Based on a list collected by [[user:Bluemoose]], I have generated link-lists at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encarta_Encyclopedia_topics
There are 19 lists, with initially 2000 links each, *including existing links*. The lists will have to be manually cleaned from links to existing articles (due to naming problems, I would not recommend a bot).
I have already done two of these lists (one and a half, to be honest, as #19 was only half full), but now it becomes a PITA ;-)
So please, assist in the effort. Each of the remaining 17 pages has 40 sections to ease editing. If just a few of you do some sections, the lists will be usable pretty soon.
Thanks, Magnus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Magnus Manske wrote:
Based on a list collected by [[user:Bluemoose]], I have generated link-lists at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encarta_Encyclopedia_topics
FNORD!! Copyvio!!! Intellectual property theft!!!
...they wish :)
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Magnus Manske wrote:
Based on a list collected by [[user:Bluemoose]], I have generated link-lists at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encarta_Encyclopedia_topics
There are 19 lists, with initially 2000 links each, *including existing links*. The lists will have to be manually cleaned from links to existing articles (due to naming problems, I would not recommend a bot).
I have already done two of these lists (one and a half, to be honest, as #19 was only half full), but now it becomes a PITA ;-)
So please, assist in the effort. Each of the remaining 17 pages has 40 sections to ease editing. If just a few of you do some sections, the lists will be usable pretty soon.
Please delete this list immediately. Opinions of our legal team are divided about the issue, and I feel that in a case like this, conservatism and caution are called for.
I would delete it myself, except that I'm on a plane.
--Jimb
Jimmy Wales stated for the record:
Please delete this list immediately. Opinions of our legal team are divided about the issue, and I feel that in a case like this, conservatism and caution are called for.
I would delete it myself, except that I'm on a plane.
I win! I got 11 of them; Danny got 9. Tabbed browsing is wonderful.
On 28/08/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Please delete this list immediately. Opinions of our legal team are divided about the issue, and I feel that in a case like this, conservatism and caution are called for.
I would delete it myself, except that I'm on a plane.
I win! I got 11 of them; Danny got 9. Tabbed browsing is wonderful.
Does this include the pages like "Articles missing from both Encarta and Britannica"?
(and if not, do you want to quickly knock them off too?)
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Encarta article list Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:44:44 -0700
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encarta_Encyclopedia_topics
Please delete this list immediately. Opinions of our legal team are divided about the issue, and I feel that in a case like this, conservatism and caution are called for.
Due to the above message from Jimbo, and taking no chances, I went ahead and deleted the Encyclopædia Britannica 2004 list, which was designed in a similiar fashion to the Encarta list. I am not sure what other lists can go, but I think we should not take chances with them if the WMF legal are having issues.
Rgds,
Zach Harden (User:Zscout370)
--- Zachary Harden zscout370@hotmail.com wrote:
Due to the above message from Jimbo, and taking no chances, I went ahead and deleted the Encyclopædia Britannica 2004 list, which was designed in a similiar fashion to the Encarta list. I am not sure what other lists can go, but I think we should not take chances with them if the WMF legal are having issues.
Bullocks. This is legal paranoia. Just merge the lists from different sources, clean-up duplicates, rename entries using our naming conventions, and remove articles we already have. Much of the prep work to get us to a publishable point would need to be done off-line, I'm afraid. But it *can* and should be done.
Copyright may still apply but the resulting work should be distinct enough to not be considered derivative. This is really not any different than exhausting several sources as references to write an article.
For example: I specifically choose to use references that have already encyclopedia-length treatments of the topic I want to write about. I then systematically use almost every single fact in each of those references to write an article for Wikipedia (using my own wording and organization, of course). If that is illegal, then we are in much bigger trouble than anybody thinks.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
And it seems to me, as we've discussed on here before, that it would easily fall under the "fair use" clause. We are using an insubstantial part of their encyclopedia; we are using it for our own internal purposes (it is in the Wikipedia namespace, is it not?); we are non-profit; we are not claiming copyright; we are not defrauding them in any way; we are not even looking at the content itself, just bibliographic information.
FF
On 8/28/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Zachary Harden zscout370@hotmail.com wrote:
Due to the above message from Jimbo, and taking no chances, I went ahead and deleted the Encyclopædia Britannica 2004 list, which was designed in a similiar fashion to the Encarta list. I am not sure what other lists can go, but I think we should not take chances with them if the WMF legal are having issues.
Bullocks. This is legal paranoia. Just merge the lists from different sources, clean-up duplicates, rename entries using our naming conventions, and remove articles we already have. Much of the prep work to get us to a publishable point would need to be done off-line, I'm afraid. But it *can* and should be done.
Copyright may still apply but the resulting work should be distinct enough to not be considered derivative. This is really not any different than exhausting several sources as references to write an article.
For example: I specifically choose to use references that have already encyclopedia-length treatments of the topic I want to write about. I then systematically use almost every single fact in each of those references to write an article for Wikipedia (using my own wording and organization, of course). If that is illegal, then we are in much bigger trouble than anybody thinks.
-- mav
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Bullocks. This is legal paranoia.
I'm sorry, but acting carefully on advice from actual lawyers is not legal paranoia.
Beyond that, of course I agree with the current concept of creating a generally researched list from many sources of topics which we don't have but should.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote
I'm sorry, but acting carefully on advice from actual lawyers is not legal paranoia.
In any case, the big things seem to be going so well for WP ($240K new funds, Alexa rankings up with the IMDB and Canadian Google), that looking for potential snags is rather more like the avoidance of complacency and hubris.
Charles
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Bullocks. This is legal paranoia.
I'm sorry, but acting carefully on advice from actual lawyers is not legal paranoia.
A legal team who was split on the issue. I suggested a very simple way to avoid much of the potential issues; combine the lists. Thus my bullocks statement in regards to deletion instead of merger. Deletion followed by nothing (what was done) is legal paranoia, while merger is a prudent compromise.
Beyond that, of course I agree with the current concept of creating a generally researched list from many sources of topics which we don't have but should.
My point all along (IIRC, the first comment on the Encarta list talk page was from me raising the merger issue).
-- mav
______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
On 9/9/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Bullocks. This is legal paranoia.
I'm sorry, but acting carefully on advice from actual lawyers is not legal paranoia.
A legal team who was split on the issue. I suggested a very simple way to avoid much of the potential issues; combine the lists. Thus my 'bullocks' statement in regards to deletion instead of merger. Deletion followed by nothing (what was done) is legal paranoia, while merger is a prudent compromise.
Simply combining the lists doesn't solve the problem, as it could be deemed to be a derivative work, as others have pointed out.
Beyond that, of course I agree with the current concept of creating a generally researched list from many sources of topics which we don't have but should.
My point all along (IIRC, the first comment on the Encarta list talk page was from me raising the merger issue).
But there is a difference between having the list available to a restricted list of folks, or putting on meta: or in the en:Wikipedia: namespace which is effectively "published."
For example, as part of my research, I have several "article lists" from Encarta, Britannica and some other CD-ROM encyclopedias, but I've hesitated to make them public or contribute them to WP, for exactly this reason. Talking to a few lawyer folks on my campus has effectively convinced me I would not have a strong case for fair use/fair dealing. I'm willing to (and would like to be) proved wrong.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
Andrew Lih wrote:
For example, as part of my research, I have several "article lists" from Encarta, Britannica and some other CD-ROM encyclopedias, but I've hesitated to make them public or contribute them to WP, for exactly this reason. Talking to a few lawyer folks on my campus has effectively convinced me I would not have a strong case for fair use/fair dealing. I'm willing to (and would like to be) proved wrong.
But the only way to prove you wrong would involve having the whole matter end up in court.
Ec
On 8/18/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:
For example, as part of my research, I have several "article lists" from Encarta, Britannica and some other CD-ROM encyclopedias, but I've hesitated to make them public or contribute them to WP, for exactly this reason. Talking to a few lawyer folks on my campus has effectively convinced me I would not have a strong case for fair use/fair dealing. I'm willing to (and would like to be) proved wrong.
But the only way to prove you wrong would involve having the whole matter end up in court.
I know, case law sucks, doesn't it? Such is the nature of fair use. :)
I wonder to what degree some of the lawyers (the cautious half) were taking into consideration the pragmatic issue of getting drowned in legal fees, rather than the legal merits of the issue.
A commie (as in 'mercial) encyclopedia might have an interest in suing Wikipedia, even if it is on the apparent flimsy basis of a claimed "derivative work," (from a list, no less).
I hear lawyers can cost a lot of money. SV
--- Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/18/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:
For example, as part of my research, I have
several "article lists"
from Encarta, Britannica and some other CD-ROM
encyclopedias, but I've
hesitated to make them public or contribute them
to WP, for exactly
this reason. Talking to a few lawyer folks on my
campus has
effectively convinced me I would not have a
strong case for fair
use/fair dealing. I'm willing to (and would like
to be) proved wrong.
But the only way to prove you wrong would involve
having the whole
matter end up in court.
