MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 6/25/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
DF wrote:
there is an ongoing discussion of whether EB holds a copyright in the list of articles itself.
I've asked this back when I did the Columbia list, and I didn't get a response, but I'll ask the same question again now: Why don't we just ask them if they're okay with it?
I was about to ask the same thing in my post, but I somehow forgot.
And if they don't answer, but simply complain to the media instead? Given their regular habit of bad-mouthing us in the press, I'm not keen on handing them an opportunity they can spin into "Look, Wikipedia is blatantly copying all of our articles." With Brockhaus, where we have established contacts and a more amicable relationship, I might view it differently.
--Michael Snow
On 6/25/05, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
And if they don't answer, but simply complain to the media instead? Given their regular habit of bad-mouthing us in the press, I'm not keen on handing them an opportunity they can spin into "Look, Wikipedia is blatantly copying all of our articles." With Brockhaus, where we have established contacts and a more amicable relationship, I might view it differently.
Then we point out that we asked and that they hadn't answered... we point out that they certainly keep such lists of their competitors internally and because of our differing development model that this list is out nearest equivalent. We'd survive, and the press would likely do us good.
If someone wanted to make a fuss about copyright for us there are much better examples... There is a lot of copyvio media still on wikipedia, and some of our editors pretty clearly disrespect copyright. Fortunately we're cleaning up the media ... but it takes time.
Michael Snow wrote:
On 6/25/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
I've asked this back when I did the Columbia list, and I didn't get a response, but I'll ask the same question again now: Why don't we just ask them if they're okay with it?
And if they don't answer, but simply complain to the media instead?
Of course, ideally, we shouldn't publish the list until they respond.
On 6/25/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
And if they don't answer, but simply complain to the media instead?
Of course, ideally, we shouldn't publish the list until they respond.
Only if we presume the material is copyvio... So far the only people in our community who have any authority at all on the matter who have responded can not agree.
I'd suggest that it be moved into another wiki to escape the debate, but there is a huge technical reason to have it in wikipedia... Redlinks.
Even more alternative solution: move it off of Wikipedia altogether, to the webspace of some brave soul who would be happy to post a list of "articles EB has that Wikipedia does not" (they could even pretend it was an anti-Wikipedia page!).
One could easily imagine a script which would cycle through the articles once every few days and check if they are still red-linked, and move the filled in ones to a different section of the page. Hell, I'll *write* that script if nobody else will. Then we can forget the whole question. If someone will host it.
(I'd host it myself if I had any webspace of my own which could support it)
FF
On 6/25/05, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/25/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
And if they don't answer, but simply complain to the media instead?
Of course, ideally, we shouldn't publish the list until they respond.
Only if we presume the material is copyvio... So far the only people in our community who have any authority at all on the matter who have responded can not agree.
I'd suggest that it be moved into another wiki to escape the debate, but there is a huge technical reason to have it in wikipedia... Redlinks. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fastfission (fastfission@gmail.com) [050626 13:04]:
Even more alternative solution: move it off of Wikipedia altogether, to the webspace of some brave soul who would be happy to post a list of "articles EB has that Wikipedia does not" (they could even pretend it was an anti-Wikipedia page!). One could easily imagine a script which would cycle through the articles once every few days and check if they are still red-linked, and move the filled in ones to a different section of the page. Hell, I'll *write* that script if nobody else will. Then we can forget the whole question. If someone will host it. (I'd host it myself if I had any webspace of my own which could support it)
I really don't see why this can't be hosted on Wikipedia, for the reasons you state. The fact that it's in Wikipedia: space as well makes it clear this is a working document, not product. If it's decided it can't be hosted on Wikipedia, I have plenty of places to put it, thatn can run cron jobs to run scripts to update it and so forth. (Though I'd have a hard time pretending to be anti-Wikipedia ;-) But I do think it belongs on Wikipedia if at all possible.
- d.
Timwi wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
On 6/25/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
I've asked this back when I did the Columbia list, and I didn't get a response, but I'll ask the same question again now: Why don't we just ask them if they're okay with it?
And if they don't answer, but simply complain to the media instead?
Of course, ideally, we shouldn't publish the list until they respond.
In that case their best tactic would be to stonewall, whether they are right or not.
Ec
Michael Snow wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 6/25/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
DF wrote:
there is an ongoing discussion of whether EB holds a copyright in the list of articles itself.
I've asked this back when I did the Columbia list, and I didn't get a response, but I'll ask the same question again now: Why don't we just ask them if they're okay with it?
I was about to ask the same thing in my post, but I somehow forgot.
And if they don't answer, but simply complain to the media instead? Given their regular habit of bad-mouthing us in the press, I'm not keen on handing them an opportunity they can spin into "Look, Wikipedia is blatantly copying all of our articles." With Brockhaus, where we have established contacts and a more amicable relationship, I might view it differently.
There is always the principle that it is easier to get forgiveness than to get permission. Let's say we ask them, and they say "no." What then? How do we tell the difference between a "No because it's illegal." and "No because we don't like your competition"? There is no requirement for us to be naive.
Ec