It's great to see more and more people re-using Wikipedia content. such as this: http://euobserver.com/9/28232
However, does this comply with the GDFL license? All it says by way of attribution is "(Photo: wikipedia)"
If not, is there a group of people somewhere who chase up copyvios like this?
Andrew
About "Women" on Wikipedia, I think "famous" is probably problematic, like
"list of short women", is too much based on a judgement call.
And a list of all women on wikipedia would be too enormous.
However I would think no one would object to something like Women by
Nationality and then have a sub-cat for each nation. That you'd just have to all
up everyone in that cat.
Will
**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=JulystepsfooterNO115)
Cacharoth has it correct.
My response was in three parts, part one only refers to those items which
*solely* have an online life and no offline life whatsoever. That first part
is what a few people have objected to, but they objected to something which
I did not say.
Let's say that someone decides to make money by createing an online
magazine, which has no print version. No hard version, no free library
subscription, no group subscription for left-handed lesbians in Botswana, whatever.
That the *sole* way to view the item, for anyone, is to pay for it, to the
publisher. That is no version in a bookstore, no version in a library, no
version at a newstand,etc.
If the sole way to view the source is to pay the publisher and view it
online ( this entire phrase must be read as one statement) then I would object
to it.
The reason for my objection, is that we, our project, should not put
ourselves into a position where we are becoming the main source of financial
support for some newly-created effective auxiliary. I hope we can all see, how
some obscure online subscription mag like "Pokeman Today" would get a
tremendous boost just by being sourced to one of our articles. It's free
advertising, and once we let a thing like that occur, it would be more difficult to
stop it from proliferating acrost the entire project.
Like I stated, if someone can come with an example of something they think
I'd object to, then bring it forward. Then perhaps you will find that I
don't object to your example. I am all-for creating convenience links to
online sources, in those cases where the same thing exists in an off-line format
as well, and where the citation is clear enough that a person could actually
find the off-line format without the need to view the online one first.
Will Johnson
It's that time again - Strategic Planning IRC office hours! This
week's office hours will be:
Wednesday from 04:00-05:00 UTC, which is:
Tuesday, 9-10pm PDT
Wednesday, 12am-1am EDT
For more information, go to http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Office_Hours
Hope to see you there!
____________________
Philippe Beaudette
Facilitator, Strategic Planning
Wikimedia Foundation
pbeaudette(a)wikimedia.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
I know you are trying to be rigorous, but your logic has far too many
assumptions to be so.
Firstly you assume that a property is eternal. Predicate logic would
probably assume that if A exists, than that does not change, but the entire
message I'm proposing is that this property can change. That is, God can
create a stone and then make it uncrushable. Does God turning a stone from
crushable into uncrushable imply that God has done something which God cannot
do? I submit that no it does not because God can simply change that
property back to crushable once more, and then crush the stone.
You are assuming that God is singular, but nothing in your logic requires
that.
You are also assuming that God is omnipotent.
So that's at least three pre-requisites that you did not state clearly.
If you want to be rigorous perhaps you should start from a more basic set of
axioms.
Will
In a message dated 8/1/2009 7:45:12 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
brewhaha(a)freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes:
Please allow me to start this proof from scratch and try to go from the
paradox that is most interesting to the simple answer of no, and
generalizing it to all paradoxes, refuting objections in a monologue,
because it does not seem to contain equally powerful participants. Can God
crush an uncrushable stone? In mechanically verifiable predicate logic
notation, I can write "exists(God) implies not exists(UnCrushableStone)".
Spelled out in plain English, that means God can do any thing, and that is
singular, because if God can do any combination of things, then he can
contradict himself and crush the stone, which does not allow for a
self-consistent proof, because that allows God to prove that the
uncrushable
stone did not exist in the first place. exists(UnCrushableStone) implies
not
exists(God). Translation: If the uncrushable stone exists, then God does
not, because the stone's existence implies something God cannot do and God
can do any thing. Either God exists or the UnCrushableStone exists (and
not
both). exists(God) xor exists(UnCrushableStone). For God to crush the
uncrushable stone requires both God and the uncrushable stone to be
present
at the same time. not(exists(God) and exists(UnCrushableStone)). Their
existence is mutually exclusive. In any true paradox that demands a
contest
between two beings with an ultimate power, and where those two beings
exclude each other, the answer is no, because those two beings cannot
exist
at once. So, what happens if God creates the uncrushable stone? He cannot
do
that without changing himself in the same move. In creating the
uncrushable
stone, he creates something that is not possible, so God would no longer
be
omnipotent. If God is no longer omnipotent, then no God is.
_______
"Another round, Mr. Descartes?" "I think not," said Descartes, who
promptly
vanished.
"Can you think?", I asked, putting Descartes before the horse.
We are Descartes of Borg: We assimilate, therefore we are.
