On 4/12/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote: .. aggressive patent lawsuits .. Erik

On 4/12/06, Elisabeth Bauer <elian(a)djini.de> wrote: 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

On 4/12/06, Matt R <matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: 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 4/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: ... Are you saying we should sink to as low a moral level as is most profitable? ~maru

On 12 Apr 2006, at 20:25, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote: 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

On Apr 12, 2006, at 4:15 PM, Ben McIlwain wrote: 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 L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch