In a message dated 4/27/2009 4:39:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com writes:
Now, there are fairly likely also to be mentions of this in written
sources - but it is equally the case that no-one may locate them during
a 5-7 day afd.>>
----------------------------
I'm not convinced that a property's mere existence on the National Trust
website makes it "notable". We have many cases where things are mentioned
in this or that place and yet that thing is not "notable" the way we use the
word. It would be up to the author to explain why this particular property
is notable if any AfD were brought.
On a second note. With
_http://books.google.com/books?oe=UTF-8&um=1&ei=v0v2SbnOH6DmsAOC6szcAQ&ct=pr
operty-revision&cd=1&q=the&btnG=Search+Books_
(http://books.google.com/books?oe=UTF-8&um=1&ei=v0v2SbnOH6DmsAOC6szcAQ&ct=pr…
G=Search+Books)
over six *million* books now scanned, I think it's a much harder cry to
claim that some thing *not citable in Google Books* is yet still notable.
I think six million books probably covers almost all territory that we want
to cover this decade. I'd have to be convinced as to why a person or
thing, which cannot be found there, is notable.
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572846x1201387511/aol?redir=htt…
Aprilfooter427NO62)
In a message dated 4/27/2009 3:40:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com writes:
If we can agree something is the sensible thing to do, then we do it.
That's what IAR is all about, and why "multiple third-party sources" may
be a good rule of thumb, but, like most rules, must never become Holy
Writ. (See WP:IAR).>>
-------------------------
So we let creep in such chestnuts as "King Arthur is the ancestor of the
present Queen Elizabeth" because this is repeated on 12 websites of "local
genealogy" societies.
If there is some specific case about which you're on, maybe you might bring
it up directly. Otherwise the proper place to thrash it out would be on
the Reliable Sources discussion board maybe.
For the examples given so far however, I'm just not seeing it. If some
architectural marvel is so marvelous, then it would be written up, outside of
some amateur enthusiast's web page.
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572846x1201387511/aol?redir=htt…
Aprilfooter427NO62)
In a message dated 4/27/2009 3:24:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
As I've said before, common sense doesn't win out, because Wikipedia is set
up such that when one side thinks common sense should be followed, and the
other side has rules behind them, the rule always wins.>>
-----------------
"Common" sense is not "common", when one sides thinks it's not "sense".
One side of the argument doesn't get a pass on what common sense is, or
isn't. If the consensus doesn't agree, then it isn't common sense. It's
uncommon perhaps, or it's nonsense ;)
Will
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572846x1201387511/aol?redir=htt…
Aprilfooter427NO62)
In a message dated 4/27/2009 12:06:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com writes:
> You are missing the point. I should not have to. If we have reasonably
> trustworthy information on something that commonsense tells us has some
> level of enduring significance, then finding a book should be unnecessary.>
> >
> --------------------
How can you have "reasonably trustworthy information" without a citation?
Maybe what you mean is, "I have a citation, it's just not on Google Books".
If that's what you mean, than of course you can use it. You have to show
that the subject is notable, that is still up to the contributor.
Commonsense is notoriously slippery.
**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572846x1201387511/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=Aprilfooter427NO62)
In a message dated 4/27/2009 1:01:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com writes:
> To be precise, the case study I had in mind was (and I can't find the
> afd - it was some years ago) an old village church. The sources were 1)
> a write-up on the church's website giving its history and some
> architectural details. 2) A similar page on the local village website.>>
-----------------------
It is very likely that these webpages are the same as "fan" pages. Created
by one person, "local historian" or not, and therefore not to be considered
a reliable source.
We do not credit webpages created by person who have not been previously
published in a reliable third-party source. That's been the policy for a long
time now. We carefully honed it to that point. So you will have to show
who is the actual author, since "the village" isn't an author. And will have
to show, if challenged, that this is not a personal website, masquerading
as an authority on the village history.
Will Johnson
**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572846x1201387511/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=Aprilfooter427NO62)
Folks,
Ars Technica reports:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/wikipedia-suit-could-put-it…
Wikipedia uses plenty of copyrighted material and trademarks under the
doctrine of fair use. But a trademark infringement lawsuit against a couple
of artists would put the Wikimedia Foundation on the opposite side of the
fair use fight.
Two artists attempted to create a performance art piece by establishing a
Wikipedia entry entitled "Wikipedia Art," which could then be freely edited
and "transformed" by anyone choosing to do so. The page lasted a mere 15
hours before being summarily deleted by Wikipedia editors and admins. Now,
the pair's archive and continuing discussion of the project is being
threatened by the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, which has
effectively threatened to pursue legal action against the artists for
trademark infringement.
More in article
Regards
Keith
In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:47:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com writes:
> Google books is fine, as is google itself.
>
> Neither is a substitute for common sense.>>
---------------
The point being that now we can actually answer a question such as "Was the
7th Duke of Marlborough really anyone special?" If no book mentions
anything about the person except their place in the descent of the title and a few
vague claims than we can know the answer. And know it based on some
authority in the field.
A person who was the President of the Turkey Company in 1650 was certainly
important in his day, regardless of whether anyone has heard of him today.
Google itself, in terms of historic personalities is heavily weighted toward
those who have living descendents as many many many webtrees will cite as
many of their own obscure ancestors as can be identified regardless of
notability.
However those people who did really interesting things in their day, who
failed to create living progeny, get often overlooked in the short term just
because their lives are told in books covered in dust instead of in glowing
praise on some blue-haired web page.
Will Johnson
**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572846x1201387511/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=Aprilfooter427NO62)
In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:39:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wikimail(a)inbox.org writes:
>
> http://depts.washington.edu/uwcopy/Creating_Copyright/Ownership_Factors/Joi…
---------------------------
I do not recognize some random webpage, regardless of being on a UW site as
being authoritative on this matter. This is heightened as they do not
specify their source for this statement that any of the joint owners may grant
nonexclusive copyright to any third party.
In fact I'm really surprised that whoever wrote this thinks it's standard
to make declaractive statements about some law that they don't even cite.
It's certainly pre-Wikipedia. I'd like to read the actual copyright law that
supports this particular claim.
Will Johnson
**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572846x1201387511/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=Aprilfooter427NO62)
I, along with seven other co-authors, write an article on say.... Cheese
Whiz. In the article we state that anyone may copy the article, provided that
they state where they got it from, and that the article may be copied by
anyone else provided that they state where they got it from...
Can I alone bring a lawsuit against anyone else copying the article without
stating where they got it from? Since the article is not exactly
*copyright* I would say it's freely licensed under one condition. Does this really
fall under copyright law? Or would it be more in the way of a standard
contract?
There is an explicit contract that you cannot copy this unless you state
it's origin. Do I have to show actual financial damages? Who is going to
want to be the first to test the water? That's the real issue. If you lose,
you still have to pay your own lawyer.
Will
**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220814855x1201410739/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&…
bcd=Aprilfooter426NO62)