I know, case law sucks, doesn't it? Such is the nature of fair use. :) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
Well, that's implicit in any reasoned legal judgment about these things. It's not just a case of whether one would win on the merits in the end or not, it's whether the opponent has good reason to think that they might win as well. If that's the case, you're in trouble no matter how it goes down, unless you've got a lot of money to burn for a the purposes of principle. The goal of all of our work should be to keep ourselves not only in a situation where we would win should we ever go to court, but also so that the people who would have motivation to sue us would have no reason to believe they could win.
This is why I consider our "fair use" policy in general to be preemptive -- it's a policy of announcing, "Hey, this is what we'll say, and we'll probably win, so don't even try it." It's as close as we can get, in the confines of the current copyright law, of being at all secure in these things, since "fair use" is only a defensive claim (you can't sue somebody for obstructing your "fair use" of their materials, as a counter-example).
If the legal-types think that Encarta or whomever would have a good reason to think they could win such a case, then I'd defer to them. These lists are probably useful but they aren't essential to the project, and the principle they stand for is not, in my mind, really something worth the hassle (in comparison with the other things this project stands for).
FF
On 9/10/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
I wonder to what degree some of the lawyers (the cautious half) were taking into consideration the pragmatic issue of getting drowned in legal fees, rather than the legal merits of the issue.
A commie (as in 'mercial) encyclopedia might have an interest in suing Wikipedia, even if it is on the apparent flimsy basis of a claimed "derivative work," (from a list, no less).
I hear lawyers can cost a lot of money. SV
--- Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/18/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:
For example, as part of my research, I have
several "article lists"
from Encarta, Britannica and some other CD-ROM
encyclopedias, but I've
hesitated to make them public or contribute them
to WP, for exactly
this reason. Talking to a few lawyer folks on my
campus has
effectively convinced me I would not have a
strong case for fair
use/fair dealing. I'm willing to (and would like
to be) proved wrong.
But the only way to prove you wrong would involve
having the whole
matter end up in court.
I know, case law sucks, doesn't it? Such is the nature of fair use. :) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fastfission wrote:
This is why I consider our "fair use" policy in general to be preemptive -- it's a policy of announcing, "Hey, this is what we'll say, and we'll probably win, so don't even try it." It's as close as we can get, in the confines of the current copyright law, of being at all secure in these things, since "fair use" is only a defensive claim (you can't sue somebody for obstructing your "fair use" of their materials, as a counter-example).
This is very true, but there have been cases of costs being awarded when valid fair use claims were improperly attacked.
Ec
But I'd imagine those probably fell under the category of obviously frivolous lawsuits. By their very nature, one can't avoid those. But I'm fairly sure that in most fair use cases, the defendant doesn't get a whole lot, and often doesn't even have their legal fees paid for in the end. That's the impression I got from Lessig's book, anyway.
But I'd be interesting in reading any caselaw where people have won in such instances, if you could send me any references.
FF
On 8/18/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
This is why I consider our "fair use" policy in general to be preemptive -- it's a policy of announcing, "Hey, this is what we'll say, and we'll probably win, so don't even try it." It's as close as we can get, in the confines of the current copyright law, of being at all secure in these things, since "fair use" is only a defensive claim (you can't sue somebody for obstructing your "fair use" of their materials, as a counter-example).
This is very true, but there have been cases of costs being awarded when valid fair use claims were improperly attacked.
Ec
I have always maintaied the a reasonable prima facie case for fair use is enough to sustain us as long as the copyright owner doesn't complain. A reasonable case would include having paid some attention to the law.
If or when he complains he will at least raise the standards. Reviewing the circumstances and complying with his request at that point will cost us nothing. We would only need to consider legal costs if we chose to resist at that point..
Of course there are always people who are willing to start law suits without any merit whatsoever; you can do nothing to prevent those.
Ec
steve v wrote:
I wonder to what degree some of the lawyers (the cautious half) were taking into consideration the pragmatic issue of getting drowned in legal fees, rather than the legal merits of the issue.
A commie (as in 'mercial) encyclopedia might have an interest in suing Wikipedia, even if it is on the apparent flimsy basis of a claimed "derivative work," (from a list, no less).
I hear lawyers can cost a lot of money. SV
--- Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/18/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:
For example, as part of my research, I have
several "article lists"
from Encarta, Britannica and some other CD-ROM
encyclopedias, but I've
hesitated to make them public or contribute them
to WP, for exactly
this reason. Talking to a few lawyer folks on my
campus has
effectively convinced me I would not have a
strong case for fair
use/fair dealing. I'm willing to (and would like
to be) proved wrong.
But the only way to prove you wrong would involve
having the whole
matter end up in court.
I know, case law sucks, doesn't it? Such is the nature of fair use. :)
Quick, someone download the database dump before they update it....
OK, maybe you can nix the "quick" part.
Anthony
On 8/28/05, Zachary Harden zscout370@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Encarta article list Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:44:44 -0700
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encarta_Encyclopedia_topics
Please delete this list immediately. Opinions of our legal team are divided about the issue, and I feel that in a case like this, conservatism and caution are called for.
Due to the above message from Jimbo, and taking no chances, I went ahead and deleted the Encyclopædia Britannica 2004 list, which was designed in a similiar fashion to the Encarta list. I am not sure what other lists can go, but I think we should not take chances with them if the WMF legal are having issues.
Rgds,
Zach Harden (User:Zscout370)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Zachary Harden (zscout370@hotmail.com) [050829 01:19]:
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encarta_Encyclopedia_topics
Please delete this list immediately. Opinions of our legal team are divided about the issue, and I feel that in a case like this, conservatism and caution are called for.
Due to the above message from Jimbo, and taking no chances, I went ahead and deleted the Encyclop?dia Britannica 2004 list, which was designed in a similiar fashion to the Encarta list. I am not sure what other lists can go, but I think we should not take chances with them if the WMF legal are having issues.
If xsomeone could email these pages to me (to dgerard at gmail dot com by preference), I will put them up in private web space of my own and say "fuck 'em".
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
David Gerard wrote:
Zachary Harden (zscout370@hotmail.com) [050829 01:19]:
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encarta_Encyclopedia_topics
Please delete this list immediately. Opinions of our legal team are divided about the issue, and I feel that in a case like this, conservatism and caution are called for.
Due to the above message from Jimbo, and taking no chances, I went ahead and deleted the Encyclop?dia Britannica 2004 list, which was designed in a similiar fashion to the Encarta list. I am not sure what other lists can go, but I think we should not take chances with them if the WMF legal are having issues.
If xsomeone could email these pages to me (to dgerard at gmail dot com by preference), I will put them up in private web space of my own and say "fuck 'em".
I also would be willing to host a mirror offsite; send it to alphasigmax at gmail dot com with "Wikipedia" in the subject :)
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
If xsomeone could email these pages to me (to dgerard at gmail dot com by preference), I will put them up in private web space of my own and say "fuck 'em".
That may be OK for now, but longer term we should combine all the lists by letter, weed out duplicates, and then rename the entries based on our naming conventions. We can do this letter by letter and only work on a small number of letters at a time. I dont think that would have nearly as serious copyright concerns as what we were doing. It will also make a better list to work from.
-- mav
______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Please delete this list immediately. Opinions of our legal team are divided about the issue, and I feel that in a case like this, conservatism and caution are called for.
A single source list like this may very well be in a legal gray area. But would not a list that was derived from multiple sources minus articles we already happened to have be OK? Certainly this would be legal given the fact that in the U.S. an alphabetical list of names with addresses by it has *no* copyright protection.
I don't feel that out-right deleting is in order. A merger with the other lists first *is*.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Please delete this list immediately. Opinions of our legal team are divided about the issue, and I feel that in a case like this, conservatism and caution are called for.
A single source list like this may very well be in a legal gray area. But would not a list that was derived from multiple sources minus articles we already happened to have be OK? Certainly this would be legal given the fact that in the U.S. an alphabetical list of names with addresses by it has *no* copyright protection.
I don't feel that out-right deleting is in order. A merger with the other lists first *is*.
I agree. AFAICT, the lists had already been trimmed for things that we already had articles. I support temporary undeletion and merging of these lists. All Encyclopedia lists if neccessary, even 1911EB (though it should be noted next to these that a 1911EB article exists, since these are PD already).
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
--- Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. AFAICT, the lists had already been trimmed for things that we already had articles.
I can see a valid argument that if all we did was trim each list, then the resulting work may be considered derivative and thus not legal. More than that should be done to be safe
ASIDE: The phone book analogy I previously stated may not apply since a phone book is an unimaginative exhaustive list of names and numbers organized alphabetically, while an encyclopedia's list of topics is a tiny sub-set of human knowledge chosen for relevance. Thus the first has no copyright protection, while I can see a strong argument that the second may.
I support temporary undeletion and merging of these lists. All Encyclopedia lists if neccessary, even 1911EB (though it should be noted next to these that a 1911EB article exists, since these are PD already).
That sounds like a good plan to me. But much of the merger work should be done off-line just to be on the safe side. Several people could each take a letter in the alphabet from each list to work on off-line. Then people will work on each resulting letter-list the same way they are now once it is put onto Wikipedia.
There will be a bottleneck at the offline merger stage, but we can still do this. It will just take a bit more work and a bit longer than the way we were doing it (although merging the different lists may also reduce duplicated effort).
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com