If you use Google Earth, check out the brand-new "Geographic Web" layer. Did we have anything to do with that?
On 12/9/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
If you use Google Earth, check out the brand-new "Geographic Web" layer. Did we have anything to do with that?
Yes.
Like it?
On 12/9/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/9/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
If you use Google Earth, check out the brand-new "Geographic Web" layer. Did we have anything to do with that?
Yes.
Like it?
Absolutely. But how often are they checking for new data? Every database dump? How soon after one does the new data propogate?
On 12/11/06, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. But how often are they checking for new data? Every database dump? How soon after one does the new data propogate?
They are doing batch updates from dumps. .. I can find out exactly what their update schedule looks like.
In the meantime, we should do some work making our georeferencing more consistent. They capture many of the ways which we geocode, but not all of them. As someone who has tried to do stuff with out geodata previously, I can sympathize with the challenges Google has faced in this project.
You can see my post on the subject at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordin...
Greg Maxwell wrote:
In the meantime, we should do some work making our georeferencing more consistent.
Absolutely.
You can see my post on the subject at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordin...
Thanks. I had some posts on this same issue a while ago; I'll try to figure out where they were.
Google aside, this stuff needs cleaning up. For example, it's not at all uncommon to have a {{coor title d}} saying one thing at the top of the page, and another {{coor dms}} in-line in the article text, with slightly (or significantly) different coordinates.
If we can figure out a better scheme, I'm definitely up for some creative bot work to implement the migration.
Steve Summit schreef:
Google aside, this stuff needs cleaning up. For example, it's not at all uncommon to have a {{coor title d}} saying one thing at the top of the page, and another {{coor dms}} in-line in the article text, with slightly (or significantly) different coordinates.
Note that it is not always a bug to have more than one set of coordinates in an article. See for example [[Carnac stones]] or [[List of cities, towns and villages in Utrecht]].
Perhaps there should be a "noindex" parameter, which would enable Google and others to exclude these from their databases?
By the way, if you are impressed with the new Google Earth layer, you may also want to take a look at Stefan Kuehn's GE data files at http://www.webkuehn.de/hobbys/wikipedia/geokoordinaten/index.htm .
Eugene
On 12/12/06, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Steve Summit schreef:
Google aside, this stuff needs cleaning up. For example, it's not at all uncommon to have a {{coor title d}} saying one thing at the top of the page, and another {{coor dms}} in-line in the article text, with slightly (or significantly) different coordinates.
Note that it is not always a bug to have more than one set of coordinates in an article. See for example [[Carnac stones]] or [[List of cities, towns and villages in Utrecht]].
Perhaps there should be a "noindex" parameter, which would enable Google and others to exclude these from their databases?
Or, indeed, a "multiplecoords" parameter - it would make sense to give multiple points for individual occurences of a same thing not dealt with in individual articles.
Thing is, we've two kinds of multiple links - ones which are basically navigational in a list, and ones which are "one thing many places". We probably need to figure out a way of telling Google Earth, and the things like it, that [[Carnac Stones]] is a sensible linkback for any given incidence of a coord taken from that article, but [[Villages in Utrecht]] isn't...
By the way, if you are impressed with the new Google Earth layer, you may also want to take a look at Stefan Kuehn's GE data files at http://www.webkuehn.de/hobbys/wikipedia/geokoordinaten/index.htm
Thanks for the pointer.
On 12/12/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/06, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. But how often are they checking for new data? Every database dump? How soon after one does the new data propogate?
They are doing batch updates from dumps. .. I can find out exactly what their update schedule looks like.
Well, that answers an OTRS complaint I spotted last night about vandalism in one of the enGoogled articles! Any idea how often they're likely to update?
(On the plus side, vandalism like this shouldn't be too much of a problem - our geotemplated articles are likely to have a smidgen more competent attention than the average)
In the meantime, we should do some work making our georeferencing more consistent. They capture many of the ways which we geocode, but not all of them. As someone who has tried to do stuff with out geodata previously, I can sympathize with the challenges Google has faced in this project.
Good luck...
On 12/12/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/06, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. But how often are they checking for new data? Every database dump? How soon after one does the new data propogate?
They are doing batch updates from dumps. .. I can find out exactly what their update schedule looks like.
