Reviewing the text of one of the BJAODN pages Jeffrey O Gustafson deleted and then wheel-warred to protect his action ([[Wikipedia:All Your Bad Joke And Other Deleted Nonsense Are Belong To Ushttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:All_Your_Bad_Joke_And_Other_Deleted_Nonsense_Are_Belong_To_Us&action=edit]], it's clear that JOG's unilateral action is unsupportable. He claims massive copyright violation, but the earliest entry to the page was Navigium Flammae, whose history exists in the database.
If Jeffrey O Gustafson's intentions were pure, he would have done the work to make the pages compliant with *his interpretation* of the GFDL by merging edit histories.
Instead he deleted the page out of process. And since deletion with the claim of copyright violation are protected from content review (c.f. [[Wikipedia:Deletion review]]: "Note that only uncontroversial content should be restored — not revisions deleted as copyright violation, potentially libellous content or similar") his actions can't be easily reversed, even temporarily, so that the general community may take action, instead of the small group of admins.
What encyclopedic end would be achieved by someone trawling through this mix of discarded rubbish in a belated attempt to make it licence-compliant? Why should anyone make the effort? Let it go.
On 6/4/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
What encyclopedic end would be achieved by someone trawling through this mix of discarded rubbish in a belated attempt to make it licence-compliant? Why should anyone make the effort? Let it go.
Clearly BJAODN is not part of the main namespace. Clearly it is an important part of Wikipedia's history and its ongoing development.
That's why.
I like the circular argument that because it is discarded, it should remain discarded.
The fundamental problem is that the justification for discarding in the first place was faulty.
I'D LIKE FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE IT LICENSE-COMPLIANT (even under what I consider a faulty interpretation of the GFDL).
But it's drastically difficult when one can't even restore a page without getting wheel-warred.
Grah.
On 6/4/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
What encyclopedic end would be achieved by someone trawling through this mix of discarded rubbish in a belated attempt to make it licence-compliant? Why should anyone make the effort? Let it go.
Clearly BJAODN is not part of the main namespace. Clearly it is an important part of Wikipedia's history and its ongoing development.
It's not important. It was just a dumb idea that might have appeared sensible one Friday evening after the pubs closed, back when there were only a few hundred Wikipedia editors. Let it go.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/4/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Clearly BJAODN is not part of the main namespace. Clearly it is an important part of Wikipedia's history and its ongoing development.
It's not important.
If it's not important to you, why not endorse restoring it so that those of us who do see it as important can spend time on other things?
I can understand people think it either important to keep or unimportant altogether. But I'm not seeing why people see it as an important thing to remove urgently.
William
On 6/5/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
If it's not important to you, why not endorse restoring it
Four letters: G F D L
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Tony Sidaway's mail client expels the following stream of bytes on 6/4/2007 9:06 PM:
Four letters: G F D L
Umm...the G F D L is so that everyone can see and edit it, regardless if one person likes it or not. If *you* don't like it, just ignore it.
- -- Charli (vishwin60/zelzany) Computer games don't affect kids, I mean if Pac Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music. ~Marcus Brigstocke
On 6/5/07, Charli Li chengli1@verizon.net wrote:
Tony Sidaway's mail client expels the following stream of bytes on 6/4/2007 9:06 PM:
Four letters: G F D L
Umm...the G F D L is so that everyone can see and edit it, regardless if one person likes it or not. If *you* don't like it, just ignore it.
Read the licence.
On 05/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/07, Charli Li chengli1@verizon.net wrote:
Tony Sidaway's mail client expels the following stream of bytes on 6/4/2007 9:06 PM:
Four letters: G F D L
Umm...the G F D L is so that everyone can see and edit it, regardless if one person likes it or not. If *you* don't like it, just ignore it.
Read the licence.
As has already been stated, *if* there is an infringement of the GFDL, then it is a contract violation, which means that, provided reasonable steps are taken to resolve the violation, there is no problem. Except for [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]], of course.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/5/07, Charli Li chengli1@verizon.net wrote:
Tony Sidaway's mail client expels the following stream of bytes on 6/4/2007 9:06 PM:
Four letters: G F D L
Umm...the G F D L is so that everyone can see and edit it, regardless if one person likes it or not. If *you* don't like it, just ignore it.
Read the licence.
I think even many of the "keep it" supporters are willing to admit that BJAODN's compliance with the GFDL could be better. I'm one of them. However, the point that's being raised over and over that you appear to be ignoring is that the GFDL compliance of BJAODN can be _fixed_, improved to arbitrarily good standards, and that there are editors who are ready and willing to put in the time to do that.
Sure, you personally don't see any worth in the article and don't want to waste any time on it. That's fine, you don't have to. The problem arises when you decide to project that value judgment onto everyone else and force them not to "waste their time" on it either. Please stop doing that. Editors are all volunteers, they'll spend their time as they see fit and aren't going to magically change their interests if they're blocked from pursuing them.
Removing this as it was done is like finding one illegally copied record in a store, and closing the entire store. Arbitrary authority might do things like that, which is why we should not have arbitrary authority, but rules calling for measured action. Every individual item there has to be considered for GFDL violation, and time allowed to correct it , item by item.
(In the meantime we can be discussing whether the interpretation of GFDL is correct, or whether a good faith effort is sufficient.)
As I said in the discussions, I would love to get rid off those pages on grounds of good taste and encyclopedic content. But this act, like most over-reaching use of power, will in the end have made it harder to do so.
I suppose a case could be made that using an individual idiosyncratic opinion about copyright to remove massive content from WP is vandalism, plain and simple, just as any mass removal of any content on other grounds would be. The need to remove content in accordance with legal action is usually much more specific than this. DGG
On 6/5/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/5/07, Charli Li chengli1@verizon.net wrote:
Tony Sidaway's mail client expels the following stream of bytes on 6/4/2007 9:06 PM:
Four letters: G F D L
Umm...the G F D L is so that everyone can see and edit it, regardless if one person likes it or not. If *you* don't like it, just ignore it.
Read the licence.
I think even many of the "keep it" supporters are willing to admit that BJAODN's compliance with the GFDL could be better. I'm one of them. However, the point that's being raised over and over that you appear to be ignoring is that the GFDL compliance of BJAODN can be _fixed_, improved to arbitrarily good standards, and that there are editors who are ready and willing to put in the time to do that.
Sure, you personally don't see any worth in the article and don't want to waste any time on it. That's fine, you don't have to. The problem arises when you decide to project that value judgment onto everyone else and force them not to "waste their time" on it either. Please stop doing that. Editors are all volunteers, they'll spend their time as they see fit and aren't going to magically change their interests if they're blocked from pursuing them.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/5/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
If it's not important to you, why not endorse restoring it
Four letters: G F D L
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't people argued that it's sufficiently GFDL-compatible in that it links to source articles for the minimum five authors? And that further, if the links to deleted articles invalidated the GFDL-goodness of those bits, isn't that cause for deleting only those bits? And really, does anybody believe that this is a violation of the spirit of the license, or that a single contributor of BJAODN material cares?
Also, if the new rule is that we must speedy delete all articles that don't have full history publicly visible at the moment, then isn't there a lot of deleting we should go do right away?
William
On 05/06/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Also, if the new rule is that we must speedy delete all articles that don't have full history publicly visible at the moment, then isn't there a lot of deleting we should go do right away?
Ah, but the new rule only applies where [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] also applies.
On 6/4/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
What encyclopedic end would be achieved by someone trawling through this mix of discarded rubbish in a belated attempt to make it licence-compliant? Why should anyone make the effort? Let it go.
Clearly BJAODN is not part of the main namespace. Clearly it is an important part of Wikipedia's history and its ongoing development.
It's not important. It was just a dumb idea that might have appeared sensible one Friday evening after the pubs closed, back when there were only a few hundred Wikipedia editors. Let it go.
But that's the spirit we want to harness and keep. ~~~~
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/4/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
What encyclopedic end would be achieved by someone trawling through this mix of discarded rubbish in a belated attempt to make it licence-compliant? Why should anyone make the effort? Let it go.
Clearly BJAODN is not part of the main namespace. Clearly it is an important part of Wikipedia's history and its ongoing development.
It's not important. It was just a dumb idea that might have appeared sensible one Friday evening after the pubs closed, back when there were only a few hundred Wikipedia editors. Let it go.
Perhaps it was a dumb idea. I rarely look at it myself, but I would not go so far as criticizing others for doing so. I do not feel bothered by the idea that others might like different things than I, or consider different things valuable. I was here when there were only "a few hundred" editors, and recognize these pages as a part of our heritage.
Ec
On 6/4/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
What encyclopedic end would be achieved by someone trawling through this mix of discarded rubbish in a belated attempt to make it licence-compliant? Why should anyone make the effort? Let it go.
Clearly BJAODN is not part of the main namespace. Clearly it is an important part of Wikipedia's history and its ongoing development.
It's not important. It was just a dumb idea that might have appeared sensible one Friday evening after the pubs closed, back when there were only a few hundred Wikipedia editors. Let it go.
I don't want to be uncivil, but you just don't get it.
It doesn't matter whether you don't think it matters at all. It matters how the community as a whole feels about it. There are a lot of people within the community as a whole who wanted it back. Apparently a majority.
If the answer is "This is dumb, how come there's so much of a community uproar about it?", then you're asking the wrong question.
On 6/5/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
It's not important. It was just a dumb idea that might have appeared sensible one Friday evening after the pubs closed, back when there were only a few hundred Wikipedia editors. Let it go.
What, letting everyone edit an encyclopedia? Allowing anonymous article creation? Having a community with world-readable and -writable personal inboxes? YM "only a few hundred Nupedia editors," and maybe it is important after all.
As for BJ&ODN, that's probably important, too, considering its longevity and popularity.
SJ
On 6/4/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
What encyclopedic end would be achieved by someone trawling through this mix of discarded rubbish in a belated attempt to make it licence-compliant? Why should anyone make the effort? Let it go.
It doesn't directly help the encyclopedia at all.
It's a noticably well known and loved part of the community building the encyclopedia, and as we try to avoid being sterile SOBs who refuse to consider any community issues at all, perhaps we should consider that the flamage has a point.
Without taking strong sides or making any kind of formal statement, I would just like to say that I feel that BJAODN is a delightful part of Wikipedia history and important for just the reasons that George puts forward below.
Surely a compromise can be reached.
On Jun 5, 2007, at 12:51 AM, George Herbert wrote:
On 6/4/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
What encyclopedic end would be achieved by someone trawling through this mix of discarded rubbish in a belated attempt to make it licence-compliant? Why should anyone make the effort? Let it go.
It doesn't directly help the encyclopedia at all.
It's a noticably well known and loved part of the community building the encyclopedia, and as we try to avoid being sterile SOBs who refuse to consider any community issues at all, perhaps we should consider that the flamage has a point.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/9/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Without taking strong sides or making any kind of formal statement, I would just like to say that I feel that BJAODN is a delightful part of Wikipedia history and important for just the reasons that George puts forward below.
Surely a compromise can be reached.
To those who say it's part of Wikipedia history, I can only say "I wish". It's embarrassing crap.
On 6/10/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/9/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Without taking strong sides or making any kind of formal statement, I would just like to say that I feel that BJAODN is a delightful part of Wikipedia history and important for just the reasons that George puts forward below.
Surely a compromise can be reached.
To those who say it's part of Wikipedia history, I can only say "I wish". It's embarrassing crap.
Embarassing crap that's been around for longer than most of us can remember.
Johnleemk
On 6/10/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/10/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
To those who say it's part of Wikipedia history, I can only say "I wish". It's embarrassing crap.
Embarassing crap that's been around for longer than most of us can remember.
Sadly this is true. We can preserve it in aspic for another six years, or give it a decent burial.
On 6/9/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Without taking strong sides or making any kind of formal statement, I would just like to say that I feel that BJAODN is a delightful part of Wikipedia history and important for just the reasons that George puts forward below.
Surely a compromise can be reached.
Sure if all the contributions can be credited to their respective authors.
GNU lisense simply states that we should credit Wikipedia. It would be impossible to quote every single editor. The History tab is surely there as a tool against vandalism ON EXISTING articles. As most editors are anonymous, it is just foolish to suggest that every editor be credited. Nobody is saying that the article existed somewhere else or that many editors contributed to it. They use those article in the sense that "this was on wikipedia" but no longer. The GNU lisense covers that.
On 6/10/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
GNU lisense simply states that we should credit Wikipedia.
Which part of the GFDL do you claim says this?
It would be impossible to quote every single editor. The History tab is surely there as a tool against vandalism ON EXISTING articles. As most editors are anonymous, it is just foolish to suggest that every editor be credited. Nobody is saying that the article existed somewhere else or that many editors contributed to it. They use those article in the sense that "this was on wikipedia" but no longer. The GNU lisense covers that.
GFDL requires that you credit the authors. If the author choses to be credited as geni that is their choice.
"4.B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement."
Doesn't any editing say we accept the GNU lisense and that anything we write will be deleted or edited. That would clearly class as a release."
On 10/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/10/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
GNU lisense simply states that we should credit Wikipedia.
Which part of the GFDL do you claim says this?
It would be impossible to quote every single editor. The History tab is surely there as a tool against vandalism ON EXISTING articles. As most editors are anonymous, it is just foolish to suggest that every editor be credited. Nobody is saying that the article existed somewhere else or that many editors contributed to it. They use those article in the sense that "this was on wikipedia" but no longer. The GNU lisense covers that.
GFDL requires that you credit the authors. If the author choses to be credited as geni that is their choice.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/10/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
"4.B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement."
Doesn't any editing say we accept the GNU lisense and that anything we write will be deleted or edited. That would clearly class as a release."
No. I release would be someone writeing something along the lines of "I release you from the requirement to credit me for this work"
Of course such a stamtent may not have legal force in all countries.
In images you can add a statement like that in the lisense but not in normal wikipedia. If an editor beleived that once his edit was on the wiki server it was no longer his (copyright) but part of the world and beleived that he had reliniqushed all rights would that class as a release? Although essentially he misunderstood his rights, does this kind of tort have any validity in US law?
No. I release would be someone writeing something along the lines of "I release you from the requirement to credit me for this work"
Of course such a stamtent may not have legal force in all countries.
-- geni
Some users license their contributions by placing a statement on their user page. However they still have to release them under the GFDL also, see [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing]]. For example I release my edits into the public domain: [[User:The wub#Licensing]]. I'd say that such a positive statement counts as a release, however a misunderstanding of our copyright when submitting an edit probably wouldn't.
On 10/06/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
In images you can add a statement like that in the lisense but not in normal wikipedia. If an editor beleived that once his edit was on the wiki server it was no longer his (copyright) but part of the world and beleived that he had reliniqushed all rights would that class as a release? Although essentially he misunderstood his rights, does this kind of tort have any validity in US law?
No. I release would be someone writeing something along the lines of "I release you from the requirement to credit me for this work"
Of course such a stamtent may not have legal force in all countries.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/10/07, the wub thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Some users license their contributions by placing a statement on their user page. However they still have to release them under the GFDL also, see [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing]]. For example I release my edits into the public domain: [[User:The wub#Licensing]]. I'd say that such a positive statement counts as a release, however a misunderstanding of our copyright when submitting an edit probably wouldn't.
Correct. If your contributions are explicitly public domain, and I were redistributing an article you had edited, there would be no legal requirement for me to list your name in the credits. However, being a nice, considerate person, I would anyway.
—C.W.
(Back to direct topic) The wayback convieniently lists all of wikipedias articles. In terms of GNU Lisense 4.B - what five contributors do you include? what about "red" and IP editors who presumably write and disappear?
michael west schreef:
(Back to direct topic) The wayback convieniently lists all of wikipedias articles. In terms of GNU Lisense 4.B - what five contributors do you include? what about "red" and IP editors who presumably write and disappear?
You don't have to include the 5 most important contributors; just 5 important authors. The concept of a title page only makes sense if you consider Wikipedia as 1 document, in which case just pick 4 contributors from the list with editors with the most edits, and add Jimbo.
4B is not that problematic. For a case like BJAODN it's 4I that is the problem: it implies we should credit *all* of the contributers, as they are all included in the article history (which is how the section Entitled "History" has to be interpreted, I think, although linking to the Wikipedia article history, even indirectly through the article on Wikipedia, was traditionally considerd enough to be compliant with the GFDL).
Eugene
On 6/10/07, the wub thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Some users license their contributions by placing a statement on their user page. However they still have to release them under the GFDL also, see [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing]]. For example I release my edits into the public domain: [[User:The wub#Licensing]]. I'd say that such a positive statement counts as a release, however a misunderstanding of our copyright when submitting an edit probably wouldn't.
There is something I've been wondering about this whole multi-licensing thing, and now seems as good a time as any to ask: how can you multi-license your edits when the previous edits that you are modifying specifically states that you have to license your edits under the GFDL? I mean, if I edit a page that has previously been edited under the GFDL, I'm making a derivative work and then I'm not allowed to release my contributions into the public domain because the GFDL specifically says that you have to use it for derived works. If I were allowed to multi-license my own content that's based on others work, I would in effect be making their content more free, even though I don't hold the copyright to it.
Obviously this doesn't apply when you write an article from scratch or rewrite an article completely, but those edits are in the minority.
I just don't see how this whole multi-licensing thing is legal. [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing]] doesn't really address this directly, so could one of the smart legal minds on this list please enlighten me?
