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
Just to let you guys know, prescriptive, descriptive and most
importantly 'thoughtful' essays are welcomed at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ethics
Best wishes to all Wikipedians for the new year
On 23/01/2008, Rama Rama <ramaneko(a)gmail.com> wrote (on commons-l):
> 2) There is definitely a trend of professional photographers to request
> credits under the image in articles. This is what they are accustomed to.
> I (and a few others) think that we should make efforts to sensibilise our
> users to this. We can definitely afford to credit people in articles. This
> is a small concession which costs us very little and can benefit us greatly.
We can't promise that, and on en:wp it's general practice not to.
*However*, where possible I like to credit the photographer in the
caption anyway - particularly if they're a professional. (I like
detailed captions in general - place, date, photographer.)
Many do get very stroppy about a lack of caption credit especially if
it's CC-by - even if we're within the letter of the licence by only
having the credit on the image page, it's IMO not only polite but
often *useful to the reader* to note who took the picture.
[cc to wikien-l]
- d.
- d.
If your hosting provider (like mine) lets you create unlimited free
subdomains, you can go with reckless abandon pointing them at
Wikipedia pages. For instance, in honor of my infamous ArbCom case
proposal, I've set up http://rutabaga.dan.info/ to point at the
Wikipedia article "Rutabaga". Should that article now be brought up
for deletion because I've made it into a free-hosting extension of my
personal web space? (As far as I recall, I've never actually edited
that article.)
--
== 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/
Some time ago I ran into a case where a small airline managed to
purchase a domain name with redirection service, pointed it to the
Wikipedia article about them, and then later angrily contacted the
foundation enraged that we were 'hacking' their website simply because
users were editing the article normally.
I didn't think that I'd run into another one as weird as that, but I
think this comes close:
http://bathrobecabal.org/
An unsolicited testimonial. I was queuing up yesterday to get into a public lecture yesterday for the Milton anniversary by [[Quentin Skinner]], and there was obviously a problem. The student in front of me said, quite spontaneously, "He's only famous because he's on Wikipedia".
Which leaves out his being on Radio 4 on Monday. But I was kind of quite glad I'd worked on the article in the past. (No, I didn't get in - too many bodies in Mill Lane Lecture Rooms and fire regulations were invoked - still waiting for the podcast to appear on the Christ's College site.)
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 31/01/2008, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> > Peter Ansell wrote:
>
>> > > I apologised, but as yet the entire incident has turned into a
>> > > firestorm I have only ever heard about in american politics. Poor
>> > > Aussie isn't used to being attacked. Still not taking back the
>> > > essential comment about GFDL childrens pictures posted on the net.
>>
> >
> > Laura made a good observation over on the AN/I thread that purveyors of
> > child pornography are unlikely to be concerned about whether the
> > pictures they're using are properly licensed. The issue of whether the
> > photos are under the GFDL seems like another irrelevant tangent.
>
> If the pictures were never posted to a public place then there would
> be zero risk of them being vandalised by a paedophile. That was the
> real issue. Is a child not worth zero risk? From the sounds of the
> posts it seems like the complaint was about her and not the child.
> Wikipedia editors should understand the GFDL as a prerequisite though,
> including the revocation of any right to sue a person who modifies a
> photo in any way as long as they attribute its authors correctly.
Of course the complaint is about me and not my kids. I'm not worried
about the well-being of my kids being jeopardized by a couple pictures.
Not in the least. What I'm upset about is your shameful behavior and the
fact that the moderators of this list ignored it. And I'm now pissed
about your excuse, which is so obviously fake. If you were concerned
with our kids, you would have done more than make an underhanded "aside"
comment on a list you knew we didn't subscribe to.
>> > > I
>> > > am passionate about keeping all possible avenues for exploiting
>> > > children closed. It is illegal to post pictures of someone elses
>> child
>> > > on the net in Australia, and I naturally assumed that they saw the
>> > > risks I guess, mostly because of the emphasis on bathrobes I think.
>>
> >
> > Wikimedia falls under a different jurisdiction, fortunately, or
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Children would be a lot more
> > sparsely populated. And those photos are of their own kids so that law
> > wouldn't apply here anyway.
>
> Still, given the wikipedia review topic about the recent issue with
> commons having a "Category:Lolita" and the vandalism of scout photos,
> there is an issue. Its a shame that freedom of speech outweighs child
> safety in Florida, US.
That's totally ridiculous. To say people shouldn't be able to upload
images of their kids. That's just ridiculous. I let my kids play outside
too, and I take them to the store with me. There is, of course, always
the risk of them being kidnapped, and so I risk that when I take them
out. I could shelter them in the house all the time, reducing that risk
to near zero, but I don't. Does that also make me an irresponsible parent?
>> > > I would appreciate even simple comments about how badly things could
>> > > be taken, as I had not noticed the veracity of the statement until I
>> > > was brought back to it again. The crux of the statement shouldn't be
>> > > attacked though even if I expressed it in a bad way.
>>
> >
> > I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.
>
> It is a completely different culture in which people both get annoyed
> quickly and try to make scandals out of a few words, and in which
> parents are ultra-sensitive about their parenting styles. Thats the
> Australian part I was trying to get at. If someone here had thought to
> tell me that it could be offensive then I would have retracted the
> comment then and there. Now that I have thought about it I think the
> point of the comment, child safety considerations, is relevant still.
> If Florida doesn't give a stuff then I hope Wikipedia has a conscience
> to care outside of what is explicitly needed by law.
> Peter
First of all, this is yet again inappropriate. You just categorized a
nation of people as easily annoyed, scandalous and ultra-sensitive.
Second of all, I'm American. Pedro is British. Who's the Australian?
You? If so, you just categorized two nations of people.
Regardless, you stated you apologized. That's inaccurate. A
[[non-apology apology]] does not equal an apology.
Lara
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:08:52 +1100, "Steve Bennett"
<stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/28/08, Adrian <aldebaer(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> > http://www.flickr.com/groups/cdcovermeme/pool/
>
> Cute. If only I had more enthusiasm for being a memebunny, I would now
> be posting a link to a CD cover for my band, "Moogerah Peaks National
> Park" with the surprisingly appropriate background
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/18548381@N05/2218803959/ and the quote
> "Nothing fails like success".
I don't have a Flickr account, but mine would be:
Band name: Elmendorf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmendorf%2C_Texas
Album: you just trusted yourself.
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/39296.html
Cover:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/loredana/2221921676/
...which would made a really good cover, but unfortunately it's "All
rights reserved", and some in the message threads over there say it's
technically illegal to make derivative works of such things (though
you're unlikely to get sued for doing it noncommercially as part of a
meme)... so using a link somebody provided to get only free images, I
got this alternative cover:
http://flickr.com/photos/14555484@N02/2214694579/
I find it interesting how often this random selection comes up with
combinations of band names, album titles, and images that give the
impression of having some sort of deep symbolic artistic
significance... makes one wonder how many of the real-world arts-and-
literature stuff, about which people write academic treatises
discussing what they represent, were really just born of random
thoughts of their artists. I remember struggling in English classes
in high school and college (where I was great at more "rational"
subjects like math and computer science) where the teachers kept
expecting me to understand all the symbolism that was supposedly
there in the books and stories we read (the rocking horse isn't just
a rocking horse... it represents the lost innocence of childhood!),
but how is anybody to know what symbolism was really intended and
what is a figment of the observer's imagination?
--
== 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/
