<<In a message dated 1/5/2009 3:48:55 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
Mostly because from time to time they have actually moved content from one article from another (the rest of the time you can nail them for persistently lying in edit summaries). Given the format of the mediawiki software and the GFDL it is pretty much impossible to do such merges without violating copyright>>
Could you explain a bit more why you think that merges violate copyright? Thanks Will Johnson
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
2009/1/5 WJhonson@aol.com:
<<In a message dated 1/5/2009 3:48:55 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
Mostly because from time to time they have actually moved content from one article from another (the rest of the time you can nail them for persistently lying in edit summaries). Given the format of the mediawiki software and the GFDL it is pretty much impossible to do such merges without violating copyright>>
Could you explain a bit more why you think that merges violate copyright? Thanks Will Johnson
When you merge the wording of the GFDL requires that you preserve the history (a really really bad choice of words). Can be done close enough through a history merge but most users don't/can't do that.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 8:21 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/5 WJhonson@aol.com:
<<In a message dated 1/5/2009 3:48:55 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
Mostly because from time to time they have actually moved content from one article from another (the rest of the time you can nail them for persistently lying in edit summaries). Given the format of the mediawiki software and the GFDL it is pretty much impossible to do such merges without violating copyright>>
Could you explain a bit more why you think that merges violate copyright? Thanks Will Johnson
When you merge the wording of the GFDL requires that you preserve the history (a really really bad choice of words). Can be done close enough through a history merge but most users don't/can't do that.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Won't it satisfy the licence just to point to the other articles history in the edit summary?
If I'm correct, you need to attribute the authors in the edit summary, an HTML comment, or by any other means within the article. I do not believe that a link to another external history page is sufficient for GFDL attribution.
On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 20:27 +0100, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 8:21 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/5 WJhonson@aol.com:
<<In a message dated 1/5/2009 3:48:55 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
Mostly because from time to time they have actually moved content from one article from another (the rest of the time you can nail them for persistently lying in edit summaries). Given the format of the mediawiki software and the GFDL it is pretty much impossible to do such merges without violating copyright>>
Could you explain a bit more why you think that merges violate copyright? Thanks Will Johnson
When you merge the wording of the GFDL requires that you preserve the history (a really really bad choice of words). Can be done close enough through a history merge but most users don't/can't do that.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Won't it satisfy the licence just to point to the other articles history in the edit summary?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Like I said... blocking TTN for an hour or two or even indefinitely wouldn't solve the problem. The real issue at hand is that we are at a forking road and we need to decide which way we want to go: http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354
The main problem is a lack of consensus. A solid consensus for or against the mass removal of fiction related articles would suffice.
- White Cat
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Thedjatclubrock EnWiki < tdjacr.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
If I'm correct, you need to attribute the authors in the edit summary, an HTML comment, or by any other means within the article. I do not believe that a link to another external history page is sufficient for GFDL attribution.
On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 20:27 +0100, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 8:21 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/5 WJhonson@aol.com:
<<In a message dated 1/5/2009 3:48:55 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
Mostly because from time to time they have actually moved content from one article from another (the rest of the time you can nail them for persistently lying in edit summaries). Given the format of the mediawiki software and the GFDL it is pretty much impossible
to
do such merges without violating copyright>>
Could you explain a bit more why you think that merges violate
copyright?
Thanks Will Johnson
When you merge the wording of the GFDL requires that you preserve the history (a really really bad choice of words). Can be done close enough through a history merge but most users don't/can't do that.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Won't it satisfy the licence just to point to the other articles history in the edit summary?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l