Jimmy has added a link to the answers.com Wikipedia edition to the [[Wikipedia:Tools]] page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tools&diff=48023818&...
Since Jimmy has also said that the decision to list this tool, and where to list it, should be an editorial decision, I have begun an editorial discussion on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Tools#Answers.com_tool
about whether it is wise to effectively advertise this tool, which is at the heart of Answers.com's software patents lawsuit against Babylon Software. You can find more information about Answers.com's lawsuit in their press release on the matter:
http://www.answers.com/main/ir/press03082006.jsp
I have also pointed out the issue on foundation-l and asked the Wikimedia Board to re-evaluate the Answers.com deal in light of the software patents lawsuit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-March/006356.html
The Board has not responded to this request. Again, failing any comment to the contrary, I will assume that the decision whether to list this tool on [[Wikipedia:Tools]] and/or highlight it in other forms is up to the community. I personally object to it unless the software patent lawsuit is mentioned on the page in an NPOV manner.
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Jimmy has added a link to the answers.com Wikipedia edition to the [[Wikipedia:Tools]] page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tools&diff=48023818&...
Thanks for the note. I am going to test this tool. So far, it seems like a nice thing and it is also in the right category on [[Wikipedia:Tools]]. Sigh, I wish that answers.com wasn't self-restricting on English content.
I have also pointed out the issue on foundation-l and asked the Wikimedia Board to re-evaluate the Answers.com deal in light of the software patents lawsuit:
I haven't heard anything from this legal dispute. Most people monitoring this said it's just the usual behavior in this kind of business.
Mathias
On 4/12/06, Mathias Schindler neubau@presroi.de wrote:
Thanks for the note. I am going to test this tool. So far, it seems like a nice thing and it is also in the right category on [[Wikipedia:Tools]]. Sigh, I wish that answers.com wasn't self-restricting on English content.
I'm more concerned that it's promising "accurate" information.
Steve
On 4/12/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
I'm more concerned that it's promising "accurate" information.
Okay, I have downloadeed and installed this software on Win2K as a non-Administrator. The installation routine also tried to install a toolbar in the MSIE by default, but failed due to the lack of rights.
The tool itself has a permanent link to the foundation donation page. 100% (minus paypal fee) of this money gets to Wikimedia. The tool appears to be based on some ActiveX-Object thingy that uses MSIE to render the pages. I could be mistaken. If an article is too long, it is shortened. There are hyperlinks to wikipedia.answers.com and to the license text of the GFDL on wikipedia.org. Direct hyperlinks to the wikipedia article itself is missing. Defining on how you interpret this large piece of impractical text called GFDL, Anwwers.com might be violating the GFDL (ie for not proving a list of authors). Whatever, IANAL. Background colors are sometimes irritating, I am not sure how to configure it.
Has anyone yet taken a tcpdump of this software?
So far, it could be a helpful tool for some people. I am not sure if I want to keep it, due to the lack of applicability to my needs.
I think Wikipedia should mention this software at a suitable place and should be happy if there are more people discovering the "donation" button.
Mathias
On 4/12/06, Mathias Schindler neubau@presroi.de wrote:
I haven't heard anything from this legal dispute. Most people monitoring this said it's just the usual behavior in this kind of business.
Accumulating patents is the usual behavior. Filing aggressive patents against competitors based on them is certainly not, especially not against a competitor who has been on the market with an (arguably superior) software tool for many years.
Erik
On 4/12/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/12/06, Mathias Schindler neubau@presroi.de wrote:
I haven't heard anything from this legal dispute. Most people monitoring this said it's just the usual behavior in this kind of business.
Accumulating patents is the usual behavior. Filing aggressive patents
.. aggressive patent lawsuits ..
Erik
Erik Moeller schrieb:
Jimmy has added a link to the answers.com Wikipedia edition to the [[Wikipedia:Tools]] page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustra...
It's a tool, it goes on the tools page. You didn't scrutinize the business practices of the other companies listed on the page, so why do it here?
*geez* get a cup of tea, listen to good music and do something useful.
--elian
On 4/12/06, Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:
It's a tool, it goes on the tools page. You didn't scrutinize the business practices of the other companies listed on the page, so why do it here?
I'm in favor of an NPOV description of any relevant business practices of companies listed on [[Wikipedia:Tools]], particularly those related directly to the tools listed there. For example, if WikiWax filed a patent lawsuit against Google on their "search autocompletion" feature, I would very much be in favor of informing our readers about this. However, I am not aware of any such incidents. The other question is, if Answers.com's tool is listed, *where* it should be listed.
As for whether or not the issue is important, it becomes obviously more important if [[Wikipedia:Tools]] is listed more prominently in the user interface, e.g. the sidebar, as has been proposed in the past in conjunction with the Answers.com partnership. As long as Wikipedia:Tools stays where it is, a fairly obscure page in the middle of nowhere, I do not care *that* much.
Erik
Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:
Erik Moeller schrieb:
Jimmy has added a link to the answers.com Wikipedia edition to the [[Wikipedia:Tools]] page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustra...
<snip>
*geez* get a cup of tea, listen to good music and do something useful.
Wikipedia has a business relationship with a company that is indulging in some intellectual property-related evilness. Moreover, the actions of this company are inhibiting the creation of tools that facilitate access to Wikipedia. Both ethically and pragmatically, therefore, it is entirely reasonable to ask ourselves what our response should be (if anything). Maybe not listing their tool is an appropriate response -- who knows? It's worth at least thinking about for a minute. It's not WP:POINT.
