In a message dated 5/4/2008 12:01:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
I think it does state 5, but I don't think that clause was written
with wikis in mind. I have no idea how you're meant to determine the
top 5 authors.>>
----------------------------
Well after having a go-round with some wikipoopians over it, it seems like
you only need to name the principal authors if you alter the text in some way,
and none of our mirrors actually does it anyway, and no one's ever been sued
for doing it contrariwise.
I.E. a tempest in a teapot used to attack people you don't like instead of
actually fulfilling our mission.
Which is, in my mind, to provide a free encyclopedia, free for anyone to do
anything they want with, and they probably will and do, flauntly any
interpretation of the license whatsoever. It will be interesting to see how these
"let's sell pages x1 through x10 of wikipedia to audience y" go. I'm fairly
confident they won't be naming any of the authors at all.
Hey we're gonna set legal precedent, woo hoo !
Will Johnson
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
In a message dated 5/4/2008 7:29:08 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
ktc(a)ktchan.info writes:
One can just list five principal authors. >>
-------------
Or is it four? or six? or two?
Does the GFDL state?
Will
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
In a message dated 5/4/2008 6:30:32 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
Technically, it should mention the authors listed on the history page,
rather than Wikipedia. Wikipedia is just a user like any other.>>
-------------
Do *any* of our mirrors actually do this? If so can you link one of their
pages to show this?
Thanks
Will Johnson
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
Wikipedia is mentioned in this week's Sunday Times in Britain, in an article
about privacy, robots.txt, and the 'Star Wars Kid'. Author Jonathan Zittrain
seems surprised to find the article on the Star Wars Kid does not give his
name.
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article38…
--
Sam Blacketer
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=1208&u_sid=10325513
This article uses the headline "1995 bio still the Wikipedia on
Warren", but isn't actually about Wikipedia in any way; it's
apparently regarding "Wikipedia" as a generic term for a "source to
check dates, names and events". While this is a much more positive
thing than if "Wikipedia" were being used as a generic term for "an
unreliable source that can be screwed up by any idiot on the street"
as some of the critics would be likely to do, it still possibly poses
a threat to the Wikipedia trademark; just like Google's lawyers are
concerned about the widespread use of "googling" especially if it
threatens to become a term for online searching even when the Google
brand search engine is not used, it could cause 'genericide' of the
WP trademark if (as I've seen in other places occasionally)
"wikipedia" becomes a common term for reference sources and online
projects of various sorts, like "the wikipedia of baseball
statistics".
--
== 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/
It's quite possible that Miss whoever is the "dumbest" literary agent ever,
not just currently. And I'm stating this as an *opinion*, which anyone who
has taken my class in Defamation A101 (for idiots) understands is not
actionable.
It's very clear to children that calling someone a name is not defamation
and it doesn't even matter if you do it using a loudspeaker like Wikipedia.
Defamation would involve something like saying "and she embezzled a million
dollars from her last job."
That would not be an "opinion", but rather a statement of fact. Then she'd
have a case to sue whoever said it for defamation.
Please.
Will Johnson
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
Recent patrol seems to be a better game than anything you can buy. Zappin
vandalism before cluebot or another rcer and bangin up counts is very cool.
ICQ is full on afternoons of did ya see that? AIV listed in 30secs. What on
earth is this game? The worst thing is that these editors are
mentoring/tutoring new editors to slow down.
The current RC game is lame. Flagged rollback will always miss out cross-ip
abuse. Abusers never get tagged until they are met with a real time Rcer/s
and a great deal of the abuse is to game a GOOGLE bot abuse, cleaned within
a minute, but could well be cached for a week.
Oy I don't know how google pick and choose articles to cache. It is a game
(wp:beans lol).
Can I mess about with an American icon under a proxy for 3 days? I wouldn't
even want to try.
mike
"Relata Refero" wrote
> I'm still puzzled: I'd like someone to explain once again why we're doing
> this instead of having a discussion about when to apply courtesy blanking,
> which leaves the decision more solidly in the hands of the community, and is
> less of a blunt instrument than this.
I think we should pursue both discussions. One set of fire precautions doesn't necessarily preclude another.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
This might not be news but it was new to me.
Microsoft has developed a special portal for searching for health
information for its new "Live Search": https://health.live.com/, via
http://www.healthvault.com/.
When you search the web through this portal, Wikipedia articles are
prominently featured, along with other encyclopedic content from other
sources, in their own section called "articles". For instance, run a
search on "cough" at https://health.live.com; an excerpt of [[cough]]
comes up. The links are live back to en:wp but the article itself is
cached by Microsoft.
I was told that they had a person (along with scripts) to go though to
pick out the relevant articles to load up; articles with cleanup tags
were rejected, though no quality or editorial control was done.
Apparently there is no provision for updating the articles over time,
however. For the cough example above, the version used by MS seems to
be from early January (around January 1) and includes a rather
questionable paragraph that was subsequently reverted.
Particularly worrying for health content, perhaps....
-- phoebe
"David Gerard" wrote
> 2008/5/1 Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>:
>
> > Not for that reason - but David's suggestion is a Very Bad Idea. Tools for site development (eg redlink lists) naturally reside in userspace, and we should care about editors finding them.
>
>
> ooh, ouch, yes.
>
> (How findable are these in practice in Google at present?)
Oh, very.
We need a different question, really. If MediaWiki were deliberately designed to have some namespaces that were for search engines to find, and others not, how should that be set up?
Something like the article space, Wikipedia: space and some Development: space might do. All discussion namespaces are inherently dodgy. But one more namespace that was non-article, non-policy might do; and one more namespace on the other side, so that AfDs didn't have to be in the Wikipedia: space - now this is sounding more reasonable to me.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam