http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke
I removed the jokes. Mikka reverted. My reasoning: * no reliable sources for these being considered representative of the classes of joke discussed * this is about the concept of the joke, it is not [[List of jokes]] (and most especially not [[List of randomly selected and generally abysmal jokes]]) * several are gratuitously offensive. It should be possible to read the article on joke, be told that racist jokes exist, but not be subjected to them unless you visit a separate article * WP:NOT a joke book * cruft, cruft, cruft and more cruft. Most are drive-bys.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke
I removed the jokes. Mikka reverted. My reasoning:
- no reliable sources for these being considered representative of the
classes of joke discussed
- this is about the concept of the joke, it is not [[List of jokes]]
(and most especially not [[List of randomly selected and generally abysmal jokes]])
- several are gratuitously offensive. It should be possible to read
the article on joke, be told that racist jokes exist, but not be subjected to them unless you visit a separate article
- WP:NOT a joke book
- cruft, cruft, cruft and more cruft. Most are drive-bys.
Only truly notable jokes should be listed, IMO. Chicken crossing the road, etc. Otherwise, [insert everything you laid out above here]. And no, don't send them to Wikibooks, either, since I know that suggestion was coming from someone. --LV
Much humour involves some kind of offense to a particular group of people. It is a very difficult issue, someone will complain regardless of who is targeted. I do believe, however, that examples of jokes are necessary to an article about jokes (perhaps a couple of audio clips in which famous comedians deliver a joke or two). An article about novels will contain the names of many novels, this not being the case would strike most as odd.
Are there any extremely widely known offensive jokes such that their documentation by us wouldn't be offensive to anyone?
On 11/07/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke
I removed the jokes. Mikka reverted. My reasoning:
- no reliable sources for these being considered representative of the
classes of joke discussed
- this is about the concept of the joke, it is not [[List of jokes]]
(and most especially not [[List of randomly selected and generally abysmal jokes]])
- several are gratuitously offensive. It should be possible to read
the article on joke, be told that racist jokes exist, but not be subjected to them unless you visit a separate article
- WP:NOT a joke book
- cruft, cruft, cruft and more cruft. Most are drive-bys.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/11/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Much humour involves some kind of offense to a particular group of people. It is a very difficult issue, someone will complain regardless of who is targeted. I do believe, however, that examples of jokes are necessary to an article about jokes (perhaps a couple of audio clips in which famous comedians deliver a joke or two). An article about novels will contain the names of many novels, this not being the case would strike most as odd.
Are there any extremely widely known offensive jokes such that their documentation by us wouldn't be offensive to anyone?
Often with racist jokes we get the same jokes repeated over and over with different targets. So in order to document racist jokes we could just give one of these patterns, with [INSERT NATIONALITY HERE], perhaps. Where we are trying to demonstrate playing on /specific/ stereotypes this might be trickier.
On 7/17/06, Abigail Brady morwen@evilmagic.org wrote:
Often with racist jokes we get the same jokes repeated over and over with different targets. So in order to document racist jokes we could just give one of these patterns, with [INSERT NATIONALITY HERE], perhaps. Where we are trying to demonstrate playing on /specific/ stereotypes this might be trickier.
Hmm, there probably aren't many of those. And even still, it might be possible to separate the two, thus saying "common traits of races attacked in racist jokes are as follows: Foobians: big ears, bad table manners." then later "Jokes about big ears: ......."
Thus, I suspect it is not particularly offensive to say "there exist a number of jokes, particularly aimed at Jewish, Dutch and Scottish people, about miserliness". One can then give an example of a joke like "What did the <nationality> man say to the...?" etc. By separating the offensive characteristic from the joke, I think the offensiveness is greatly reduced.
Steve
On 7/11/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Much humour involves some kind of offense to a particular group of people. It is a very difficult issue, someone will complain regardless of who is targeted. I do believe, however, that examples of jokes are necessary to an article about jokes (perhaps a couple of audio clips in which famous comedians deliver a joke or two). An article about novels will contain the names of many novels, this not being the case would strike most as odd.
Are there any extremely widely known offensive jokes such that their documentation by us wouldn't be offensive to anyone?
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
The Aristocrats?
~maru
On 7/17/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any extremely widely known offensive jokes such that their documentation by us wouldn't be offensive to anyone?
Blonde jokes? --LV
On 7/17/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/17/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any extremely widely known offensive jokes such that their documentation by us wouldn't be offensive to anyone?
Blonde jokes? --LV _______________________________________________
Don't know if it was mentioned before in this thread. But accoding to this news report http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/03/joke.funniest/, the supposedly funniest joke is:
*Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy takes out his phone and calls the emergency services.*
*He gasps: "My friend is dead! What can I do?" The operator says: "Calm down, I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence, then a gunshot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says: "OK, now what?"*
Garion
On 7/17/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/17/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any extremely widely known offensive jokes such that their documentation by us wouldn't be offensive to anyone?
Blonde jokes? --LV
That would be offensive to blondes. ;-)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke
I removed the jokes. Mikka reverted. My reasoning:
- no reliable sources for these being considered representative of the
classes of joke discussed
- this is about the concept of the joke, it is not [[List of jokes]]
(and most especially not [[List of randomly selected and generally abysmal jokes]])
- several are gratuitously offensive. It should be possible to read
the article on joke, be told that racist jokes exist, but not be subjected to them unless you visit a separate article
- WP:NOT a joke book
- cruft, cruft, cruft and more cruft. Most are drive-bys.
Drive-by cruft is a good case for [[Wikipedia:Stable versions now]].
All I know is that the old version of the article was a lot more interesting.
On 7/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke
I removed the jokes. Mikka reverted. My reasoning:
- no reliable sources for these being considered representative of the
classes of joke discussed
- this is about the concept of the joke, it is not [[List of jokes]]
(and most especially not [[List of randomly selected and generally abysmal jokes]])
- several are gratuitously offensive. It should be possible to read
the article on joke, be told that racist jokes exist, but not be subjected to them unless you visit a separate article
- WP:NOT a joke book
- cruft, cruft, cruft and more cruft. Most are drive-bys.
Drive-by cruft is a good case for [[Wikipedia:Stable versions now]].
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hi,
User:Kotepho queried the en: database as of July 4, 2006 to get numbers on media we are hosting. The results are at [[User:Kotepho/reports/Images by copyright status statistics]].
In short, we had the following:
853 215 tagged as having a free license 374 304 tagged with a variant of "fair use"
As a point of comparison, Commons has
677 813 media files as of this email's timestamp
Roughly half of our "fair use" images are tagged with the template for "magazine cover" or "promophoto".
Jkelly
*tongue firmly in cheek*
I still fail to see what this has to do with poor [[Wayne Gretzky]].
On 7/13/06, John Lyden rasputinaxp@gmail.com wrote:
*tongue firmly in cheek*
I still fail to see what this has to do with poor [[Wayne Gretzky]].
Stealing my line??? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMain_Page%2FErrors&...
How dare you?!?! ;-) --LV
On 7/13/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/13/06, John Lyden rasputinaxp@gmail.com wrote:
*tongue firmly in cheek*
I still fail to see what this has to do with poor [[Wayne Gretzky]].
Stealing my line???
How dare you?!?! ;-) --LV
Oh I suspect I'll be turned into a newt for this. :P
On 7/13/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
User:Kotepho queried the en: database as of July 4, 2006 to get numbers on media we are hosting. The results are at [[User:Kotepho/reports/Images by copyright status statistics]].
In short, we had the following: 853 215 tagged as having a free license 374 304 tagged with a variant of "fair use" As a point of comparison, Commons has 677 813 media files as of this email's timestamp
Um.
I suspect he's double counting somehow. A month ago there were only 492,308 *total* image pages on enwiki.
Ditto for his fair use numbers.. about 2x reality from my last measurements. The commons total looks about right.
I welcome anyone interested in running stats to contact me for a sanity check on their queries... there are a number of common pitfalls like counting directly from the category tables, and failing to filter for distinct or assuming images will never have a free tag and a fair use tag at the same time... that can cause incorrect results.
In theory, the number of free-content images on en.wikipedia should be close to zero (a few meta-images are acceptable). I'm not sure whether to be more concerned by that fact or by the fact that there are so many fair use images.
On 13/07/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/13/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
User:Kotepho queried the en: database as of July 4, 2006 to get numbers on media we are hosting. The results are at [[User:Kotepho/reports/Images by copyright status statistics]].
In short, we had the following: 853 215 tagged as having a free license 374 304 tagged with a variant of "fair use" As a point of comparison, Commons has 677 813 media files as of this email's timestamp
Um.
I suspect he's double counting somehow. A month ago there were only 492,308 *total* image pages on enwiki.
Ditto for his fair use numbers.. about 2x reality from my last measurements. The commons total looks about right.
I welcome anyone interested in running stats to contact me for a sanity check on their queries... there are a number of common pitfalls like counting directly from the category tables, and failing to filter for distinct or assuming images will never have a free tag and a fair use tag at the same time... that can cause incorrect results. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/13/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
In theory, the number of free-content images on en.wikipedia should be close to zero (a few meta-images are acceptable).
That would mean that somewhere along the line we would have to trust commons though.
On 7/17/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/13/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
In theory, the number of free-content images on en.wikipedia should be close to zero (a few meta-images are acceptable).
That would mean that somewhere along the line we would have to trust commons though.
What's wrong with Commons that we shouldn't upload obviously free En content there? The only problems I've ever had with Commons is the difficulty of getting things which are probably (but not unambiguously) copyvios deleted, because the collective knowledge of US copyright law is pretty low there (or ambivalent when not low, "US shouldn't be our standard" and all that), but never a problem with free content.
FF
On 7/17/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
What's wrong with Commons that we shouldn't upload obviously free En content there? The only problems I've ever had with Commons is the difficulty of getting things which are probably (but not unambiguously) copyvios deleted, because the collective knowledge of US copyright law is pretty low there (or ambivalent when not low, "US shouldn't be our standard" and all that), but never a problem with free content.
FF
Wait- it isn't policy to upload Free images to Commons? I thought it was.
~maru
I thought one of the licenses was free GFDL from en.wikipedia.
On 7/17/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/17/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
What's wrong with Commons that we shouldn't upload obviously free En content there? The only problems I've ever had with Commons is the difficulty of getting things which are probably (but not unambiguously) copyvios deleted, because the collective knowledge of US copyright law is pretty low there (or ambivalent when not low, "US shouldn't be our standard" and all that), but never a problem with free content.
FF
Wait- it isn't policy to upload Free images to Commons? I thought it was.
~maru _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
maru dubshinki wrote:
On 7/17/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
What's wrong with Commons that we shouldn't upload obviously free En content there? The only problems I've ever had with Commons is the difficulty of getting things which are probably (but not unambiguously) copyvios deleted, because the collective knowledge of US copyright law is pretty low there (or ambivalent when not low, "US shouldn't be our standard" and all that), but never a problem with free content.
FF
Wait- it isn't policy to upload Free images to Commons? I thought it was.
It's recommended but not required. There aren't many reasons left to upload free images to en:, but there's some inertia resisting the change. Plus, in the absence of single signon, it would result in many more redundant logins to merge later, so my personal inclination is not to press the issue until after single signon is up and running.
There have been some criticism of commons policy, but I attribute that to commons being genuinely multinational. For instance, en: and de: WP editors are mostly happily unaware of their differing practices, but on commons they can end up butting heads over how to handle a shared image.
Stan
On 7/17/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
It's recommended but not required. There aren't many reasons left to upload free images to en:, but there's some inertia resisting the change. Plus, in the absence of single signon, it would result in many more redundant logins to merge later, so my personal inclination is not to press the issue until after single signon is up and running.
...
Stan
Not quite following you here; what do you mean by "redundant logins to merge later"? It is a bit annoying to have to login to Commons to upload an image, but I don't think that's what you are getting at...
~maru
maru dubshinki wrote:
On 7/17/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
It's recommended but not required. There aren't many reasons left to upload free images to en:, but there's some inertia resisting the change. Plus, in the absence of single signon, it would result in many more redundant logins to merge later, so my personal inclination is not to press the issue until after single signon is up and running.
...
Stan
Not quite following you here; what do you mean by "redundant logins to merge later"? It is a bit annoying to have to login to Commons to upload an image, but I don't think that's what you are getting at...
Yes, that's what I'm getting at. One of the practical headaches with implementing single signon is that there are many thousands of identical usernames. If you can somehow determine that the same username in several projects is actually all the same person, then great, merging is trivial, but there are still thousands for which identity is unclear. Those logins are going to get username changes, but then if the renaming was a mistake, that's some manual work to fix. If we go and pressure 50,000 en: editors to make commons logins today, some percentage of those will need manual fixing too.
Post single signon, it should be possible to set up some semi-automated mass moves to commons, and that will quickly take care of recent en:-only uploads.
Stan
On 7/17/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Yes, that's what I'm getting at. One of the practical headaches with implementing single signon is that there are many thousands of identical usernames. If you can somehow determine that the same username in several projects is actually all the same person, then great, merging is trivial, but there are still thousands for which identity is unclear. Those logins are going to get username changes, but then if the renaming was a mistake, that's some manual work to fix. If we go and pressure 50,000 en: editors to make commons logins today, some percentage of those will need manual fixing too.
Post single signon, it should be possible to set up some semi-automated mass moves to commons, and that will quickly take care of recent en:-only uploads.
Please don't make automated moves.. Commons is not yet as effective at dealing with En's copyright problems as en is.
Also, creating dupe accounts isn't so bad.. so long as they are dupes of you and not dupes of someone else.
On 7/17/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Please don't make automated moves.. Commons is not yet as effective at dealing with En's copyright problems as en is.
Also, creating dupe accounts isn't so bad.. so long as they are dupes of you and not dupes of someone else.
If that's the only concern, wouldn't that be easy to address by only uploading/moving old Free images? (presumably if a picture's copyright status hasn't been discovered in a few months, it won't for a long time, and being on Commons versus en would be a moot issue).
~maru
On 7/17/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/17/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Please don't make automated moves.. Commons is not yet as effective at dealing with En's copyright problems as en is.
Also, creating dupe accounts isn't so bad.. so long as they are dupes of you and not dupes of someone else.
If that's the only concern, wouldn't that be easy to address by only uploading/moving old Free images? (presumably if a picture's copyright status hasn't been discovered in a few months, it won't for a long time, and being on Commons versus en would be a moot issue).
Because the number of completely bogus claims of free content on En is rather large... Commons sets a more strict criteria than en has had historically. There are a large number of images on en accepted with reasonings like "Someone uploaded this, and I assume they weren't trying to violate copyright law, thus thus is GFDL" which would be deleted in a moment..
Experience on commons shows that a large number of the 'free' images imported from other projects are not free.
The move is a great time to reevaluate the claims made, and we lose that with mass automatic moves... So what advantage would automatic moves provide?
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Please don't make automated moves.. Commons is not yet as effective at dealing with En's copyright problems as en is.
That's why I said "semi-automated". For instance, since I know about stamps, my ideal is that I should be able to review the PD-stamp category, move all the dubious ones over to fair use for later disposal, then give a command to move the remainder. Larger amorphous categories could be done in groups, a la FlickLickr.
Also, I would expect that prior to requiring uploads to commons, that commons sign up enough additional reviewers and admins to deal with the added workload. I know there are a bunch of people who would relish commons' "shoot on sight" policy - en: always feels bogged down in legalisms by comparison... :-)
Stan
On 7/17/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Please don't make automated moves.. Commons is not yet as effective at dealing with En's copyright problems as en is.
That's why I said "semi-automated". For instance, since I know about stamps, my ideal is that I should be able to review the PD-stamp category, move all the dubious ones over to fair use for later disposal, then give a command to move the remainder. Larger amorphous categories could be done in groups, a la FlickLickr.
Also, I would expect that prior to requiring uploads to commons, that commons sign up enough additional reviewers and admins to deal with the added workload. I know there are a bunch of people who would relish commons' "shoot on sight" policy - en: always feels bogged down in legalisms by comparison... :-)
Sadily, although common's rules are more restrictive .. their overall enforcement is far more lax (at least past the initial upload). The problems with cross language cross project cooperation result in a lot of difficulty. :(
On 17 Jul 2006, at 21:37, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Sadily, although common's rules are more restrictive .. their overall enforcement is far more lax (at least past the initial upload). The problems with cross language cross project cooperation result in a lot of difficulty. :(
Well I feel this is partly because single signon has been discussed for years now with as far as I can see no progress at all. And en has kept its abysmal image situation going well with no attempt to fix it. People like geni keep saying that once (years back) commons had its front page vandalised. Well en has had copyvio images in its featured articles, and its "fair use" images are a joke.
If all free images in en were on commons, we would all police it more, and with single signon it would be easier, and things could be transwikied.
Can we set a timetable for single signon?
Justinc
On 7/17/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006, at 21:37, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Sadily, although common's rules are more restrictive .. their overall enforcement is far more lax (at least past the initial upload). The problems with cross language cross project cooperation result in a lot of difficulty. :(
Well I feel this is partly because single signon has been discussed for years now with as far as I can see no progress at all. And en has kept its abysmal image situation going well with no attempt to fix it. People like geni keep saying that once (years back) commons had its front page vandalised. Well en has had copyvio images in its featured articles, and its "fair use" images are a joke.
If all free images in en were on commons, we would all police it more, and with single signon it would be easier, and things could be transwikied.
Can we set a timetable for single signon?
I don't know how single signon will address any copyright related problems. That said, I expect that we'll have single sign on real soon now (tm).
As far as en's image problems... if you think nothing is being done to fix it, you're simply out of touch. Compared to a year ago, our image copyright policy is substantially more clear, more strict, and more enforced. We have made it far more likely to catch confused uploads, and we have been fixing a LOT of old problems. There are some occasional regressions, but we've mostly gotten past the times where wikipedians would randomly assign tags in order to rescue unlicensed images. Folks like Carnildo have done and are doing a tremendous amount of work. We still have a long way to go... but to claim that there is no improvement is ridiculous.
Stan Shebs schrieb:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Please don't make automated moves.. Commons is not yet as effective at dealing with En's copyright problems as en is.
That's why I said "semi-automated". For instance, since I know about stamps, my ideal is that I should be able to review the PD-stamp category, move all the dubious ones over to fair use for later disposal, then give a command to move the remainder. Larger amorphous categories could be done in groups, a la FlickLickr.
For your images: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/pushforcommons.php?language=en&max=50&...
For other en images: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/pushforcommons.php?language=en&max=50
Magnus
On 7/17/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
It's recommended but not required. There aren't many reasons left to upload free images to en:, but there's some inertia resisting the change. Plus, in the absence of single signon, it would result in many more redundant logins to merge later, so my personal inclination is not to press the issue until after single signon is up and running.
It's not so much "inertia resisting the change" as "difficulty migrating content to Commons". We don't even discourage people from uploading free content to en.wikipedia. Buried in a whole page of daunting instructions on the upload page is a note that "if you are uploading a file under a free license (not fair use!), consider uploading it to the Wikimedia Commons". Another obstacle is that the descriptions of all the licences are totally different on Commons.
People would probably be happy to upload more to Commons if a) they knew they should, and b) it was easier. Moving stuff from en to Commons easily would be a big boost.
Steve
On 7/17/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/17/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
It's recommended but not required. There aren't many reasons left to upload free images to en:, but there's some inertia resisting the change. Plus, in the absence of single signon, it would result in many more redundant logins to merge later, so my personal inclination is not to press the issue until after single signon is up and running.
It's not so much "inertia resisting the change" as "difficulty migrating content to Commons". We don't even discourage people from uploading free content to en.wikipedia. Buried in a whole page of daunting instructions on the upload page is a note that "if you are uploading a file under a free license (not fair use!), consider uploading it to the Wikimedia Commons".
Well yes. While I may not entirely trust commons I fail to see what it has done to deserve being on the reciveing end of en's image uploads. I don't think anyone hates it that much.
Steve Bennett wrote:
It's not so much "inertia resisting the change" as "difficulty migrating content to Commons". We don't even discourage people from uploading free content to en.wikipedia. Buried in a whole page of daunting instructions on the upload page is a note that "if you are uploading a file under a free license (not fair use!), consider uploading it to the Wikimedia Commons". Another obstacle is that the descriptions of all the licences are totally different on Commons.
Many of en:'s habitual big uploaders have already switched to commons, so it's partly a question of how much we want to encourage smaller-scale uploaders that haven't made the move. It would be interesting to see the results of a query on who has uploaded the most free images to en: in the past year or so, and perhaps ask them their reasons for not using commons instead.
Stan
On 7/17/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
It's recommended but not required. There aren't many reasons left to upload free images to en:, but there's some inertia resisting the change. Plus, in the absence of single signon, it would result in many more redundant logins to merge later, so my personal inclination is not to press the issue until after single signon is up and running.
There's so much benefit to uploading them to Commons (improving the status of Commons as a free repository, getting images used across all of the Wikipedias, etc.), it seems almost criminal to not upload them there.
There have been some criticism of commons policy, but I attribute that to commons being genuinely multinational. For instance, en: and de: WP editors are mostly happily unaware of their differing practices, but on commons they can end up butting heads over how to handle a shared image.
That's my take on it too. Something which seems quite natural to a bunch of US editors, steeped in US copyright notions and law, can often be quite complicated when introduced into a more international forum, without even taking into account language differences. But it generally works out, eventually.
FF
We have to remember that US copyright laws always apply because of the physical location of the servers and Wikimedia.
Adam
On 7/18/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/17/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
It's recommended but not required. There aren't many reasons left to upload free images to en:, but there's some inertia resisting the change. Plus, in the absence of single signon, it would result in many more redundant logins to merge later, so my personal inclination is not to press the issue until after single signon is up and running.
There's so much benefit to uploading them to Commons (improving the status of Commons as a free repository, getting images used across all of the Wikipedias, etc.), it seems almost criminal to not upload them there.
There have been some criticism of commons policy, but I attribute that to commons being genuinely multinational. For instance, en: and de: WP editors are mostly happily unaware of their differing practices, but on commons they can end up butting heads over how to handle a shared image.
That's my take on it too. Something which seems quite natural to a bunch of US editors, steeped in US copyright notions and law, can often be quite complicated when introduced into a more international forum, without even taking into account language differences. But it generally works out, eventually.
FF _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/18/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
There's so much benefit to uploading them to Commons (improving the status of Commons as a free repository, getting images used across all of the Wikipedias, etc.), it seems almost criminal to not upload them there.
Though to be fair, uploading is only half the job. Most people don't realise that categorising them makes them actually useful. At the very least, a category describing the thing it's a photo of: [[Sulfur-crested cockatoo]], [[Kilkenny Castle]] or [[MacDonalds]]. Strangely, we don't seem to mention that fact much.
That's my take on it too. Something which seems quite natural to a bunch of US editors, steeped in US copyright notions and law, can often be quite complicated when introduced into a more international forum, without even taking into account language differences. But it generally works out, eventually.
Examples probably help.
Steve
On 7/18/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Though to be fair, uploading is only half the job. Most people don't realise that categorising them makes them actually useful. At the very least, a category describing the thing it's a photo of: [[Sulfur-crested cockatoo]], [[Kilkenny Castle]] or [[MacDonalds]]. Strangely, we don't seem to mention that fact much.
True enough. The biggest problem with Commons is that the MediaWiki software is not really set up to be an image repository. What works very well for articles does not work so well for groups of files -- it is hard to find things which are uncategorized, it is hard to tell when new things have arrived, and unless you have 200 images on your watchlists it is hard to tell when image descriptions are changed (or vandalized) or the images themselves have been re-uploaded.
Examples probably help.
If you cruise through their IFD you can see a lot of this happening all the time.
FF
On 7/18/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
True enough. The biggest problem with Commons is that the MediaWiki software is not really set up to be an image repository. What works very well for articles does not work so well for groups of files -- it is hard to find things which are uncategorized, it is hard to tell when new things have arrived, and unless you have 200 images on your watchlists it is hard to tell when image descriptions are changed (or vandalized) or the images themselves have been re-uploaded.
Yeah, we do suffer a lot from the "man with hammer/problem looks like a nail" syndrome. MediaWiki is our only tool, so we use it for discussions, storing images, source texts, etc, for which it's really not well suited in many respects.
Steve
On 7/17/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/17/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/13/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
In theory, the number of free-content images on en.wikipedia should be close to zero (a few meta-images are acceptable).
That would mean that somewhere along the line we would have to trust commons though.
What's wrong with Commons that we shouldn't upload obviously free En content there?
They don't have the same objectives at us. In some cases it results in the loss of GFDl history and they allowed the main page to be vandalises.
Hi,
Quoting Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
I welcome anyone interested in running stats to contact me for a sanity check on their queries... there are a number of common pitfalls like counting directly from the category tables, and failing to
Do you have the time to do a "sanity check" on these numbers?
filter for distinct or assuming images will never have a free tag and a fair use tag at the same time... that can cause incorrect results.
A list of images in both categories would be a useful thing for image cleanup.
Jkelly
On 7/13/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Hi,
Quoting Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
I welcome anyone interested in running stats to contact me for a sanity check on their queries... there are a number of common pitfalls like counting directly from the category tables, and failing to
Do you have the time to do a "sanity check" on these numbers?
I did. They aren't sane. ;) I'll run them correctly tonight.
filter for distinct or assuming images will never have a free tag and a fair use tag at the same time... that can cause incorrect results.
A list of images in both categories would be a useful thing for image cleanup.
Will do.
On 7/13/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
User:Kotepho queried the en: database as of July 4, 2006 to get numbers on media we are hosting. The results are at [[User:Kotepho/reports/Images by copyright status statistics]].
In short, we had the following:
853 215 tagged as having a free license 374 304 tagged with a variant of "fair use"
As a point of comparison, Commons has
677 813 media files as of this email's timestamp
Roughly half of our "fair use" images are tagged with the template for "magazine cover" or "promophoto".
"Promophoto" is a very ambiguous and often incorrectly applied template. I have never been happy with it -- most people seem to think that any image which appears unattributed multiple places on the internet counts as promotional photograph.
"Magazine cover" and other media covers on the other hand are pretty straightforward, and are probably legally pretty safe as well (they are transformative, they do not infringe directly upon the market of the image creator, their source is obvious).
So in the case of "promophoto", I'd say having so many of them is probably a bad sign. With "magazine cover", it's not so bad, from a "safe legal Wikipedia" standpoint. (The "we'd like to have more free content" standpoint is another question alltogether.)
FF
On 7/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
- several are gratuitously offensive. It should be possible to read
the article on joke, be told that racist jokes exist, but not be subjected to them unless you visit a separate article
Interesting. How does this principle apply to spoilers?
Steve
I understand your reasoning, but the defoliation of the article -- er ... fills me with deep sadness? It really was a nice, entertaining article, with plenty of examples, even if all of them weren't the platonic ideals of jokes. Now it's dry and uninteresting, difficult to skim, and gives no indication of the incredible volume of content in the humor pages it links to.
There was a wikipedia guideline that I can't remember the name of -- something like "show, don't just tell": if you're writing an article about trees it's good to have a photo of a tree; if you're writing about music, it's good to have a sound clip. This is the same principle. Should we remove all the photos at [[Tree]] because they're not totally reprentative of all trees? It seems like the solution for [[Joke]] is to get an expert review, not to bulldoze a shabby but vibrant public space.
On 7/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke
I removed the jokes. Mikka reverted. My reasoning:
- no reliable sources for these being considered representative of the
classes of joke discussed
- this is about the concept of the joke, it is not [[List of jokes]]
(and most especially not [[List of randomly selected and generally abysmal jokes]])
- several are gratuitously offensive. It should be possible to read
the article on joke, be told that racist jokes exist, but not be subjected to them unless you visit a separate article
- WP:NOT a joke book
- cruft, cruft, cruft and more cruft. Most are drive-bys.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/14/06, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
There was a wikipedia guideline that I can't remember the name of -- something like "show, don't just tell": if you're writing an article
[[WP:GRAPEFRUIT]], from memory.
about trees it's good to have a photo of a tree; if you're writing about music, it's good to have a sound clip. This is the same principle. Should we remove all the photos at [[Tree]] because they're not totally reprentative of all trees? It seems like the solution for [[Joke]] is to get an expert review, not to bulldoze a shabby but vibrant public space.
Totally agree with you. An article about jokes that does not have enough examples to illustrate the concept of a joke is remiss. On the other hand, an article about jokes that includes 50 examples is also in error.
Steve
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:16:45 +0200, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Totally agree with you. An article about jokes that does not have enough examples to illustrate the concept of a joke is remiss. On the other hand, an article about jokes that includes 50 examples is also in error.
I'm happy with that, as long as we can cite reliable sources for the jokes in question being widely considered representative of their type. As it is we don't even have cites for the listed types of joke being considered as such.
*an* eaxmple.
Not twenty examples, mainly added by drive-by anons who just heard this great joke. And definitely not the lets-see-who-can-find-the-most-offensive-joke cruft.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I'm happy with that, as long as we can cite reliable sources for the jokes in question being widely considered representative of their type. As it is we don't even have cites for the listed types of joke being considered as such.
Honestly, I don't really see much need for a reliable source for a joke. If we say that a joke has a premise, a genre, a punchline etc, then we give an example that meets the criteria - I don't really see the harm if we invented the joke on the spot. If a better example comes along, so much the better.
*an* eaxmple.
Or even a couple, if they illustrate different types of jokes, different forms etc.
Not twenty examples, mainly added by drive-by anons who just heard this great joke. And definitely not the
Definitely not. [[Jumping the shark]] is the definitive example of that problem (or at least was, the last time I checked).
lets-see-who-can-find-the-most-offensive-joke cruft.
Definitely, definitely not. But I don't believe in including offensive material in general, except for the most mitigating circumstances. Eg, if a politician's career was ended by telling a short, racist joke, then it might be appropriate to repeat that joke. Maybe.
Steve
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 18:36:15 +0200, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm happy with that, as long as we can cite reliable sources for the jokes in question being widely considered representative of their type. As it is we don't even have cites for the listed types of joke being considered as such.
Honestly, I don't really see much need for a reliable source for a joke. If we say that a joke has a premise, a genre, a punchline etc, then we give an example that meets the criteria - I don't really see the harm if we invented the joke on the spot. If a better example comes along, so much the better.
Policy means nothing here, then? We can allow OR and subjective judgments as to which jokes do or don't represent the genre?
*an* eaxmple.
Or even a couple, if they illustrate different types of jokes, different forms etc.
And a couple becomes three becomes four and before you know it we are back where we were before, with a long list of jokes of variable (generally poor) quality added mainly by drive-by anons.
Not twenty examples, mainly added by drive-by anons who just heard this great joke. And definitely not the
Definitely not. [[Jumping the shark]] is the definitive example of that problem (or at least was, the last time I checked).
Exactly. So: one example, with a good source for it being widely considered representative, is the way to go :-)
lets-see-who-can-find-the-most-offensive-joke cruft.
Definitely, definitely not. But I don't believe in including offensive material in general, except for the most mitigating circumstances. Eg, if a politician's career was ended by telling a short, racist joke, then it might be appropriate to repeat that joke. Maybe.
In the article on offensive jokes, we can include examples of offensive jokes. But in high level articles we should be a bit more considerate.
Mind you, I would also have used :Image: in the Jyllands-Posten article, so I am a notorious censor and suppressor of information :-)
Guy (JzG)
On 7/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Policy means nothing here, then? We can allow OR and subjective judgments as to which jokes do or don't represent the genre?
Honestly, I don't find creating original examples to be in violation of NOR. An article about an element of musical theory would not be in violation if an editor created an original piece of music that demonstrated that theory. Just like we allow people to create original diagrams that illustrate concepts. IMHO anyway. Subjective judgements as to which jokes represent the genre are definitely ok - that's exactly how Wikipedia functions. The entire thing is full of "subjective judgements" as to which comparisons to what are relevant - many articles on cities contain comparisons to other cities, and there are plenty of examples of "subjective" decisions as to whether or not the subjective of an example "represents" some other genre - our whole category system is based on it. Not a problem.
And a couple becomes three becomes four and before you know it we are back where we were before, with a long list of jokes of variable (generally poor) quality added mainly by drive-by anons.
No. You decide collectively how many jokes you want, then put a comment in the text thus:
<joke 1> ... <joke 4> <!-- no more jokes please, see discussion: 4 is the right number -->
Exactly. So: one example, with a good source for it being widely considered representative, is the way to go :-)
One example is too limiting. What would an encyclopaedia do? It would have the "right number" of "good examples". Something that takes what one usually calls "editorial judgment". Very tricky to implement at Wikipedia.