Well, that answers an OTRS complaint I spotted last night about vandalism in one of the enGoogled articles! Any idea how often they're likely to update?
(On the plus side, vandalism like this shouldn't be too much of a problem - our geotemplated articles are likely to have a smidgen more competent attention than the average)
Indeed, for those of us more used to an edit-save-test paradigm, it becomes very confusing to not have corrections appear immediately. I still don't know if [[Iran]] is still 60 miles over the border in Iraqi Kurdistan, or if [[Connecticut]] is just off the South Fork of Long Island, or if other editors have fixed these (these are the two most notable errors I've found so far.) Maybe Google can be convinced to devote resources to accelerating their update schedule, but I for one am less hopeful.
Michael Noda wrote:
Indeed, for those of us more used to an edit-save-test paradigm, it becomes very confusing to not have corrections appear immediately. I still don't know if [[Iran]] is still 60 miles over the border in Iraqi Kurdistan, or if [[Connecticut]] is just off the South Fork of Long Island,
No to the latter, I dunno about the former. I was checking a bunch of these yesterday, and fixing them as necessary, and it was pretty easy, until Magnus's GeoHack broke (which may not have been coincidental!).
Maybe Google can be convinced to devote resources to accelerating their update schedule, but I for one am less hopeful.
We (and they) are in a rock-and-a-hard-place situation. It's good that they're working from their own stashed copy instead of hitting us live, because I doubt our servers could handle their users' load. But of course on the other hand it's supremely annoying that they're working from their own stashed copy, because (as you note and I emphatically agree) our lovely instantaneous wiki-quick edit-save-test loop is broken.
As to updating their stashed copy more often, there's not much way we can ask them to do that when our own dumps only come out on a 2-4 week cycle. :-(
On 12/12/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
We (and they) are in a rock-and-a-hard-place situation. It's good that they're working from their own stashed copy instead of hitting us live, because I doubt our servers could handle their users' load. But of course on the other hand it's supremely annoying that they're working from their own stashed copy, because (as you note and I emphatically agree) our lovely instantaneous wiki-quick edit-save-test loop is broken.
Since our coordinates are just crammed in the article text, no live access would be possible in any case. The best approximation would be to read every change looking for updates.
We've survived for years having other mirrors not update quickly. ;)
On 12/12/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
until Magnus's GeoHack broke (which may not have been coincidental!).
I don't believe in that kind of coincidence. :-)
We (and they) are in a rock-and-a-hard-place situation. It's good that they're working from their own stashed copy instead of hitting us live, because I doubt our servers could handle their users' load. But of course on the other hand it's supremely annoying that they're working from their own stashed copy, because (as you note and I emphatically agree) our lovely instantaneous wiki-quick edit-save-test loop is broken.
As to updating their stashed copy more often, there's not much way we can ask them to do that when our own dumps only come out on a 2-4 week cycle. :-(
I agree that having live updating would be well outside the realm of what we or Google want or are willing to pay for. Maybe we can do something to get back to a weekly dump schedule? Preferably on Google's dime? ;-)
On 12/12/06, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
until Magnus's GeoHack broke (which may not have been coincidental!).
I don't believe in that kind of coincidence. :-)
Geohack is on toolserver which has had problems recently, but it seems to be forking fine right now. Whats broken about it?
Greg Maxwell wrote:
On 12/12/06, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
until Magnus's GeoHack broke (which may not have been coincidental!).
I don't believe in that kind of coincidence. :-)
Geohack is on toolserver which has had problems recently, but it seems to be forking fine right now. Whats broken about it?
For a while yesterday it was displaying the latitude (only) at the top of an otherwise blank page. But yes, it's working again now.
We (and they) are in a rock-and-a-hard-place situation. It's good that they're working from their own stashed copy instead of hitting us live, because I doubt our servers could handle their users' load. But of course on the other hand it's supremely annoying that they're working from their own stashed copy, because (as you note and I emphatically agree) our lovely instantaneous wiki-quick edit-save-test loop is broken.
Why can't we have the best of both worlds? They get the co-ordinates from the database dumps, but when a user clicks on the globe icon they get the live page. We should be able to handle the load if our servers are only hit when a user actually tries to read the page.
Is it even legal for them to use the stashed copy? That seems to potentially violate the GFDL in any number of ways.
On 12/13/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
We (and they) are in a rock-and-a-hard-place situation. It's good that they're working from their own stashed copy instead of hitting us live, because I doubt our servers could handle their users' load. But of course on the other hand it's supremely annoying that they're working from their own stashed copy, because (as you note and I emphatically agree) our lovely instantaneous wiki-quick edit-save-test loop is broken.
Why can't we have the best of both worlds? They get the co-ordinates from the database dumps, but when a user clicks on the globe icon they get the live page. We should be able to handle the load if our servers are only hit when a user actually tries to read the page. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/13/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Is it even legal for them to use the stashed copy? That seems to potentially violate the GFDL in any number of ways.
Do they give credit in any way shape or form?
geni wrote:
On 12/13/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Is it even legal for them to use the stashed copy? That seems to potentially violate the GFDL in any number of ways.
Do they give credit in any way shape or form?
Absolutely, and quite adequately, IMO. I've placed a screenshot at http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/GEWiki.jpg for those who are curious.
Looking at the screenshot and reading GFDL 1.2 it looks like they should just a) have a link on each page to the authors/article history and b) release the code for their modified version of the pages. Not sure how appropriate it is for them to use the logo.
On 12/13/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 12/13/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Is it even legal for them to use the stashed copy? That seems to potentially violate the GFDL in any number of ways.
Do they give credit in any way shape or form?
Absolutely, and quite adequately, IMO. I've placed a screenshot at http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/GEWiki.jpg for those who are curious. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/13/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at the screenshot and reading GFDL 1.2 it looks like they should just a) have a link on each page to the authors/article history and b) release the code for their modified version of the pages. Not sure how appropriate it is for them to use the logo.
From that page you are two clicks from the history. Images link to the
image pages. They are only truncating the pages.. no material changes to the text, to whatever extent you could call their display a change, the output on your screen would be the preferred form. They also omit unfree images, at least in so far as they can identify them as such.
The use of the logo was negotiated.
As Thomas Dalton suggested earlier in the thread, their behavior is similar to any of the more conformant mirrors.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
The use of the logo was negotiated.
Glad to hear it. In answer to geni's earlier question whether they were giving credit in any way shape or form, it seemed to me that their use of the logo was a good way *to* give credit, not something for us to be jealous of.
To anyone out there who's worried about this: I'm just one guy, but from where I sit, this is a *very* nice tie-in, and we stand to gain at *least* as much from it as Google does, and quite possibly much more.
On 12/13/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
The use of the logo was negotiated.
Glad to hear it. In answer to geni's earlier question whether they were giving credit in any way shape or form, it seemed to me that their use of the logo was a good way *to* give credit, not something for us to be jealous of.
To anyone out there who's worried about this: I'm just one guy, but from where I sit, this is a *very* nice tie-in, and we stand to gain at *least* as much from it as Google does, and quite possibly much more.
It doesn't seem right to me giving special permission to a company which makes proprietary software and distributes watermarked proprietary maps, some of which are just public domain maps with a watermark and a spurious claim of copyright on them.
Give the special permissions and assistance to the people who make World Wind. Down with Google Earth.
Anthony
On 12/13/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/13/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
The use of the logo was negotiated.
Glad to hear it. In answer to geni's earlier question whether they were giving credit in any way shape or form, it seemed to me that their use of the logo was a good way *to* give credit, not something for us to be jealous of.
To anyone out there who's worried about this: I'm just one guy, but from where I sit, this is a *very* nice tie-in, and we stand to gain at *least* as much from it as Google does, and quite possibly much more.
It doesn't seem right to me giving special permission to a company which makes proprietary software and distributes watermarked proprietary maps, some of which are just public domain maps with a watermark and a spurious claim of copyright on them.
kind of have to agree there. but i guess if you pay off the foundation....
Give the special permissions and assistance to the people who make
World Wind. Down with Google Earth.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/13/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
It doesn't seem right to me giving special permission to a company which makes proprietary software and distributes watermarked proprietary maps, some of which are just public domain maps with a watermark and a spurious claim of copyright on them.
kind of have to agree there. but i guess if you pay off the foundation....
It's not like it's that much money, though. Royalty income doesn't even make its own category on the financials (presumably it's included in the $56 thousand of other income), and with half a million dollars sitting in a bank account earning little or no interest (some of it not even FDIC insured), it's not like the money is desperately needed. I say get behind World Wind and/or some other free software. Make it a point to *not* support Google Earth. That's worth more in my opinion.
And if you're gonna sell out, at least make a decent amount doing so :). I think it's just that Google has a certain blind love from a certain community which overlaps with the former members of Wikimedia. I can understand it, I respect Google and its founders, and I think a lot of the things Google does are great and revolutionary. But I'm also the kind of person who can respect a company but still believe I have a duty to fight against certain things it's doing.
Anthony
On 14/12/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I say get behind World Wind and/or some other free software. Make it a point to *not* support Google Earth. That's worth more in my opinion.
Perhaps a more pragmatic point: Google Earth came up to us and said "hey, we'd like to do XYZ, do you object?" (or something along those lines) This isn't us thinking "hey, be nice to do something like this, let's pick Google as a partner" - it's a project approaching us, with an idea they want to implement, for cooperation. Big conceptual difference, to my mind at least, from us deciding to support one or the other.
On 12/14/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/12/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I say get behind World Wind and/or some other free software. Make it a point to *not* support Google Earth. That's worth more in my opinion.
Perhaps a more pragmatic point: Google Earth came up to us and said "hey, we'd like to do XYZ, do you object?" (or something along those lines) This isn't us thinking "hey, be nice to do something like this, let's pick Google as a partner" - it's a project approaching us, with an idea they want to implement, for cooperation. Big conceptual difference, to my mind at least, from us deciding to support one or the other.
And more to the point, they could have done this without asking, except for the use of the logo. Instead they were willing to negotiate use of the logo, and have made an effort to be compliant like other mirrors, following our own instructions for mirrors.
On 12/13/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote: [snip]
I say get behind World Wind and/or some other free software.
[snip]
I'd love to see world wind with better Wikipedia integration, however world wind has huge Microsoft dependencies and it seems there is no remote hope of getting it to work on my Linux systems anytime soon.. so I can't even help out directly.
World Wind support is a worthy cause, and everyone would like to see it. Please don't mix up worthy causes with what is, frankly, trolling and nonsense speculation about "selling out".
On 12/13/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
World Wind support is a worthy cause, and everyone would like to see it. Please don't mix up worthy causes with what is, frankly, trolling and nonsense speculation about "selling out".
I think the term "selling out" is quite appropriate when an organization dedicated to helping out the free content movement "negotiates" to put its name on software like Google Earth (proprietary software used to distribute proprietary content).
That's probably the difference of opinion I have which you hostilly call "trolling", but if not feel free to point to which part it is.
Anthony
(*) If Gregory Maxwell is correct that the use of the logo was "negotiated", which hasn't yet been confirmed.
I honestly thought the words "selling out" were invoked in a deliberate attempt to be inflammatory, as that's the only reason I'd use them. I guess I misunderstood, sorry.
I don't understand how we could be commited to free content yet opposed to certain groups from making free use of the free content or identifying and promoting its free source. I guess I don't understand your position at all.
It seems I often can't figure you out and I feel bad about that. Perhaps we could meet in person sometime? Your choice of food or drink on me.
On 12/13/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/13/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
World Wind support is a worthy cause, and everyone would like to see it. Please don't mix up worthy causes with what is, frankly, trolling and nonsense speculation about "selling out".
I think the term "selling out" is quite appropriate when an organization dedicated to helping out the free content movement "negotiates" to put its name on software like Google Earth (proprietary software used to distribute proprietary content).
That's probably the difference of opinion I have which you hostilly call "trolling", but if not feel free to point to which part it is.
Anthony
(*) If Gregory Maxwell is correct that the use of the logo was "negotiated", which hasn't yet been confirmed. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/13/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I honestly thought the words "selling out" were invoked in a deliberate attempt to be inflammatory, as that's the only reason I'd use them. I guess I misunderstood, sorry.
In the sentence I used the phrase "sell out", I did put a smiley at the end. I dunno, reading it over again it wasn't meant to be inflammatory, and that actual sentence was meant to be humorous more than anything ("if you're gonna sell out, at least make a decent amount doing so").
Anyway, apology accepted, and since I could have phrased things more nicely I apologize for that.
I don't understand how we could be commited to free content yet opposed to certain groups from making free use of the free content or identifying and promoting its free source. I guess I don't understand your position at all.
I don't have a problem with Google using the free content in Google Earth. I'd like to say hey, if you use the free content then everything you package with it has to be free as well, but the GFDL almost surely doesn't say that, so it's irrelevant.
What I was specifically commenting on was the use of the Wikipedia logo. While you could argue that the logo should be free for anyone to use to identify Wikipedia content, that's not the reality of the situation. So the logo is more than just an identifier, it's a stamp of approval, and I don't think Google Earth deserves Wikipedia's stamp of approval. When there was a similar discussion regarding Answers Corporation I think the best argument against the partnership was based on the fact that the One-Click Answers software was proprietary and therefore not worthy of the Wikipedia name. At the time I still supported giving Answers a trial period while it became more clear whether or not anyone was interested in creating an open source competitor, but in hindsight even that was probably a mistake as it fails the "if you're gonna sell out, at least make a decent amount doing so" test.
Other than the logo, if all Google is doing is downloading the exact same dumps that are available to everyone else, then I don't have any problem with that part. Google is most likely in violation of the GFDL for various reasons, some of which were already mentioned (like having no history section), but so is pretty much everyone else, so that part I've avoided discussing (the next version of the GFDL will fix many of these issues anyway, and if the GNU Wiki License ever gets implemented it might solve all of them).
Finally, you say that Google is "identifying and promoting [the] free source" of the content. But to that I'd say Wikipedia isn't the source of the content, the individual authors are, and Google isn't identifying or promoting us at all. To quote you: "The foundation does not own the copyright to the content of Wikipedia, the editors do, the foundation did not create this encyclopedia the editors did, this project could continue without the foundation but not without the editors."
It seems I often can't figure you out and I feel bad about that. Perhaps we could meet in person sometime? Your choice of food or drink on me.
As far as not being able to figure me out, that's my fault I'm sure, since it's something I hear over and over again. I'll let you know about the meetup thing I guess.
And thanks for all the images you've contributed under a free license. Most of them are way better than anything I've ever done.
Anthony
Gregory Maxwell schrieb:
On 12/13/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote: [snip]
I say get behind World Wind and/or some other free software.
[snip]
I'd love to see world wind with better Wikipedia integration, however
The problem is the google maps hype >> within wikipedia << - nearly everyone got adictted.
HeinzJ
On 12/13/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at the screenshot and reading GFDL 1.2 it looks like they should just a) have a link on each page to the authors/article history and b) release the code for their modified version of the pages. Not sure how appropriate it is for them to use the logo.
From that page you are two clicks from the history.
The history on our servers. Where's their copy?
Images link to the
image pages. They are only truncating the pages.. no material changes to the text, to whatever extent you could call their display a change,
Truncating is modifying.
the output on your screen would be the preferred form. They also omit
unfree images, at least in so far as they can identify them as such.
The use of the logo was negotiated.
Ah. Can you show me a link to that?
As Thomas Dalton suggested earlier in the thread, their behavior is
similar to any of the more conformant mirrors. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.
On 12/13/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The history on our servers. Where's their copy?
Why do they need a copy? It doesn't matter where the history is hosted, as long as it is linked to. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/13/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at the screenshot and reading GFDL 1.2 it looks like they should just a) have a link on each page to the authors/article history and b) release the code for their modified version of the pages. Not sure how appropriate it is for them to use the logo.
From that page you are two clicks from the history.
The history on our servers. Where's their copy?
Our own information on reuse suggests that a link back is sufficient [1]. Whether that's how the GFDL would be interpreted in court or not I can't say, but it hardly seems like something to fault Google for if they're doing precisely what we ask of them.
-Mark
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Example_notice
I agree. And in practical terms, what difference does it make where the history is hosted?
On 12/13/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/13/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at the screenshot and reading GFDL 1.2 it looks like they should just a) have a link on each page to the authors/article history and b) release the code for their modified version of the pages. Not sure how appropriate it is for them to use the logo.
From that page you are two clicks from the history.
The history on our servers. Where's their copy?
Our own information on reuse suggests that a link back is sufficient [1]. Whether that's how the GFDL would be interpreted in court or not I can't say, but it hardly seems like something to fault Google for if they're doing precisely what we ask of them.
-Mark
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Example_notice _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/13/06, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. And in practical terms, what difference does it make where the history is hosted?
technicaly creates problems since you can't rely on the history always being there.
Steve Summit schrieb:
geni wrote:
On 12/13/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Is it even legal for them to use the stashed copy? That seems to potentially violate the GFDL in any number of ways.
Do they give credit in any way shape or form?
Absolutely, and quite adequately, IMO. I've placed a screenshot at http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/GEWiki.jpg for those who are curious. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Nice Picture
Meaning: Wikipedia has the full responsibility for contents and everyone may use the Logo in a similar form.
HeinzJ
On 12/24/06, HeinzJ h-j.luecking@t-online.de wrote:
Meaning:
Wikipedia has the full responsibility for contents and everyone may use the Logo in a similar form.
No you need permission to use the logo.
Is it even legal for them to use the stashed copy? That seems to potentially violate the GFDL in any number of ways.
How? It's no different to any other mirror. As long as they give appropriate credit and link back to the original (technically, they just have to supply a copy of the original wikicode, I think, but linking back is the standard way to do that) they're fine.
On 12/13/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Is it even legal for them to use the stashed copy? That seems to potentially violate the GFDL in any number of ways.
How? It's no different to any other mirror. As long as they give appropriate credit and link back to the original (technically, they just have to supply a copy of the original wikicode, I think, but linking back is the standard way to do that) they're fine.
They have to credit the authors.
They're certainly not acting as a mirror.
On 12/13/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Is it even legal for them to use the stashed copy? That seems to
potentially
violate the GFDL in any number of ways.
How? It's no different to any other mirror. As long as they give appropriate credit and link back to the original (technically, they just have to supply a copy of the original wikicode, I think, but linking back is the standard way to do that) they're fine.
They have to credit the authors.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I like the way it is now. Google's servers load the articles faster than wikipedia servers do, at least for me in Europe. Using the live articles would cause longer load times.
(first post for me in this list, I hope I posted correctly)
On 12/13/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
We (and they) are in a rock-and-a-hard-place situation. It's good that they're working from their own stashed copy instead of hitting us live, because I doubt our servers could handle their users' load. But of course on the other hand it's supremely annoying that they're working from their own stashed copy, because (as you note and I emphatically agree) our lovely instantaneous wiki-quick edit-save-test loop is broken.
Why can't we have the best of both worlds? They get the co-ordinates from the database dumps, but when a user clicks on the globe icon they get the live page. We should be able to handle the load if our servers are only hit when a user actually tries to read the page. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Steve Summit wrote:
We (and they) are in a rock-and-a-hard-place situation. It's good that they're working from their own stashed copy instead of hitting us live, because I doubt our servers could handle their users' load.
Why can't we have the best of both worlds? They get the co-ordinates from the database dumps, but when a user clicks on the globe icon they get the live page. We should be able to handle the load if our servers are only hit when a user actually tries to read the page.
No, that's just what I doubt we could handle. We're on the edge of our capacity a lot, these days, I think, and while I don't know how many Google Earth users there are out there and how often they're going to be clicking on these new Wikipedia placemarks, it could be a *lot*.
No, that's just what I doubt we could handle. We're on the edge of our capacity a lot, these days, I think, and while I don't know how many Google Earth users there are out there and how often they're going to be clicking on these new Wikipedia placemarks, it could be a *lot*.
Maybe we can get Google to donate us an extra server, then.
On 13/12/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
We (and they) are in a rock-and-a-hard-place situation. It's good that they're working from their own stashed copy instead of hitting us live, because I doubt our servers could handle their users' load. But of course on the other hand it's supremely annoying that they're working from their own stashed copy, because (as you note and I emphatically agree) our lovely instantaneous wiki-quick edit-save-test loop is broken.
Why can't we have the best of both worlds? They get the co-ordinates from the database dumps, but when a user clicks on the globe icon they get the live page. We should be able to handle the load if our servers are only hit when a user actually tries to read the page.
You'd think that. We regularly block "live mirrors" and so forth, because we're having enough trouble handling our own load much less anyone else's. The exceptions are usually either low-traffic and vital (there's a smallish email-webpages service operating in Africa which we let grab stuff on demand, IIRC) or paid for (people like answers.com)