--Oskar
Maybe it means that the diff is kind of in the public domain? So if you made a new section, for example, then that part would be in the PD? </wild speculation>
David
On 10/06/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/10/07, the wub thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Some users license their contributions by placing a statement on their user page. However they still have to release them under the GFDL also, see [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing]]. For example I release my edits into the public domain: [[User:The wub#Licensing]]. I'd say that such a positive statement counts as a release, however a misunderstanding of our copyright when submitting an edit probably wouldn't.
There is something I've been wondering about this whole multi-licensing thing, and now seems as good a time as any to ask: how can you multi-license your edits when the previous edits that you are modifying specifically states that you have to license your edits under the GFDL? I mean, if I edit a page that has previously been edited under the GFDL, I'm making a derivative work and then I'm not allowed to release my contributions into the public domain because the GFDL specifically says that you have to use it for derived works. If I were allowed to multi-license my own content that's based on others work, I would in effect be making their content more free, even though I don't hold the copyright to it.
Obviously this doesn't apply when you write an article from scratch or rewrite an article completely, but those edits are in the minority.
I just don't see how this whole multi-licensing thing is legal. [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing]] doesn't really address this directly, so could one of the smart legal minds on this list please enlighten me?
--Oskar
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/10/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Obviously this doesn't apply when you write an article from scratch or rewrite an article completely, but those edits are in the minority.
I just don't see how this whole multi-licensing thing is legal. [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing]] doesn't really address this directly, so could one of the smart legal minds on this list please enlighten me?
Only your work is dual-licensed if you choose to do this, not everything. You aren't re-licensing the whole article. From [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing]]:
"Even if those who dual-license their contributions can be identified, the dual-licensed content may not be useful. For example, only the first, third and fifth words of a given sentence may be dual licensed, while the rest are GFDL-only. Obviously, the dual-licensed content would be of very little use."
So, it's mostly just a silly thing people do when they realize the failures of GFDL. To actually use it in any real way would be extremely difficult, unless, as you say, one person did an article in its entirety.
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]
On 6/10/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/10/07, the wub thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Some users license their contributions by placing a statement on their user page. However they still have to release them under the GFDL also, see [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing]]. For example I release my edits into the public domain: [[User:The wub#Licensing]]. I'd say that such a positive statement counts as a release, however a misunderstanding of our copyright when submitting an edit probably wouldn't.
There is something I've been wondering about this whole multi-licensing thing, and now seems as good a time as any to ask: how can you multi-license your edits when the previous edits that you are modifying specifically states that you have to license your edits under the GFDL? I mean, if I edit a page that has previously been edited under the GFDL, I'm making a derivative work and then I'm not allowed to release my contributions into the public domain because the GFDL specifically says that you have to use it for derived works. If I were allowed to multi-license my own content that's based on others work, I would in effect be making their content more free, even though I don't hold the copyright to it.
Obviously this doesn't apply when you write an article from scratch or rewrite an article completely, but those edits are in the minority.
I just don't see how this whole multi-licensing thing is legal. [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing]] doesn't really address this directly, so could one of the smart legal minds on this list please enlighten me?
--Oskar
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
An author can license his work to as many people under as many licenses as possible. Nonrevokable just means you cant take away the GFDL licensed version you gave wikipedia. You can have a all rights reserved copy you give someone else, they are also just free to use the GFDL copy if they prefer to. And you can also give wikipedia a CC copy, and/or PD copy, all with one submit click.
On 6/10/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
An author can license his work to as many people under as many licenses as possible. Nonrevokable just means you cant take away the GFDL licensed version you gave wikipedia. You can have a all rights reserved copy you give someone else, they are also just free to use the GFDL copy if they prefer to. And you can also give wikipedia a CC copy, and/or PD copy, all with one submit click.
You're missing my point. When you contribute to an already existing article, you are making a derivative work based on that article, which is licensed under the GFDL. The GFDL states that if you make a derivative work from it you have to license it under the same terms, you can't just PD that thing because you are using the original authors work and he didn't allow you to do that.
Lets make an open source software analogy: if I make my own web-browser that is based on Firefox, I can't license that software in anyway I want (whether it is to make it less free by making it closed source or making it more free by using the BSD license) because the GPL doesn't allow that kind of relicensing. Same thing with the GFDL, you can't just change the rights of something that someone else wrote unless that person specifically allowed it. You are only allowed to make derivatives of someone else's work if you follow the rules, and multi-licensing doesn't follow those rules (in my understanding, anyway).
Oskar Sigvardsson schreef:
You're missing my point. When you contribute to an already existing article, you are making a derivative work based on that article, which is licensed under the GFDL. The GFDL states that if you make a derivative work from it you have to license it under the same terms, you can't just PD that thing because you are using the original authors work and he didn't allow you to do that.
That's correct. At the same time, if the contribution can stand alone as a separate work, underived from the existing article, you may also license that separate work under any license you want; after all, you, the contributor, still have the copyright.
So: if you add a new paragraph to an article, there is a large chance that you can license it CC-SA (for example). Adding one sentence to an article in the middle of a paragraph, probably not. Changing one word: certainly not. (Reverting to an older version you didn't write yourself: no discussion possible)
But it's only the text of that one contribution that is dual-licensed.
If the article is CC-licensed as a whole (because all edits are from dual-licensing editors), there is no problem, and the whole article can be considered to be CC-licensed.
Dual-licensing notices should therefore say something like: "Unless derived from just-GFDL-licensed content, my contributions are ... etc", and people should check the article history before concluding anything about the licenses. Which makes multi-licensing much less usefull.
Eugene
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
Dual-licensing notices should therefore say something like: "Unless derived from just-GFDL-licensed content, my contributions are ... etc", and people should check the article history before concluding anything about the licenses.
Actually, what they should say, if you wanted to make it more explicit, is: "Any *original content* in my contributions is ..." etc.
That's the only reasonable interpretation, anyway.
Which makes multi-licensing much less usefull.
Well, much less useful than it *would* be, if one could in fact take an entire GFDL article and make it multilicensed just by fixing a typo in it. But then, cars are also much less useful than they would be if they could fly...
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Lets make an open source software analogy: if I make my own web-browser that is based on Firefox, I can't license that software in anyway I want (whether it is to make it less free by making it closed source or making it more free by using the BSD license) because the GPL doesn't allow that kind of relicensing. Same thing with the GFDL, you can't just change the rights of something that someone else wrote unless that person specifically allowed it. You are only allowed to make derivatives of someone else's work if you follow the rules, and multi-licensing doesn't follow those rules (in my understanding, anyway).
But if you were to create a new plugin for Firefox that's a separate module of code that you wrote entirely by yourself, you could multi-license just that one chunk of code under multiple licenses.
The idea with multi-licensing Wikipedia contributions is not that one would go to an existing article, fix a few typos, and poof the article is now multi-licensed. The idea is that an author could go and write a brand new article, or add a new section to an existing article, and _that_ material would be multi-licensed. An editor who subsequently edits that material but who is not themselves multi-licensing would in effect only be editing the version with the compatible license, so subsequent revisions would in all likelihood be back under just the GFDL again. But if someone really wanted to they could go back in the article's history and dig out the "clean" multi-license material and fork their own version under the other license.
Yeah, in the vast majority of cases this is a highly tedious and probably unwieldy process. But it's not illegal and under some circumstances it just might come in handy. Multi-licensing images is probably the most useful thing since images tend to be monolithic units that don't get edited much.
On 6/10/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/10/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
An author can license his work to as many people under as many licenses as possible. Nonrevokable just means you cant take away the GFDL licensed version you gave wikipedia. You can have a all rights reserved copy you give someone else, they are also just free to use the GFDL copy if they prefer to. And you can also give wikipedia a CC copy, and/or PD copy, all with one submit click.
You're missing my point. When you contribute to an already existing article, you are making a derivative work based on that article, which is licensed under the GFDL. The GFDL states that if you make a derivative work from it you have to license it under the same terms, you can't just PD that thing because you are using the original authors work and he didn't allow you to do that.
That's a pretty odd interpretation of the GFDL and Wikipedia; the publisher isn't changing. Different versions of a Wikipedia page are not Modified Versions in the context of the GFDL under most reasonable interpretations.
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 12:43:24PM +0100, the wub wrote:
Some users license their contributions by placing a statement on their user page. However they still have to release them under the GFDL also, see [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing]]. For example I release my edits into the public domain: [[User:The wub#Licensing]]. I'd say that such a positive statement counts as a release, however a misunderstanding of our copyright when submitting an edit probably wouldn't.
I wonder whether, at least in some jurisdictions, if it came to a court case, the court might rule that as our use of open source licenses is so complex and so confusing, and that the editors have no idea really in most cases what they are doing, that in reality we are releasing material into the public domain and that we in general as WP or an editor in particular can not claim any copyright on anything in WP.
I think I understand them, but I have been involved with open source code for many years. I am, however, not at all confident, that we could win, at least some cases, if they actually came to a court. I believe the only case that has come to court is one relating to the German Wikipedia. Of course in some cases it would be the person sueing that lost for the reasons I state. I think it very unlikely indeed for example that the copyright issues on the Bad Joke and other nonsenese stuff would ever course us any problem.
On 10/06/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
In images you can add a statement like that in the lisense but not in normal wikipedia. If an editor beleived that once his edit was on the wiki server it was no longer his (copyright) but part of the world and beleived that he had reliniqushed all rights would that class as a release? Although essentially he misunderstood his rights, does this kind of tort have any validity in US law?
No. I release would be someone writeing something along the lines of "I release you from the requirement to credit me for this work"
Of course such a stamtent may not have legal force in all countries.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- the wub
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 12:43:24PM +0100, the wub wrote:
Some users license their contributions by placing a statement on their user page. However they still have to release them under the GFDL also, see [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing]]. For example I release my edits into the public domain: [[User:The wub#Licensing]]. I'd say that such a positive statement counts as a release, however a misunderstanding of our copyright when submitting an edit probably wouldn't.
I wonder whether, at least in some jurisdictions, if it came to a court case, the court might rule that as our use of open source licenses is so complex and so confusing, and that the editors have no idea really in most cases what they are doing, that in reality we are releasing material into the public domain and that we in general as WP or an editor in particular can not claim any copyright on anything in WP.
This is only one of numerous possibilities.
I think I understand them, but I have been involved with open source code for many years. I am, however, not at all confident, that we could win, at least some cases, if they actually came to a court.
One can never be confident about such things. So far, there is not much in the way of court judgements to clarify anything to do with free licences.
I believe the only case that has come to court is one relating to the German Wikipedia.
That one was not about copyright, but about privacy..
Of course in some cases it would be the person sueing that lost for the reasons I state. I think it very unlikely indeed for example that the copyright issues on the Bad Joke and other nonsenese stuff would ever course us any problem.
Agreed. The hoops that the plaintiff would need to jump through to be successful are just too complex when there are no established standards. For short pieces of material of questionable value it's just not worth their while.
Ec
Ec
michael west wrote:
In images you can add a statement like that in the lisense but not in normal wikipedia. If an editor beleived that once his edit was on the wiki server it was no longer his (copyright) but part of the world and beleived that he had reliniqushed all rights would that class as a release?
Yes and no. It may very much depend on his country of residence. If he believes that he has relinquished his rights he is not likely to sue, but his heirs may think differently.
Although essentially he misunderstood his rights, does this kind of tort have any validity in US law?
Maybe you should look up "tort" in a dictionary. Failing to understand one's own rights is not in itself a tort.
Ec
On 6/10/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
GNU lisense simply states that we should credit Wikipedia. It would be impossible to quote every single editor.
No, it doesn't. It doesn't say anything about Wikipedia at all, nor does it say that publishers can take credit in lieu of authors/creators.
The History tab is surely there as a tool against vandalism ON
EXISTING articles. As most editors are anonymous, it is just foolish to suggest that every editor be credited. Nobody is saying that the article existed somewhere else or that many editors contributed to it. They use those article in the sense that "this was on wikipedia" but no longer. The GNU lisense covers that.
Unfortunately that is incorrect, since we are legally required by the GFDL to credit all authors. Have you actually read the GFDL and the relevant pages in the Wikipedia namespace?
Johnleemk
The edit page doesn't say what I thought mearly: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL"
I dont think it could be considered a release. Sorry
On 6/10/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
The edit page doesn't say what I thought mearly: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL"
I dont think it could be considered a release. Sorry
Any reason any and all entry fields aren't explicit to this effect, that it's established (and non-negotiable later by any) that any and all text of your own creation is released permanently under GFDL, and cannot be revocated (if thats possible)? The wording I'd imagine should be in such a way that no one can possibly weasel their way around it. Note, I'm not accusing Michael of being weasely--just sayin'. :)
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
Tony Sidaway wrote:
What encyclopedic end would be achieved by someone trawling through this mix of discarded rubbish in a belated attempt to make it licence-compliant? Why should anyone make the effort? Let it go.
I don't know about you, but I spend time on Wikipedia because it's fun and because it's rewarding when it's not fun.
BJAODN is a great example of people taking something annoying and making it fun. It's proof that we jointly have a sense of fun, an esprit de corps, a belief that all the idiots in the world can't spoil this for us. Rather, it was proof of that. Honestly, I haven't looked at it much lately, but first coming across it was a joy, like finding an easter egg in a treasured game.
The reason to put it back, and to clean it up if it needs cleaning, is to show that spirit still lives. That will help us keep good editors and attract new ones.
