There is two and half days before the voting. Please, take a look at
the policy again. If you have some objections to some parts of it, it
is the last time for saying so.
Attribution is a dead horse. Point at *any* of our mirrors that attributes.
Any one? any? The most that any mirror does is say something like "this
came from Wikipedia".
And what has the foundation or any GFDL originator done about it?
Nothing, that's what.
**************Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best
2008. (http://citysbest.aol.com?ncid=aolacg00050000000102)
Hi,
I have some GFDL questions with respect to using Wikipedia content in
chatbotgame.com. This is a game that rewards players for contributing
effective chat rules.
To encourage more people to chat and play, I'm thinking of adding chat
rules extracted automatically from Wikipedia content.
So I have some questions:
(1) The GFDL license makes reference to several concepts that seem to
have no relevance to Wikipedia; namely, "secondary section",
"invariant section", "cover section", and "title page". Is this
correct? Presumably, I can just ignore those parts of the license?
(2) Adding chat rules obtained from Wikipedia content will likely
result in many players adding rules that are derived from Wikipedia
content (e.g., you might copy a chatbot response that comes from
Wikipedia into your rule). And so it seems like player chat rules
would also need to be under the GFDL. Is that correct?
(3) But if player rules are under the GFDL, would I need to make all
such rules available? What if a player deletes a rule? Must the
deleted rule still be available as part of an xml dump say to satisfy
the GFDL?
(4) If a player modifies a rule, must the previous version be made
available as part of an xml dump?
(5) What constitutes a derivative work? Rules in this game are
scored, so does the score count as part of a derivative work or can it
be omitted in an xml dump? Clearly, players would like to retain a
competitive advantage even if their rules are under the GFDL and
hiding rule scores from others would help.
(6) Is an xml dump of chat rules at regular intervals or on request
enough to satisfy the GFDL?
Amir
--
http://chatbotgame.comhttp://numbrosia.comhttp://twitter.com/amichail
We have the new name for the proposed role: After 7 days of voting,
"global sysop" got the most of votes [1].
Thanks to all participants, policy proposal got a lot of details.
Now, we have pages which describe more precise where and how global
sysops may and should act [2][3]. Pages are in development, but it
seems that we found a good initial formula.
* Wikis are grouped to small and large.
* If the wiki has one of the next two requirements, it is considered
as a big one:
** Has CUs.
** Has at least 50,000 articles *and* more than 10 active admins.
* Other wikis are considered small [only] by default. It is clear that
Wikinews, for example, are not able to have 50,000 articles in a
couple of years, but some of them (particularly, en, pl and de) are
mature enough. (However, en.wn has CUs.) So, we will talk about border
cases with particular communities.
The main difference in global sysops actions between small and large
wikis is that global sysops will be able to have full access to small
wikis, while communities at large wikis have to be asked for
permissions usage. By default, global sysops wouldn't be able to use
any of their permissions (even the "rollback" permission) at any large
wiki.
Thanks to a couple of contributors, the English Wikipedia started with
defining the rules around global roles [4]. It would be good to see
other projects to define their relation toward global sysops (please,
write policy in English!).
[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_sysops#Poll
[2] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_sysops/Wikis
[3] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_sysops/Small_and_large_wikis
[4] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Global_rights_usage
Recently there was discussion of various forks that were in existence.
Is there a encyclopedia fork which has no BLP and has been set-up to never
have a BLP?
**************Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best
2008. (http://citysbest.aol.com?ncid=aolacg00050000000102)
The newspaper articles are already permanently searchable and point directly
at the Wikipedia article. This message doesn't make anything "worse" than
it is already.
I'm going to be transcribing all the newspaper articles, but it will take a
bit of time.
I was a bit surprised that they actually published the exact address of the
house. But hey, we are journalists, we're not here to be a moral filter for
what anyone else did in the past.
**************Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best
2008. (http://citysbest.aol.com?ncid=aolacg00050000000102)
At our article for
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_%28feral_child%29_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child))
[[Genie (feral child)]]
There is reference to an ABCnews interview with her surviving brother John
Wiley.
Currently the article does not name him as John nor as Wiley.
Would not an ABC news interview constitute "wide dissemination" of the fact
that his name is "John Wiley" ?
And yes there is a backstory and this is just one small piece of it, but
this is in what I'm currently interested.
Will Johnson
**************Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best
2008. (http://citysbest.aol.com?ncid=aolacg00050000000102)
Some time ago I proposed that policy [1] at Meta and announced at
foundation-l. I was thinking that foundaiton-l announcing is enough.
This morning (in my time zone) we had discussion with one en.wp admin
who really doesn't like this idea. There is six days more for
discussion (before voting), but it seems that Wikimedians from en.wp
are not introduced well in this issue; which means that it is possible
that we will need more time for discussion.
So, please, go to mentioned page at meta and its talk page and
discuss. Some Wikipedians started talk about en.wp local policy which
is in relation with global permissions [2]. So, you should go there
and discuss, too.
The main issue regarding AVFs is that they would have rights
technically (like stewards have), but they would not be allowed to use
them if it is not according to the local policy. Every AVF who doesn't
follow those rules would lose their rights immediately. And you are
making your local policy. Please read both policy proposals carefully.
(Email is CC'd to foundaiton-l for keeping people there up to date.)
[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Anti-vandal_fighter
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Global_rights_usage