-- Matt [[User:Matt Crypto]]
On 4/12/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Wikipedia has a business relationship with a company that is indulging in some intellectual property-related evilness. Moreover, the actions of this company are inhibiting the creation of tools that facilitate access to Wikipedia. Both ethically and pragmatically, therefore, it is entirely reasonable to ask ourselves what our response should be (if anything). Maybe not listing their tool is an appropriate response -- who knows? It's worth at least thinking about for a minute. It's not WP:POINT.
Given that Wikipedia recently named Answers.com an official partner (or whatever it was), taking the attitude "answers.com is evil, let's having nothing to do with them" probably isn't going to wash.
Steve
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:27:49 +0000 (GMT), you wrote:
Wikipedia has a business relationship with a company that is indulging in some intellectual property-related evilness.
What, we use Sun servers? Or is it Microsoft software?
I know a lot of firms which refuse to *buy* from unethical suppliers, but not many which refuse to *sell* to anyone who can't prove they are whiter than white. Guy (JzG)
On 4/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote: ...
What, we use Sun servers? Or is it Microsoft software?
I know a lot of firms which refuse to *buy* from unethical suppliers, but not many which refuse to *sell* to anyone who can't prove they are whiter than white. Guy (JzG)
Are you saying we should sink to as low a moral level as is most profitable?
~maru
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
maru dubshinki stated for the record:
On 4/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote: ...
What, we use Sun servers? Or is it Microsoft software?
I know a lot of firms which refuse to *buy* from unethical suppliers, but not many which refuse to *sell* to anyone who can't prove they are whiter than white. Guy (JzG)
Are you saying we should sink to as low a moral level as is most profitable?
~maru
People have morals. Organizations don't. WikiMedia should "sink" (to use your prejudiced and highly loaded term) to whatever it needs to do to carry out its mission. If you disagree with WikiMedia's actions, you should do whatever your morals suggest.
- -- Sean Barrett | There's very little advice in men's magazines, sean@epoptic.org | because men think, "I know what I'm doing. | Just show me somebody naked!" --Jerry Seinfeld
On 12 Apr 2006, at 20:25, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:27:49 +0000 (GMT), you wrote:
Wikipedia has a business relationship with a company that is indulging in some intellectual property-related evilness.
What, we use Sun servers? Or is it Microsoft software?
I know a lot of firms which refuse to *buy* from unethical suppliers, but not many which refuse to *sell* to anyone who can't prove they are whiter than white.
I remember talking to a company that wouldnt sell to a security company in apartheid South Africa who were developing an automated security system. With guns. SO it does happen.
Justinc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Justin Cormack wrote:
On 12 Apr 2006, at 20:25, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:27:49 +0000 (GMT), you wrote:
Wikipedia has a business relationship with a company that is indulging in some intellectual property-related evilness.
What, we use Sun servers? Or is it Microsoft software?
I know a lot of firms which refuse to *buy* from unethical suppliers, but not many which refuse to *sell* to anyone who can't prove they are whiter than white.
I remember talking to a company that wouldnt sell to a security company in apartheid South Africa who were developing an automated security system. With guns. SO it does happen.
Seconded. Companies choose who they want to do business with all of the time. It's not illegal by embargo laws to sell small arms to many countries in the Middle East, but most American companies absolutely refuse to do it.
- -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
On Apr 12, 2006, at 4:15 PM, Ben McIlwain wrote:
Seconded. Companies choose who they want to do business with all of the time. It's not illegal by embargo laws to sell small arms to many countries in the Middle East, but most American companies absolutely refuse to do it.
There's a difference between selling *arms* (i.e. things that can be used to kill people and blow shit up) and selling, say, *encyclopedias*.
Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote: On Apr 12, 2006, at 4:15 PM, Ben McIlwain wrote:
Seconded. Companies choose who they want to do business with all of the time. It's not illegal by embargo laws to sell small arms to many countries in the Middle East, but most American companies absolutely refuse to do it.
There's a difference between selling *arms* (i.e. things that can be used to kill people and blow shit up) and selling, say, *encyclopedias*.
Yep, we're well into strained analogy territory here. And nobody, as far as I'm aware, has suggested we stop "doing business" with Answers.com, rather that we don't advertise their product: one for which they're engaging in some unpleasant software patent litigation.
-- Matt
On 4/12/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
I have begun an editorial discussion ...about whether it is wise to effectively advertise this tool, which is at the heart of Answers.com's software patents lawsuit against Babylon Software.
The patent suit is the human equivalent of a male Koala urinating on a tree branch to mark its territory. The total amount of the claim, according to the lawsuit, is just $210,000. Peanuts.
I don't see how this software, which is a product of Answers.com, can possibly be "at the heart of" a lawsuit concerning a product sold by another company which is alleged to be infringing a patent held by Answers.com. Answers.com either holds a valid patent which is being infringed by another company, or it does not. Answers.com's own products are not relevant to the case.
In any case,
On 4/13/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
In any case,
...as I was saying!
In any case, this seems to be a very useful third party product that would be of interest to Wikipedia users. Moreover it generates advertising revenue that improves Wikimedia Foundation and thus helps to pay for the servers. Why should we not mention this on the relevant project page?