For me personally, another part of the motivation is as much the manner in which this was done as the outcome. I thought it was rude, unnecessarily dramatic and wasteful, and I'm unconvinced that this happened out of a pure-minded desire to treat our contributors fairly under the GFDL. It feels to me like somebody rammed something down the community's throat without any attempt to build consensus.
I don't even like good decisions done like that, and so that magnifies the harm I see in what I think is a bad decision.
William
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
William Pietri's mail client expels the following stream of bytes on 6/4/2007 7:22 PM:
I don't know about you, but I spend time on Wikipedia because it's fun and because it's rewarding when it's not fun.
BJAODN is a great example of people taking something annoying and making it fun. It's proof that we jointly have a sense of fun, an esprit de corps, a belief that all the idiots in the world can't spoil this for us. Rather, it was proof of that. Honestly, I haven't looked at it much lately, but first coming across it was a joy, like finding an easter egg in a treasured game.
The reason to put it back, and to clean it up if it needs cleaning, is to show that spirit still lives. That will help us keep good editors and attract new ones.
For me personally, another part of the motivation is as much the manner in which this was done as the outcome. I thought it was rude, unnecessarily dramatic and wasteful, and I'm unconvinced that this happened out of a pure-minded desire to treat our contributors fairly under the GFDL. It feels to me like somebody rammed something down the community's throat without any attempt to build consensus.
I don't even like good decisions done like that, and so that magnifies the harm I see in what I think is a bad decision.
I concur with William. Undelete this, tag it with {{humor}}, and move along.
- -- Charli (vishwin60/zelzany) Computer games don't affect kids, I mean if Pac Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music. ~Marcus Brigstocke
Tony Sidaway wrote:
What encyclopedic end would be achieved by someone trawling through this mix of discarded rubbish in a belated attempt to make it licence-compliant? Why should anyone make the effort? Let it go.
It's perfectly understandable that a person who has succeeded in imposing his Point of View would say that.
Ec
Yeah, I have anger problems.
forum moderators MUST unblock me otherwise i will spam this mother----ing forum.
REPLY IMMEDIATELY. it is a waste of time that jimbo wales did not reply this message as the wikipedia police still have not got back to me because removing semi protection tags is against wikipedia policy, and the ONLY COURSE IS EMAILING JIMBO WALES in this park.
"Wikipedia enforces a zero tolerance policy in regards to wiki vandalism in the park. There is a MOTHER FUCKING possiblilty that you will be banned from the English Wikipedia if you continue to do any vandalism in the park."
AND THIS MESSAGE:
"Sorry, your request to be unblocked has been ignored because you were trolling. You will get a message that say "This user is no longer a member of the English Wikipedia." If you are banned from Wikipedia forever you are prohibited to use Wikipedia!"
im gonna fire brad patrick permanently in this park. if no one replies the email to request unblocking, will you send an email to the wikipedia police so i can get unblocked right away.
Reviewing the text of one of the BJAODN pages Jeffrey O Gustafson deleted and then wheel-warred to protect his action ([[Wikipedia:All Your Bad Joke And Other Deleted Nonsense Are Belong To Ushttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:All_Your_Bad_Joke_And_Other_Deleted_Nonsense_Are_Belong_To_Us&action=edit]], it's clear that JOG's unilateral action is unsupportable. He claims massive copyright violation, but the earliest entry to the page was Navigium Flammae, whose history exists in the database.
If Jeffrey O Gustafson's intentions were pure, he would have done the work to make the pages compliant with *his interpretation* of the GFDL by merging edit histories.
Instead he deleted the page out of process. And since deletion with the claim of copyright violation are protected from content review (c.f. [[Wikipedia:Deletion review]]: "Note that only uncontroversial content should be restored — not revisions deleted as copyright violation, potentially libellous content or similar") his actions can't be easily reversed, even temporarily, so that the general community may take action, instead of the small group of admins. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/13/07, RCT-Thrillville rctlocomotionwikipeida@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip/>
I've fallen and I can't reach my mods.
—C.W.
On 14/06/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/13/07, RCT-Thrillville rctlocomotionwikipeida@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip/>
I've fallen and I can't reach my mods.
I tend to let one whiny complaint through but leave the complainer on moderation. This one I'd probably have sent back.
- d.
On 6/14/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I tend to let one whiny complaint through but leave the complainer on moderation. This one I'd probably have sent back.
One nutjob every once in a while puts things in perspective. We see that the regulars on this list really aren't so bad :)
--Oskar
I couldn't unblock him even if I wanted to. He didn't give a username...