--- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> wrote:
> It is very poor form, at the very least,
> for them to call themselves "A Wikipedia".
> They may be a Wiki, they may be a Wiki Encyclopedia,
> but they are not "A Wikipedia".
I have some excellent news. After contacting the
Diagonal Media Group, the parent company of
PhatNav.com, they have replaced the claim that they
are "A Wikipedia" with a more appropriate title for
their pages. Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation,
are, of course, still linked to at the end of each
>From: "Diagonal Media Group Service Desk"
>Subject: Trademark violation
>Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 21:00:54 -0400
>Thank you Angela.
>I'm forwarding this to my engineer.
>The wording on the top of the pages was to have
>changed. I'm sure he can make this change.
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
>I propose a real-life case to all Foundation Board
>candidates. I expect that all candidates are on this
>mailing list naturally.
>Say, you are on the board of Wikimedia Foundation.
>A user from a rather minor wikipedia contact the
>foundation mailing list, to ask for help on setting a
>local association. This user is currently working on
>the status of the future association with her peers,
>and naturally should set status that are in coherence
>with the Foundation principles themselves.
>Now, it so happens that when you were a candidate a
>while ago, and while candidating, you indicated as
>PART of your platform, that indeed helping smaller
>wikipedias were an issue to you, and that you would
>HELP set local chapters.
>Indeed, the user of the minor wikipedia is VERY
>encouraged by the fact you put local chapter
>considerations in your plateform, so that she knows it
>is IMPORTANT to you, so of course, she is confident
>you will answer and bring help.
>So, here she is, bringing the issue on the mailing
>list, and asking help...
>Question : what do you do ?
I apologize for not responding more quickly, and for resurrecting the
topic so late, but since Anthere addressed the question to me among
others, I feel I should respond. I have family visiting this weekend, so
I haven't been able to devote much time to the discussion here. The
penalty I pay is that everyone has said much of what I would say already.
First of all, having some information on Meta is definitely needed, and
I'm glad to see that Yann started a stub at the page Angela suggested.
Also, I would ask this person some additional questions, to determine
what kind of help they need. For instance, right now I don't necessarily
know what kind of association this person has in mind. Are they looking
to do some fundraising at a local level, and do they need non-profit and
tax-exempt status for this? Are they trying to create an organization
that will be able to interact with other institutions, such as media
organizations? Are they trying to form a body to have some sort of
governing role in this "minor" Wikipedia? Or are they thinking of an
association primarily in terms of a group that meets together on a
social basis? Also, do they know of anyone else that is interested and
wants to participate in the proposed association? Would the association
be related to a location (e.g., a Moscow chapter for the Russian
Wikipedia), or would it be universal for that particular Wikipedia?
Part of the purpose of these questions is to evaluate whether this needs
to be an official chapter of the Foundation, or whether they could do
just as well as an unofficial body. A social networking group probably
doesn't need official status (which is not to say that I wouldn't be
willing to assist them in getting started). But if the association wants
to raise funds for a particular project, or represent the Foundation in
an official capacity, it should have a more direct connection. We can
have different models for official chapters, depending on which of these
functions are needed. Naturally, the guidelines for creating official
chapters should allow the community on that Wikipedia to make as many
organizational decisions as possible, as long as basic principles and
the relationship to the Foundation are clearly established.
It may not be quite fair to answer a question with a bunch more
questions, but I don't have a glib answer to give this hypothetical
person. I would rather find out more about the situation, so that I know
what guidance the person needs, and how I can best help out.
I propose a real-life case to all Foundation Board
candidates. I expect that all candidates are on this
mailing list naturally.
Say, you are on the board of Wikimedia Foundation.
A user from a rather minor wikipedia contact the
foundation mailing list, to ask for help on setting a
local association. This user is currently working on
the status of the future association with her peers,
and naturally should set status that are in coherence
with the Foundation principles themselves.
Now, it so happens that when you were a candidate a
while ago, and while candidating, you indicated as
PART of your platform, that indeed helping smaller
wikipedias were an issue to you, and that you would
HELP set local chapters.
Indeed, the user of the minor wikipedia is VERY
encouraged by the fact you put local chapter
considerations in your plateform, so that she knows it
is IMPORTANT to you, so of course, she is confident
you will answer and bring help.
So, here she is, bringing the issue on the mailing
list, and asking help...
Question : what do you do ?
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
"Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> schrieb:
> > I think the effect will rather be opposite. By introducing many things
> > at once, it is likely that some will not be used that would be if
> > presented separately.
> I find it difficult to believe that we would generate a lot of interest
> with an announcement that we have now a shared media repository, but that
> it isn't possible to use images from there anywhere without re-uploading
> them, that there is no improved upload form, no transparent inclusion of
> images, etc. I think it would generate about the same interest that
> Wikisource did, with a few people like yourself starting to put up what
> they've been wanting to put somewhere for a long time and creating the
> basic structure (with the associated problems I have described below).