In the article on offensive jokes, we can include examples of offensive jokes. But in high level articles we should be a bit more considerate.
Definitely.
Mind you, I would also have used :Image: in the Jyllands-Posten article, so I am a notorious censor and suppressor of information :-)
Better to be safe than sorry.
Steve
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 23:06:29 +0200, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, I don't find creating original examples to be in violation of NOR. An article about an element of musical theory would not be in violation if an editor created an original piece of music that demonstrated that theory.
Difference is, *everybody* thinks they are a comedian.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 18:36:15 +0200, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, I don't really see much need for a reliable source for a joke. If we say that a joke has a premise, a genre, a punchline etc, then we give an example that meets the criteria - I don't really see the harm if we invented the joke on the spot. If a better example comes along, so much the better.
Policy means nothing here, then? We can allow OR and subjective judgments as to which jokes do or don't represent the genre?
I don't think we require that illustrations need citations to prove they're representative, do we? We do allow subjective judgments on Wikipedia.
That said, academic citations would be cool - I'm sure there are academic papers on jokes.
-Matt
G'day Matt,
On 7/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 18:36:15 +0200, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, I don't really see much need for a reliable source for a joke. If we say that a joke has a premise, a genre, a punchline etc, then we give an example that meets the criteria - I don't really see the harm if we invented the joke on the spot. If a better example comes along, so much the better.
Policy means nothing here, then? We can allow OR and subjective judgments as to which jokes do or don't represent the genre?
[Guy: a wise man once said, "Fuck policy!" If we get worked up over an action that violates policy, it must be because that action is a Bad Thing on its own merits, not merely because "policy says so". Otherwise those of us who care about Wikipedia are looking at a life of enforcing bureaucratic nonsense, eventually leading to madness and an early grave.]
I don't think we require that illustrations need citations to prove they're representative, do we? We do allow subjective judgments on Wikipedia.
I'm sure I've seen diagrams filled to overflowing with references, and I'm quite heartened that someone's bothered to go to that much effort. People like to see virtue in others, so long as it doesn't mean we have to do anything ourselves ;-)
That said, academic citations would be cool - I'm sure there are academic papers on jokes.
There was that "scientific survey" a few years back that was all over the world's papers, which asked: "What is the funniest joke? How do different countries respond to humour?" The various articles I read on the subject all included examples. An AP article about that would make an excellent source for jokes, if we got to arguing over which ones were representative and which weren't.
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:08:19 +1000, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
a wise man once said, "Fuck policy!"
I think that was "fuck process" actually...
Guy (JzG)
G'day Guy,
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:08:19 +1000, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
a wise man once said, "Fuck policy!"
I think that was "fuck process" actually...
I think you're right. I also think a truly wise man would say the same about both ;-)
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:51:23 -0700, "Matt Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think we require that illustrations need citations to prove they're representative, do we? We do allow subjective judgments on Wikipedia.
[[WP:NOR]] suggests otherwise...
Guy (JzG)
I think we just need to keep everything in perspective. Being a NOR nazi (I'm not saying anyone is!) about jokes isn't productive. Throw in some jokes that everyone can get and be done with it.
mboverload
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 06:03:35 -0700, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
I think we just need to keep everything in perspective. Being a NOR nazi (I'm not saying anyone is!) about jokes isn't productive. Throw in some jokes that everyone can get and be done with it.
I'm not trying to be a Nazi about it, just to avoid the inevitable addition of poorer and poorer quality jokes. You know perfectly well that if there is a knock-knock joke in there, the next passing school kid replace it with a ''scatalogical'' knock-knock joke, because after all any joke with rude words in is inherently that much funnier. Or not.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/16/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:51:23 -0700, "Matt Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think we require that illustrations need citations to prove they're representative, do we? We do allow subjective judgments on Wikipedia.
[[WP:NOR]] suggests otherwise...
WP:NOR says: don't attempt to formulate new theories that most experts in the field wouldn't agree with. It doesn't say, don't attempt to draw diagrams or write jokes that most people would find representative.
Steve
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:07:22 +0200, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
WP:NOR says: don't attempt to formulate new theories that most experts in the field wouldn't agree with. It doesn't say, don't attempt to draw diagrams or write jokes that most people would find representative.
Most people? Define most people. How do we tell if "most" people would choose one example over another?
Guy (JzG)
On 7/16/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:51:23 -0700, "Matt Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think we require that illustrations need citations to prove they're representative, do we? We do allow subjective judgments on Wikipedia.
[[WP:NOR]] suggests otherwise...
Then either that page incorrectly describes policy as applied, or you're misreading policy.
-Matt