In a message dated 9/5/2009 2:37:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
> Either Google or the publisher/author of the book you viewed. People
> get sued for bypassing DRM, why couldn't they be sued for bypassing
> restrictions on Google books?>>
Google suffers no damage from people in Namibia viewing a book through a
proxy.
One of the best responses to some of the hyperbole out there about the closing, failure, end of WP is the figure of how many articles are actually locked down in any way, however, this is a difficult figure to authoritatively find/claim. There's Main and Featured [1] of course, about 11 protected articles [2], and then 785 semi-protected [3].
So are those the right numbers? If so can we claim about .0026% of pages are protected from editing by "anyone" and .00004% of pages are protected from Wikipedians (i.e., you've signed up for an account and haven't done anything stupid for a few days.)
How many pages (BPL + ?) are likely to fall under Flagged Protection?
[1]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_indefinitely_protected_pa…
[2]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_protected_pages
[3]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_semi-protected_pages
Reminder: Strategic Planning office hours will happen at:
04:00-05:00 UTC, Wednesday, Sept 9.
That is:
Tuesday, 9-10pm PDT
Wednesday, 12am-1am EDT
We'll meet in the channel #wikimedia-strategy on IRC. More details
are available at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Office_Hours
We will provide some overview into the next phase of the strategic
planning process, as well as some ideas on how to have a local
discussion about strategic planning.
Join us!
____________________
Philippe Beaudette
Facilitator, Strategic Planning
Wikimedia Foundation
philippe(a)wikimedia.org
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Bod Notbod<bodnotbod(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Charles
> Matthews<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> The introduction of Talk pages was, it should not be forgotten, one of
>> the most brilliant innovations of the early days of Wikipedia.
>
> Indeed. A very intelligent friend of mine said he often finds the talk
> page as interesting as the article itself. He described them as a
> 'Talmudic commentary'. I keep meaning to make sure that I always read
> the talk page after scanning an article but I don't seem to have
> implanted that idea in my head with sufficient rigour yet, I tend to
> forget.
In the old days, I used to always open a tab when the talk page link
wasn't red. Thanks to projects etc., I can no longer do this since
half the time I'll just find a bunch of template spam.
What I've done is inveigle a JS coder to write the following for my monobook.js:
// load talk page inline
if(wgNamespaceNumber==0) addOnloadHook(getTalkPage)
function getTalkPage() { var tlink =
document.getElementById('ca-talk'); if(tlink.className == 'new')
return; var url = tlink.getElementsByTagName('a')[0].href; url +=
(url.indexOf('?')==-1) ? '?action=render' : '&action=render' ; var tp
= document.createElement('div'); tp.style.border = '1px solid blue';
tp.style.margin = '.5em 0'; tp.style.padding = '.35em';
tp.style.height = '128em'; tp.style.overflow = 'auto'; tp.id =
'ajax-talkpage'; tp.appendChild(document.createTextNode('fetching talk
page...')); document.getElementById('bodyContent').appendChild(tp);
getXML(url,getTalkPageStateChange);}
function getTalkPageStateChange() { switch (getReq.readyState) { case 4:
if (getReq.status == 200) { var tp =
document.getElementById('ajax-talkpage'); clearNode(tp); var txt =
getReq.responseText; tp.innerHTML = txt;} else {
tp.appendChild(document.createTextNode('** Problem ** ' +
getReq.statusText))
}
break;}
}
At the bottom of every article is a second frame, which loads the talk
page. When I've read to the bottom, a glance tells me whether the talk
page is dross or whether there're things worth reading, and I can
continue scrolling.
It doesn't hurt performance much at all. (Sometimes there are so many
templates on the bottom of an article and the top of the talk page
that even this feature doesn't help much, though...)
--
gwern
In a message dated 9/3/2009 7:24:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
majorly.wiki(a)googlemail.com writes:
> Or worse, "THIS PERSON IS A DIRTY PEDO!!!!1!!" (or something as bad).
> Could
> be problematic for BLPs.>>
----------------------
We already get that. So this wouldn't change that issue.
In a message dated 9/6/2009 12:09:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
stevagewp(a)gmail.com writes:
>
> Just to hijack the thread...Once a site is blacklisted, is there any
> way to link to it? I had the situation recently that I wanted to
> reference a site (squidoo.com from memory) but it was blacklisted.>>
Create a page on your own site that is merely a redirect.
Will
When I cite from Google Books I use something like this:
<ref name="Wilson">{{cite book|last=Wilson|first=Carol|title=Freedom at
risk: the kidnapping of free Blacks in America,
1780–1865|publisher=University Press of
Kentucky|date=1994|pages=43–44|isbn=0813118581|url=
http://books.google.com/books?id=ptFqye_hg54C&pg=PA43|accessdate=2009-08-11}
}</ref>
That makes both a direct link to GBooks with the first cited page open, and
an ISBN link for general book sources.
The refTools gadget makes it easy to copy-paste the details from the GBooks
information page. A tool that automatically pulls the fields from Google and
outputs the template would save time.
I live in Sweden and I never had a problem accessing GBooks. Is it only
blocked in some countries, or are some parts restricted?
In a message dated 9/5/2009 1:18:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
> Contract violation *is* illegal. (Assuming a website ToS is a binding
> contract - has that ever been tested in court?)>>
Piffle. Who is going to sue? Who has standing to sue?
I really see this as a non-starter.
In a message dated 9/5/2009 2:10:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
wikimail(a)inbox.org writes:
> But the link should go to a generic page which potentially works with
> more sites than just Google Books, like [[Special:BookSources]].>>
I like that. Make Google Books just one of the options. I can see a
potential problem if we're trying to cite a convenience link directly to a page
number and the book has multiple editions. We'd need to know the ISBN. If
the repository is Google Books, does it actually state the ISBN or give some
way to find it easily?
It wouldn't be a good thing if we make it much more complex, nobody would
do it, and we'd have a maintenance nightmare.