I'd say this one is going to close as no consensus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...For_Dummies_books
So, friends, can you help me to find merit in this article? To be reconciled to the existence of what up to now I am unable to see as anything other than an absurdity? Or is Tony right, and AfD is fatally borken? Guy (JzG)
On 3/16/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I'd say this one is going to close as no consensus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...For_Dummies_books
So, friends, can you help me to find merit in this article? To be reconciled to the existence of what up to now I am unable to see as anything other than an absurdity? Or is Tony right, and AfD is fatally borken? Guy (JzG)
Non issue. We leave Afd to have their fun that kill it like to copyvio it is. Takeing on the inclusionists head on will probably result in a dummies watch or something.
-- geni
On 3/16/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/16/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I'd say this one is going to close as no consensus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...For_Dummies_books
So, friends, can you help me to find merit in this article? To be reconciled to the existence of what up to now I am unable to see as anything other than an absurdity? Or is Tony right, and AfD is fatally borken? Guy (JzG)
Non issue. We leave Afd to have their fun that kill it like to copyvio it is. Takeing on the inclusionists head on will probably result in a dummies watch or something.
It may be utterly useless garbage, but how is it a copyvio? I was under the impression that non-creative lists of facts (of which I think this is an example) weren't eligible for copyright.
Kirill Lokshin
Agreed, this is taking copyright paranoia too far. There is no creative content in this list, it's just a list of books put out by this publisher.
On 3/16/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
It may be utterly useless garbage, but how is it a copyvio? I was under the impression that non-creative lists of facts (of which I think this is an example) weren't eligible for copyright.
On 3/17/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/16/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/16/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I'd say this one is going to close as no consensus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...For_Dummies_books
So, friends, can you help me to find merit in this article? To be reconciled to the existence of what up to now I am unable to see as anything other than an absurdity? Or is Tony right, and AfD is fatally borken? Guy (JzG)
Non issue. We leave Afd to have their fun that kill it like to copyvio it is. Takeing on the inclusionists head on will probably result in a dummies watch or something.
It may be utterly useless garbage, but how is it a copyvio? I was under the impression that non-creative lists of facts (of which I think this is an example) weren't eligible for copyright.
Kirill Lokshin
It is sorted. For example sorting the books into a "Handheld computing" section is argubly creative.
-- geni
On 3/16/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/17/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/16/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/16/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I'd say this one is going to close as no consensus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...For_Dummies_books
So, friends, can you help me to find merit in this article? To be reconciled to the existence of what up to now I am unable to see as anything other than an absurdity? Or is Tony right, and AfD is fatally borken? Guy (JzG)
Non issue. We leave Afd to have their fun that kill it like to copyvio it is. Takeing on the inclusionists head on will probably result in a dummies watch or something.
It may be utterly useless garbage, but how is it a copyvio? I was under the impression that non-creative lists of facts (of which I think this is an example) weren't eligible for copyright.
Kirill Lokshin
It is sorted. For example sorting the books into a "Handheld computing" section is argubly creative.
Well, it is prefaced with "Note that this list contains some duplicates; some books are part of multiple ...For Dummies series." I'm not terribly familiar with these books; do they have something, like a spine label, giving the series? If that's the case, listing it by these isn't particularly creative on our part.
Kirill Lokshin
On 3/17/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/16/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/17/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/16/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/16/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I'd say this one is going to close as no consensus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...For_Dummies_books
So, friends, can you help me to find merit in this article? To be reconciled to the existence of what up to now I am unable to see as anything other than an absurdity? Or is Tony right, and AfD is fatally borken? Guy (JzG)
Non issue. We leave Afd to have their fun that kill it like to copyvio it is. Takeing on the inclusionists head on will probably result in a dummies watch or something.
It may be utterly useless garbage, but how is it a copyvio? I was under the impression that non-creative lists of facts (of which I think this is an example) weren't eligible for copyright.
Kirill Lokshin
It is sorted. For example sorting the books into a "Handheld computing" section is argubly creative.
Well, it is prefaced with "Note that this list contains some duplicates; some books are part of multiple ...For Dummies series." I'm not terribly familiar with these books; do they have something, like a spine label, giving the series? If that's the case, listing it by these isn't particularly creative on our part.
Kirill Lokshin
It is however creative on the companies part. -- geni
geni wrote:
On 3/17/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/16/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/17/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/16/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/16/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I'd say this one is going to close as no consensus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...For_Dummies_books
So, friends, can you help me to find merit in this article? To be reconciled to the existence of what up to now I am unable to see as anything other than an absurdity? Or is Tony right, and AfD is fatally borken? Guy (JzG)
Non issue. We leave Afd to have their fun that kill it like to copyvio it is. Takeing on the inclusionists head on will probably result in a dummies watch or something.
It may be utterly useless garbage, but how is it a copyvio? I was under the impression that non-creative lists of facts (of which I think this is an example) weren't eligible for copyright.
Kirill Lokshin
It is sorted. For example sorting the books into a "Handheld computing" section is argubly creative.
Well, it is prefaced with "Note that this list contains some duplicates; some books are part of multiple ...For Dummies series." I'm not terribly familiar with these books; do they have something, like a spine label, giving the series? If that's the case, listing it by these isn't particularly creative on our part.
Kirill Lokshin
It is however creative on the companies part.
So we reorder it.
On 3/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
So we reorder it.
I'm not stoping you.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 3/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
So we reorder it.
I'm not stoping you.
I'm not stopping *you* either. If you think it's a copyvio which can be easily fixed, why not fix it instead of jumping up and down screaming "copyvio! copyvio!"?
On 3/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 3/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
So we reorder it.
I'm not stoping you.
I'm not stopping *you* either. If you think it's a copyvio which can be easily fixed, why not fix it instead of jumping up and down screaming "copyvio! copyvio!"?
-- 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
The onus is on the uploader to make sure whatever it is is not a copyvio. If I ripped out the subheading and sorted it into alphabetical order someone would probably try to revert me pretty fast. I'd still need to go through WP:CP in order to kill the history and in anycase wikisource is over there.
-- geni
Can I just make the comment that this thread shows why email is much better adapted to serious discussions that Wiki software is. Most of the comments on AfD are "Delete, per nom" or "Keep <insert brief spiel here>". Whereas on email people are actually able to develop ideas like "it's a copyvio" beyond that simple troublesome phrase.
And to think there was a proposed policy to ban offsite discussion about Wikipedia...:)
Steve
On 3/17/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 3/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
So we reorder it.
I'm not stoping you.
I'm not stopping *you* either. If you think it's a copyvio which can be easily fixed, why not fix it instead of jumping up and down screaming "copyvio! copyvio!"?
-- 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
The onus is on the uploader to make sure whatever it is is not a copyvio. If I ripped out the subheading and sorted it into alphabetical order someone would probably try to revert me pretty fast. I'd still need to go through WP:CP in order to kill the history and in anycase wikisource is over there.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mar 17, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Can I just make the comment that this thread shows why email is much better adapted to serious discussions that Wiki software is. Most of the comments on AfD are "Delete, per nom" or "Keep <insert brief spiel here>". Whereas on email people are actually able to develop ideas like "it's a copyvio" beyond that simple troublesome phrase.
And to think there was a proposed policy to ban offsite discussion about Wikipedia...:)
I propose a new guideline. I call it, "On-wiki policy discussion considered harmful".
On 3/17/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Mar 17, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Can I just make the comment that this thread shows why email is much better adapted to serious discussions that Wiki software is. Most of the comments on AfD are "Delete, per nom" or "Keep <insert brief spiel here>". Whereas on email people are actually able to develop ideas like "it's a copyvio" beyond that simple troublesome phrase.
And to think there was a proposed policy to ban offsite discussion about Wikipedia...:)
I propose a new guideline. I call it, "On-wiki policy discussion considered harmful".
We should combine that with the earlier discussion, though -- just think of how much time a "Policy discussion considered harmful" guideline would save us ;-)
Kirill Lokshin
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:22:52 -0500, you wrote:
We should combine that with the earlier discussion, though -- just think of how much time a "Policy discussion considered harmful" guideline would save us ;-)
We should discuss that policy. Oh, wait... Guy (JzG)
On 3/17/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote: I suspect numbers are a more important difference than softwear.
-- geni
geni wrote:
I suspect numbers are a more important difference than softwear.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:09:44 +0000, you wrote:
It is sorted. For example sorting the books into a "Handheld computing" section is argubly creative.
That's just the sections from the dummies.com website - each subheader contains a straight copy & paste of the identically headed section on dummies.com. Guy (JzG)
It may be utterly useless garbage, but how is it a copyvio? I was under the impression that non-creative lists of facts (of which I think this is an example) weren't eligible for copyright.
It is sorted. For example sorting the books into a "Handheld computing" section is argubly creative.
Guy Chapman already made this point, but it's worth repeating: that "arguably creative" work was evidently done by the publisher, not us.
The claim has been made (and I have no reason to doubt it) that all 46k of that article was cut-and-pasted from the publisher's website.
My own opinion is that, as a general rule, any time you cut-and-paste that much information from someone else's work, it's probably wrong. It may not be wrong because it's a copyright violation per se, but it's probably wrong all the same. Just the fact that you're thinking of cutting and pasting that much information can serve as a simple alarm bell saying "I probably shouldn't do this."
Steve Summit [[User:Ummit]] scs@eskimo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni stated for the record:
Non issue. We leave Afd to have their fun that kill it like to copyvio it is. Takeing on the inclusionists head on will probably result in a dummies watch or something.
-- geni
A simple list cannot be copyrighted, so cannot be a copyright violation. [[Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service]]. Your contempt of correctly-followed process and desire to circumvent consensus has transformed what may once have been merely an assumption into a conclusion supported by hard evidence.
- -- Sean Barrett | UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of sean@epoptic.org | this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, | especially to COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS.
On 3/17/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni stated for the record:
Non issue. We leave Afd to have their fun that kill it like to copyvio it is. Takeing on the inclusionists head on will probably result in a dummies watch or something.
-- geni
A simple list cannot be copyrighted, so cannot be a copyright violation. [[Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service]].
I think the claim of "simple list" is somewhat doubtful. Remove the subheadings and shove it into alphbetical order and you have a case.
Your contempt of correctly-followed process and desire to circumvent consensus has transformed what may once have been merely an assumption into a conclusion supported by hard evidence.
This is going to be good. It adds to my collection of internaly contradictory things I have been accused of. -- geni
On 3/17/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/17/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni stated for the record:
Non issue. We leave Afd to have their fun that kill it like to copyvio it is. Takeing on the inclusionists head on will probably result in a dummies watch or something.
-- geni
A simple list cannot be copyrighted, so cannot be a copyright violation. [[Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service]].
I think the claim of "simple list" is somewhat doubtful. Remove the subheadings and shove it into alphbetical order and you have a case.
Even if it contains some creative work; someone else needs to have made the same list before we did for it to be considered a copyvio. Us Wikipedians are allowed to be creative ourselves. What list are we violating?
Mgm
On 3/17/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I'd say this one is going to close as no consensus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...For_Dummies_books
So, friends, can you help me to find merit in this article? To be reconciled to the existence of what up to now I am unable to see as anything other than an absurdity? Or is Tony right, and AfD is fatally borken?
Merit, you say? Imagine this: There's an article about the Dummies series itself. Imagine this article makes a claim like "Most books are now about lifestyle rather than technical subjects". By linking to the actual list you could form your own impression.
I don't totally accept the "It's on the publisher's website, we don't need to duplicate it" argument. Is the publisher's website going to be published on the Wikipedia 1.0 website? Is it going to be printed? etc etc.
No, I don't see a *lot* of merit in this article. But I don't see that Wikipedia would be much better off without it either. (Assuming it's not a copyvio).
Steve