_______________________________________________
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
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=htt…
=JulystepsfooterNO115)
In a message dated 8/9/2009 6:40:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dan(a)tobias.name writes:
> So if I wanted to cite some rare book which I happened to know of
> only one copy in existence, located at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole
> Station in Antarctica, it would be up to you to arrange travel there
> to check it.>>
-------------------------
Items of this level of rarity fail our test that the item is publicly
accessible. We never really set where the bar should be, but we all seemed to
agree (at the time) that an item should be generally available in some way.
It's too onorous to require a random editor to have to verify something
against a single copy.
By the way, you would think that if something this rare were really worth
citing, that it would have already been published in a scholarly edition.
Your example is a bit eccentric, I wonder if you have an actual case in mind.
Will Johnson
**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=JulystepsfooterNO115)
Just out of interest, what is "doing it right" in this context. Is a link to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Houses_of_Parliament.jpg plus an extended text along the lines of, say, the bottom of http://www.answers.com/topic/bahrain-football-club required?
I've seen (source:Wikipedia) quoted a few times on media pictures now.
----- "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Thursday, 4 June, 2009 21:55:23 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GDFL compliance
>
> 2009/6/4 Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com>:
>
> > It's great to see more and more people re-using Wikipedia content. such as this: http://euobserver.com/9/28232
> > However, does this comply with the GDFL license? All it says by way of attribution is "(Photo: wikipedia)"
> > If not, is there a group of people somewhere who chase up copyvios like this?
>
>
> Usually if someone (preferably the creator) contacts them suggesting
> how to do it right, places are keen to get it right. Asking nicely and
> reasonably is effective in practice.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
http://business.in.com/column/zen-garden/daddy-has-kira-to-thank/812/0
'Daddy has Kira to Thank: The world's most democratic storehouse of knowledge really began in a one-room school in Alabama; it took shape in a little girl's hospital bed'
"I decide to ask him that one question:
Tell us about something deeply personal that helped you shape your world view, that has made Wikipedia what it is.
A few seconds of silence follow.
Then, slowly, he recollects how as a child in Huntsville, Alabama, he was home-schooled until his eighth grade. His mother and grandmother ran a one-room school at home where there were four other children. They ran classes for children of different grades all in the same room. So a child could opt to learn whatever — it was not driven by a system, but by a child’s quest to know. And of course, the place was full of encyclopedias of all kinds. So, as a child, Wales built affection for the idea of encyclopedias. That was the root! A few more seconds of silence follow.
Then Wales clears his throat and says, “I have never told this before, but there is something else deeply personal that impacted me. My daughter Kira, suffered from a rare condition from birth that would have eventually killed her. She was a newborn baby with very rare lung incapacity with no known cure. A certain doctor in San Diego had found an untested cure that seemed to work on at least some children. But its outcome was not conclusively proven. So, parents who took their children had to make a call. The procedure required the child to be paralysed for a few moments and it was repeated a number of times before the child’s lungs began to function normally again.
Left with no other options, we agreed to give it a try. We watched as four times she was turned upside down, her entire system stopped and the lungs cleaned. At the end of it, she breathed and, thank God, has become perfectly normal.”
...
He wipes it off and begins haltingly.
“At the end of the procedure, I realized how precious the doctor’s knowledge was. It occurred to me that no one other than this doctor would ever know about this whole thing. There had to be a way”. And that is how Wikipedia came about. First as Nupedia, that went nowhere. For three years, it struggled with the concept of a free, Internet-based encyclopedia with expert review of content, before Wales turned the idea on its head, leaving the choice of editing content to anyone who was willing to. As one looks back, it isn’t the story of a young dot-commer who raised venture capital money at eyepopping valuations to become yet another private-jet owner."
I'm a little skeptical that this is any of the real reasons, given the fallibility of human memory, and never seeing anything like this mentioned in materials from the early days - but this would be a great reason, because this doctor is not described as publishing in an RS, so his knowledge is OR! (Bwa ha ha ha. This is almost as good as those Afghan news agencies not being RSs.)
--
gwern
I'm just wondering what our current slog rank is on en.wikipedia.
My sense is that it's somewhere around 8.5%, but I realize that
the interdependence between a site's slog rank* and slog rate*
make it such that either value, however accurate, is not as useful
as unified value based on both.
The slog rate is important simply because we naturally want it to
go down, and not up. My sense is that 8.5% is about where it has
been for a couple years now, but that it's still too high, and as such
we need to figure out ways to lower that number.
Regards,
SV
Not exactly my point.
First god creates a regular stone, which god can do.
Now we can all admit that god, once god has created a green stone, could
change the color of the stone from green to red.
So this shows that god can change a *property* of a pre-existent object.
If "crushable" is a property, then why cannot god change this property to
"uncrushable". It is just a property like size, color, density, etc.
If crushable is not a property, then what is it.
God is not creating the uncrushable stone, god is simply changing a
property of a object god previously created.
In a message dated 7/30/2009 4:37:02 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
brewhaha(a)freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes:
One is that he is creating something that he
cannot do, and then contradicting himself by proving himself incapable of
the first act.
**************Hot Deals at Dell on Popular Laptops perfect for Back to
School
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1223105306x1201716871/aol?redir=htt…)
