<<In a message dated 1/14/2009 9:53:52 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com writes:
100 years time when they
are looking at a photograph and the credit is to "Pbroks13" to use a
random example of a featured picture. Will the people around then
argue whether some of the usernames used today are truly pseudonymous>>
----------------------
Or in two years, when someone notices that many user name credits point to
limbo, and recreates all the history of every user name, just so we can have a
clean path back to something.
W
**************Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's
capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000027)
<<In a message dated 1/14/2009 9:43:10 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
You are only right to a limited extent. While it makes sense to say
that a given picture was from the Corbis archives, acknowledging only
that reinforces the notion that they have the proper copyrights. If
Corbis fails to give proper credit to its source that fact too needs to
be noted.>>
I agree. A credit like "Credit: Corbis, which does not specify it's own
source and which possibly lacks copyright..."
;)~~~
Will
**************Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's
capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000027)
<<In a message dated 1/14/2009 7:58:26 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
You didn't answer the question about who gets to see them.
Given most possible answers to this question, it'll just end up being the
same
as AFD. After all, right now an admin can see a deleted article.
Well, is it about hiding articles ready for public consumption, or isn't it?
If it is, stubs get hidden. If it's not, you shouldn't say it is.>>
---------------------------------
You may not know much about me. I am at-times viciously anti-admin :)
Power corrupts and admins can get corrupted as easily as the next petty
bureaucrat
I would never, not ever, not one single time ever, advocate a new power for
admins.
I would advocate removing 80% of the special admins powers which already
exist.
Now that I've had my soapbox, no, I'm saying these articles can be read
in-project, but not out-project.
Stubs are not necessarily not-ready-for-viewing. They are just stubby and
we'd like to expand them.
This proposal only discusses those articles that would go up for AfD.
Not even the most outrageous editor tags every stub, so neither would we.
Some might get tagged however. Like I said it's two different issues.
Will Johnson
**************Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's
capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000027)
You are not understanding White Cat what the person means by ranking.
That there would be a "prime time" Wikipedia, which any reader can find, and
then a "sub-surface" Wikipedia for all the articles not deemed ready to go
to prime time.
These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so reader
wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the mainstream,
but they would be present for people already in-world to read and edit.
It seems like a simple way to satisfy both sides of the issue here.
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)
In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:38:27 AM Pacific Standard Time,
wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com writes:
What would that serve? I do not understand that!
Please help me understand what non-indexing stub articles will serve?
Wouldn't that hamper the entire point of stubs. We advertise via stub
templates to ask people to expand articles for a reason.>>
----------------------------------------
"No Indexing" is not related to "stub" or "not stub".
It's related to "the community has decided this article isn't ready for
public consumption"
The article could be a thousand words long and still not be ready.
This proposal is an alternative to mass deletions, and I would think you'd
be ready to accept any alternative to that.
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)
I think not. We already have plenty of that. Tens of thousands of articles
were deleted via redirectification, afds, prods and speedy deletions as well
as other methods.
Just because some people are being extremely aggressive does not mean people
like me will settle with something less aggressive but equally disruptive.
There is a lack of consensus to mass delete any article category. So can you
please stop pretending as if there is such a consensus?
- White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Alvaro García <alvareo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh yes, you're right.
>
> Speedy deletion would be required on some case.
>
>
> --
> Alvaro
>
> On 13-01-2009, at 14:18, "Martijn Hoekstra"
> <martijnhoekstra(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, but that won't work. It needs at least an exception for speedy
> > deletion. Slowly I'm starting to notice im heading more in the
> > direction of hardcore inclusionists, on grounds off [[WP:HARMLESS]]
> > and [[WP:USEFULL]], and stop seeing the use of notability guidelines.
> > That said, even if only 1 in 5 AfD deletions represent true consensus,
> > then that would still amount to about 6 discussions for which we
> > require full community consensus a day, and I just think and hope our
> > community would like to have some time left to write articles instead
> > of making decissions on deleting articles.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Alvaro García <alvareo(a)gmail.com> w
> > rote:
> >> It would be great that, instead of deleting an article, the usual
> >> deleters would be given a 'flag as source-less/needs improvement'
> >> where it would go to a Wikipedia section of poor articles, where
> >> people who know would improve them.
