary source for any of the data, let alone the complete collated
list
Original research? You decide.
Copyright? I think so, but what do I know?
Fancruft? Ooooh, tricky :-)
Guidance appreciated.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
It worries me a little that I can spot Wikipedia text a mile off - our
house style isn't that obvious, is it? - but it seems to be one of
those little skills you pick up after a while. Very useful for marking
school essays, I'm sure.
Anyhow, I was packing up some boxes today, and happened across the box
for the Nokia 770 (a really useful little bit of kit, incidentally),
which shows someone merrily using the device to chatter away to a
friend on an instant messenger. For some reason, the friend is writing
something to them about poetry.
I looked at the sentence. Something went click.
"Kim: A poem is a composition usually written in verse. Poems rely
heavily on imagery, precise word choice, and metaphor, may be written
in measures consisting of" [...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Literature&oldid=3562677
I'm used to seeing our content reused all over the place, but somehow
I didn't expect to see fragments used as lorem-ipsum filler on a box
cover...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
You know, the number of Wikipedia articles with pictures in them
is really plummeting. I just went from [[Talia Shire]] to [[Joey
Tribbiani]] to [[Matt LeBlanc]] and noticed that there were no
pictures in any of them.
I know the reason(s), of course, but viewing Wikipedia as a user
(as I was this morning), this really significantly decreases its
quality and usefulness. I'm afraid I know the answer, but would
there be any way of reversing the various death-to-all-but-the-
most-rampantly-free-images trends?
In response about the discussion on wikien-l about fair use and
placeholder images for biographies (and other things?) I have written
a new tool, WatchFlickr.
Given a category (at selectable depth), it retrieves all articles in
that category, checks if it lacks an image, and if so, searches Flickr
for relevant CC-BY and CC-BY-SA images. It shows found flickr
thumbnails, links to the wikipedia and flickr page, and to
Flominator's Flinfo tool.
Not that due toolserver problems, several wikipedias, notably en, are
not available to search right now. German wikipedia works, though, in
case you want to test.
URL:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/watchflickr.php
I have already found, uploaded, and used about a dozen "celebrity"
images, both adding a new image and (on en.wp) replacing fair use and
placeholder images.
Cheers,
Magnus
This is a new thread to discuss CSD A7.
The Category for Speedy Deletion A7 is a menace. It is far too open to misuse. It should be replaced by something with far less discretion.
My question is: we need a banality threshold, but which one? We do need articles speedied if they are without redeeming interest. A7 is broken, and builds on the idea that notability (another broken idea) and its "assertion" can be properly judged by individuals.
What is there that can be put in its place? How can we better characterise "run-of-the-mill" ?
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
People want examples of how "none of the thousand or so admins wants
to unblock them" doesn't adequately describe the "community" ban
process? How about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/I
ncidents/Blu_Aardvark_and_Mistress_Selina_Kyle
Synopsis: Linuxbeak unblocks Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle.
A whole page of drama-queen histrionics and hissy-fits erupts, with
some prominent admins loudly storming away from Wikipedia in a huff
(they were soon back), and people demanding that Linuxbeak apologize,
admit to a grave error of judgment, and possibly be desysopped or
debureaucratted. The fact that Jimbo apparently supported
Linuxbeak's action was dismissed as irrelevant. Anybody who in any
way supports the unblocking of these individuals is deemed a
supporter of stalking, harrassing, anti-semitism, and other rotten
stuff. They're quickly reblocked.
--
== 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/
On 30 Sep 2007 at 21:14, fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info wrote:
> I must admit I have never seen any positive contribution to either
> the mailing list or policy discussions on Wikipedia from you. It's
> like you live in an abstract world where our practical problems
> are not known.
I live in a world of logic and reason and sense... I guess that *is*
pretty far from the real world at that.
--
== 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/
> Then, please, Charles, write and discuss what you see.
>
> Marc
This is what WP:RFAR is for; or if that is excessive, the weekly summary at WP:POST in the Signpost. It happens that Arbitration takes in about 100 of the most serious disputes on enWP in a year.
To summarize from an Arbs point of view: our caseload is harder, because more of the disputes are entrenched. Many issues are related to conflict of interest, nationalism, politics or religion. Akl one, really, from our point of view: people abusing the facilities of the site, to skew the content. More of this, every day.
Other problem areas:
- High profile admins throwing their weight around: something of a constant here, the names changing but the attitudes remaining. The half-life of such an admin is around nine months, I think. Attracts a disproportionate amount of attention. Our version of "canteen culture" meets office politics.
- Deletion has its share of bottom-feeders.
- The working environment of the average editor has probably not deteriorated much socially, given that there were always people around on the site wasting your time. Technically things are much improved.
Jimbo's influence is much attenuated, for better or worse. The constitutional monarch retreats to the palace, or even his personal Marly.
On the other hand, the degree of external scrutiny of the site is vastly increased, and this has led to some jittery times. I recommend editing articles. Really, it all makes more sense if you look at the working enviroment in terms of the work.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam