Dealing with an issue on [[Talk:Perfect crime]]:
Me: "...which is of course not to say that the concept of "perfect crime" is
meaningless, just that it only has meaning outside of a religious view and
within very narrow contexts like colloquial usage and crime novels. A
paragraph on the religious point of view doesn't hurt the encyclopedia and
in fact gives the article greater depth and illumination."
Googlepedia is nice and information dense. I'd like something
half-way between that interface and the sort of vertical depth
answers.com provides, with a larger number of condensed search-results
and good use of mouseovers. Scrolling or clicking 'more' buttons to
get additional information isn't ideal.
Brad : the practical implications are that we will lose the ability to
copy work from a set of familiar collaborative sites -- many of which
chose their license specifically to facilitate long-term exchange with
Wikipedia -- and they will slowly lose access to the latest WP
updates over months or years. (we are also gaining direct access to
new sites, but that happens regardless of how we approach this hurdle)
Thomas Dalton writes:
> The only situation where there is going to be a problem is moving
> content from a wiki that doesn't convert to a Wikimedia wiki. Going
> the other way will be fine in most cases, most Wikimedia content will
> be dual licensed.
Yes, wikipedia will continue to dual license for as long as this is
possible. This will help GFDL-only projects dependent on Wikipedia
benefit from future edits for as long as possible, but it will only
last so long. Once CC-BY-SA content is merged into an article, future
revisions of the article are BY-SA only. Within a couple of years,
Wikipedia will be basically a BY-SA project (with a historical
snapshot still available under GFDL). Third parties should not be
fooled into thinking that this finesse is equivalent to being a
dual-licensed project forever. If they don't switch now, they will
not have the chance to do so in the future.
> Not much. Not many active third party GFDL projects so it is unlikely
> that there will significant amounts of new GFDL content produced in
> future and most existing stuff of interest has long since been
A quick look at the recentchanges of the 18 large wikis listed on the
outreach page will show you that it's not true that "most existing
stuff of relevance has long been imported" -- these are active
communities, each working in their own world; which sporadically draw
from Wiki[p]edia and from which we slightly more sporadically draw in
I am surprised you (of all people :) have such faith in the horde or
importers. I was looking at the glorious media and high-res source
text scans at wdl.org yesterday, and could not find a single piece of
that public domain media that was already on Commons and used in the
obvious Wikipedia article / on its own Wikisource page. Maybe I
wasn't looking in the right place... but that's a month after a global
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:16 AM, effe iets anders
> as long as they convert /before/ the deadline...
Exactly. And there are some energetic new projects such as Medpedia
that are just getting off the ground, with enthusiastic new authors
and a constellation of supporters... they'd probably love to convert,
but need someone to explain this to them in time for them to work
through their own red tape.
> 2009/5/27 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>:
>> 2009/5/27 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad(a)gmail.com>:
>>> Thanks for circulating this.
>>> Not to create a self-fulfilling prophecy here, but I suspect that 90%
>>> or more of those affected by this issue will not care or will not
>>> understand the urgency, and they will not do anything, either on their
>>> own sites or on-wiki. What are the practical implications of this if
>>> nothing happens and little attention is paid by anyone?
>> The only situation where there is going to be a problem is moving
>> content from a wiki that doesn't convert to a Wikimedia wiki. Going
>> the other way will be fine in most cases, most Wikimedia content will
>> be dual licensed. If every Wikimedian that takes content off other
>> wikis (how many of those are there?) goes to those wikis and
>> recommends they convert, then we should be ok.
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> foundation-l mailing list
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I received this message in my inbox a few hours ago. Did anyone else
recieve it, and does anyone know if there's anything of substance behind it?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: EnduranceFan <the4joker(a)gmail.com>
Date: Sun, May 24, 2009 at 3:06 AM
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
To: CJCurrie <coreyjcurrie(a)gmail.com>
Tonight, you’re all gonna be a part of a social experiment. Through the
magic of hacking skills and steward powers, I’m ready right now to blow your
minds sky high. Anyone attempts to block me or revert, you all get
Each of you has a button to block another editor. At midnight, I desysop and
block you all. If, however, one of you indefinitely blocks as many
constructive editors as you can, I’ll let that admin keep their admin
powers. So, who’s it gonna be? Wikipedia’s most-wanted scumbag collection or
the sweet and innocent contributors? You choose. Oh, and you might wanna
decide quickly because the other administrators may not be quite so noble. —
This e-mail was sent by user "EnduranceFan" on the English Wikipedia to user
"CJCurrie". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation
cannot be held responsible for its contents.
The sender has not been given any information about your e-mail account and
you are not required to reply to this e-mail. For further information on
privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing,
> But News is news. And an encyclopedia is not news. I am not saying to
> force anyone to contribute anywhere, but to contribute to the items
> where those items are supposed to be. And that means no news on
> Wikipedia. I mean seriously...we have to tell people all the time we are
> not Wikipedia. They should be required to do the same.
Wikipedia makes its own rules, for the benefit of Wikipedia.
> All I am saying is Wikipedia is not a news site. And if we have to have
> a policy on why we are not Wikipedia, then they should have one on why
> they are not Wikinews.
> Jason Safoutin
> Wikinews accredited reporter and administrator
Wikipedia needs to do what is good for Wikipedia, and some news coverage
is good for Wikipedia. Detailed original reporting is outside Wikipedia's
mission, as is a sophisticated presentation of the significance of news.
As things happen, information about them is added to the corpus of human
knowledge and thus added to Wikipedia. This includes information on what
was considered news at a particular time. Like its performance in other
areas Wikipedia's treatment of the news is rather pedestrian, simply a
compendium of what is being reported. It is not and is not intended to be
a record of what actually happened at a particular time.
In a message dated 5/26/2009 10:39:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
I would hope the pharmacist that filled the prescription would spot
something like that. I'm not sure people second guessing their doctors
will have a net benefit...>>
Then shift the "error" to the pharmacy. It's the same issue.
Do you really think that *better informed* people are worse off then *less
Our entire project has the net goal of increasing freedom of information,
not cordoning some of it off with us as the nannies.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy