WikiEN-l January 2009

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

88 participants
184 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
by WJhonson＠aol.com 16 Jan '09

16 Jan '09

>>In a message dated 1/16/2009 4:27:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com writes: The usual solution to that is to point to the museum/library/archive image as a way to verify the self-created image (similar to how people point to Google Books now to verify books they are using as references). But what if there is no museum/library/archive image?>> "Point to" versus "take". Two separate things. I'm not disputing the right to link to an image on bible.org. I'm disputing the right to take that image and post it to flicker.com And "what if there is no museum image" only means that we are in the same position as "what if we have no free image of Britney Spears eating a hot dog for our hot dog page??". I.E. we're not worse off than we've been for five thousand years. The mere fact that an image now exists, doesn't mean we get the right to do whatever we want with it. And the mere fact that no image exists, doesn't mean we get the right to do whatever it takes to get one. We still are ethically bound to follow standard protocol, and not rock the image boat. If we adhere to the idea that any scan of a PD item is a voluntary act to freely distribute such scan to the world for any purpose than the end result is that the massive scanners will simply stop scanning and we won't have anything free, limited, for pay, or what. Shooting yourself in the foot to prove that you can isn't a useful tactic. Will **************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)

4 3

two-tiered ratings system (Was: To boldy delete what no one had deleted before!)
by edgarde 16 Jan '09

16 Jan '09

> 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, This already exists with GA/FA ratings. Creating a new public/internal division just adds a new front for controversy. On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Noah Salzman <noah(a)salzman.net> wrote: > ... 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? The Powers That Be would be needed to change what search engines are told to ignore. (Presumably in robots.txt.) The grass roots would be needed to ramp up GA/FA effort considerably. EN currently has about 5800 Good Articles (as rated), and 2400 Featured. Current article count is over 2.5 million. sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:GA_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:FA_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Es.

9 20

Re: [WikiEN-l] Announcing "Epistemia", a new wiki encyclopedia
by Thomas Dalton 16 Jan '09

16 Jan '09

2009/1/16 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> 2009/1/16 Alvaro García <alvareo(a)gmail.com>: >> > There is no widespread support. There are some people to which you can >> > say something they don't agree with and back the argument up by saying >> > it's on Wikipedia, and they will say "Anyone can edit Wikipedia". >> >> Have you looked at the donation statistics? > > $6 million for a top 5 website is a pittance. $6 million in DONATIONS. Other top 5 sites have large business incomes, there are no comparable sites in the top 5 so it is meaningless to try and compare.

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Announcing "Epistemia", a new wiki encyclopedia
by 오현성 16 Jan '09

16 Jan '09

2009/1/16 Philip Sandifer : > Your choice of CC-BY-SA, which, at least for now, closes off use of > Wikipedia content (and visa versa). It seems silly to start a free > content encyclopedia and then render yourself unable to share content > with a rather large project already underway in that area. > > -Phil Hi Philip, I agree that it would be highly advantageous for Epistemia if we could share content freely with Wikipedia. However, short-term compatibility isn't our only consideration in choosing a licence. One problem is that the Wikimedia Foundation is currently considering changing the licence system used on its sites. If we use the GFDL, as we initially decided to do, we could certainly copy a large number of articles from Wikipedia. However, in the longer term the GFDL could be more of a handicap, as it might prevent compatibility with other online projects (including Wikimedia projects if they are re-licensed), and could be difficult to change. After the release of the GFDL 1.3, we came to the conclusion that it would be best to upgrade and change our licence to the CC-BY-SA, even though this means that, unfortunately, content cannot easily be shared between Wikipedia and Epistemia in the current situation. Best regards, Richard Austin ------------------------------------------------- Your Life on the Net DreamWiz Free Mail @ http://www.dreamwiz.com/

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
by WJhonson＠aol.com 16 Jan '09

16 Jan '09

In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:46:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, geniice(a)gmail.com writes: Okey so you consider copying images different to copying formulas? The endpoint of your argument would be that if someone takes a PD image and converts it into SVG it is okey to copy it but if they put it in a raster format it isn't.>> ------------------------------ If you take a chemical formula and make your own drug out of it, fine. If you walk into a pharmacy and say "Give me your aspirin because the formula is in the public domain, the will laugh at you or call the police." Walking onto a website and saying, well since the *underlying object* that you are photographing is itself in the public domain, I think I'll just steal your image of it, is the same example as trying to take a drug where the formula itself is public domain. The drug thing is just a bad example. It is not nearly close enough to the issue. **************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)

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
by WJhonson＠aol.com 16 Jan '09

16 Jan '09

In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:25:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, geniice(a)gmail.com writes: Sigh. Companies that make generic pharmaceutical are making a product I am free to take, analyse and copy (okey so in reality I'd just look up the expired patent). They cannot control exclussive access to the stuff. And yet they make money.>> ------------------------------------------------- You are copying the formula. You are not stealing the item itself. There is quite a difference, sigh or no sigh. If you are so worn out by this argument, then stop arguing. In the case of images, you are not copying a formula, you are copying the item itself. Next bad example ? **************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)

3 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
by WJhonson＠aol.com 16 Jan '09

16 Jan '09

In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:27:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, geniice(a)gmail.com writes: I've mentioned rather a lot of times I'm British. British law in this area is slightly different.>> ------------------------------------------ Wikipedia operates under US law. So you're admitting that you want to argue forever over it, but you're not willing to actually test it. **************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)

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
by WJhonson＠aol.com 16 Jan '09

16 Jan '09

In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:08:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, geniice(a)gmail.com writes: Ah no. I want Americans to exercise the legal ability they have to use certain material in certain ways. If that cases companies issues then under the principles of capitalism that isn't my problem unless I own shares in them. >That's not very nice. 1)Copyright law isn't nice 2)Compared to most of the other bits the relevant area isn't very nasty.>> --------------------------- No one is stopping any American, from going to the repository where the originals items are stored and viewing them. You know this, I don't know why you keep pushing on that button, when it's clear that it's a non starter. The companies are not trying to prevent people from viewing PD items. They are trying to prevent the viewing of their own copies of those items. Not the items. The copies. You want readers of this thread to think that the only issue here is copyright law, but it's not. Never was. That's just a handy crutch for people who are intent on theft to justify their actions. **************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)

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
by WJhonson＠aol.com 16 Jan '09

16 Jan '09

In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:27:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, geniice(a)gmail.com writes: > yes.... that's my point. > You scanned it. > You scanned it from PD documents. > So this example only repeats what I've been saying. Not really.>> --------------------- You yourself stated that you scanned these items. "Not really" is a vague counter argument. **************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)

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting article on restored copyrights in US works between...
by WJhonson＠aol.com 16 Jan '09

16 Jan '09

In a message dated 1/15/2009 9:21:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, geniice(a)gmail.com writes: US law however has for the time being decided that sweat of the brow is not a variable to be considered. Since scanning is non creative there can be no copyright under US law. They may be under UK law depending on the process and they are rather unlikely to be under swiss law (which has rather high barriers to copyright).>> --------------------------------- Then put your money where your mouth is :) Go copy a bunch of stuff off one of these cites and post it to Commons. If you're not willing to steal someone else's work, you should stop advocating other people test your theory. **************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)

1 0

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
...
19
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l January 2009