> >> And, no article, in whatever section, could be deleted unless there's
> >> a general consensus.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alvaro
> >>
> >> On 13-01-2009, at 5:22, Noah Salzman <noah(a)salzman.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so
> >>>> reader
> >>>> wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in
> >>>> the
> >>>> mainstream,
> >>>> but they would be present for people already in-world to read and
> >>>> edit.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped
> >>> by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the
> >>> debate
> >>> entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to
> >>> checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.
> >>>
> >>> Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and
> >>> stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to "innocent until
> >>> proven guilty" as opposed to the deletion process now where the
> >>> defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a "guilt-assumed"
> >>> article.
> >>>
> >>> As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my
> >>> main
> >>> question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making
> >>> this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass
> >>> roots
> >>> consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be?
> >>>
> >>> My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it.
> >>>
> >>> --Noah--
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >>> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
In a message dated 1/8/2009 1:08:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
I think these are all subclasses of the problem "the GFDL is horriby
vague and broken rubbish that even the FSF has given up on answering
questions about" and we can't move to CC by-sa fast enough.>>
--------------------------
What is holding up the move?
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
In a message dated 1/14/2009 12:24:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,
wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com writes:
As for your other point... Just how do you think Google ranks their search
results? Google's search results establish the "prime time" articles.>>
------------------
This position however is not a solution.
The other position proposed is a solution.
Anybody, with the right search terms "Little brown bear that sells honey on
late night television..."
can find almost anything with a *top page* hit.
The proposal is to noindex those sub-prime pages completely.
Completely unindexed, no index whatsoever, not on the 999th page, not
anywhere.
Hope that's more clear.
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)
In a message dated 1/13/2009 5:40:22 PM Pacific Standard Time,
morven(a)gmail.com writes:
We were, I thought, talking of photos that Corbis does not own the
rights to and never did, and is certainly not the creator of.>>
---------------------------------
If I take a photo of your photo, I own the photo that I created. As does
Corbis.
If they scan, upload, duplicate, xerox, or in any other way, create a new
physical item, even if it's an exact copy of some other item, they own that new
item.
You should not ethically use their item, without crediting them.
That is not the same as a copyright, and just because you make a copy
doesn't mean you create a new copyright to that copy. It certainly has no bearing
whatsoever on the state of the original item.
If someone wants to use a Corbis created copy, simply because it's easier
than trying to find another copy of that same thing, that Corbis didn't create,
then that's their problem for being lazy.
That doesn't however prevent anyone from linking to that image, describing
it, or using it under fair use.
However to simply take the image, use it, and neither give them credit, nor
state it was even from a Corbis repository would not be ethical. However I
see no problem with adding a link and saying "Here's a picture that Corbis
copied, from a public source, showing President Bush eating a hot dog".
Convenience links don't mean "use it however you want". They mean "use it
but try to be fair to us".
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)
In a message dated 1/13/2009 2:03:24 PM Pacific Standard Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
Legally, you are right. That doesn't stop groups like Corbis from doing
it. It's very easy to add a copyright notice to anything, with or
without justification. Who is going to be willing to challenge them? >>
----------
We're speaking past each other.
I am not suggesting that a person, scanning some image, cannot add a
copyright disclaimer to it.
What I'm suggesting is that *this action* does not make a public domain work
into a private copyrighted work. What it does, what they are suggesting it
does at any rate, is make THEIR OWN WORK into a private copyrighted work.
It does nothing at all to the original public domain piece, and no one, as
far as I know, even the defendents/plaintiffs have suggested that it alters
that the piece is still public domain. What they suggested is that *their own
image* of that piece *solely* is a copyrighted piece. Not the original.
Hope that's more clear.
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt…
cemailfooterNO62)