Perhaps. I'd say it's worth the try. And I don't think that waiting until
we have all that will make the enthousiasm any larger. At least when we
put it up, _something_ will be made. And in a few month's time, it may
well be something useful. The alternative is to wait a few months, then
set something, and a few month's time from _then_ have something useful.
> On the other hand, when we launch the Commons in one fell swoop, with all
> the changes - the brandnew upload form, the single login, the transparent
> inclusion if images, perhaps a "Move to commons" button on image pages -
> that will certainly generate a lot of interest in "What's going on over
> there?" and thanks to single sign-on, people can try it out immediately
> without having to set up yet another account.
And what do they find? Another wiki where they can login and upload images
to. Hurray! That's going to generate a lot of interest! Now when I push
this button it does not go to wikipedia but to wikicommons. Let's see
what it is. Hey! An image description page! Wow! Now my image description
page is on another Wiki!
That's not what is going to interest people for this. What gets people
interested is _content_. Thousands of pictures, and a method to easily
find one that you need to complete your article.
> > Also, I think we can diide the users of Wikicommons in two groups - those
> > directly interested, and those who are interested because it helps them
> > with another project. The first group can be got without extra features.
> > The second group will more likely be caught with content than with
> > features.
> I think the first group is very small, and I think the second group will
> be initially interested, but turned away by the samll things like having
> to create a new account, having to re-upload files, etc. Most people have
> a very low tolerance of frustration, especially when working on hobby
> projects. That's why usability is so essential, and the features we want
> are really usability features. For example, I also think that
> participation on Meta would be much greater if we had single sign-on.
They will not get turned away by those things. They will get turned away
by lack of content, by lack of usefulness of the WikiCommons for their
own projects, like a Wikipedia article series. And the solution for that
is not to make things easier, but to make them more useful.
> >> - The initial edits on a wiki lay the foundation of what that wiki will
> >> become. If just a few people get involved in this project, because it
> >> offers no really cool, exciting possibilities, then the project foundation
> >> may well not be as solid as it could be. For example, people may decide to
> >> create image categories and upload requirements in the first two weeks.
> >> This structure will then become harder and harder to change as it seeps
> >> in, and when we add all the new cool features which attract more people --
> >> a better upload form, transparent use of commons media from all wikis,
> >> single sign-on -- it may already be too late to quickly and effectively
> >> fix certain problems. Too much may have grown into the structure already.
> > Again, the cool, exciting features are I think not what draws people to the
> > project. Their own wish for a project like this, and the content of the
> > project are the more likely elements.
> See above.
> > Problems like you describe will definitely happen, but I think they will
> > happen just as much if we wait as when we don't.
> Why do you think that?
Why do you think they will not? Are people going to make a better site
structure because they don't need to login? Are people going to make
better descriptions of their pictures because they can use them without
re-uploading? That's ridiculous!
There's one thing I'm certain of, though. There is one way to be certain
that noone is going to be interested in something, and that is by not
offering it in the first place. And three months of having the thing
with little interest will still create more useful content than three
months of not having it at all.
"Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> schrieb:
> Well, this doesn't address my technical concerns - makes single sign-on
> more difficult to add when an account database already exists, existing
> images will have to be duplicated again - and I fear that in terms of
> policy, it would make things even worse when only a small group of people
> sets the initial project policies.
I don't see why single sign-on should be easier to implement on 300 existing
Wikis and 1 new one than on 301 existing ones. Duplication is going on anyway,
and waiting to start this up until there's a significant number of people
sounds self-defeating. Besides, policy has been discussed for months already,
and practice at other projects is that it's formulated by the few people
who start it anyway.
Ronny Raschkowan wrote:
>>So I went here to ask you, what you would think about an case sensitivity
>>for _all_ Wiktionaries.
I solicited opinions on this matter at japanese wikipedia. So far, all
people said case sensitivity is good. Because it is too early to tell if
that is the concensus, I will post a follow-up if this discussion will be
active for a while and needs further input from various wiktionaries.
Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN
"Toby Bartels" <toby+wikipedia(a)math.ucr.edu> schrieb:
> So perhaps the solution is to launch it ''without'' great fanfare???
> Let's be very clear that founding the blank wiki now is a trial run,
> with problems that we expected all along and have plans to fix.
> This is very much in the spirit of Wikipedia's own founding,
> so I believe that folks will understand.
Whether I agree, depends on what you mean by 'without fanfare'. If
'without fanfare' means that people are not really informed that it
is made at all, then no. If 'without fanfare' means that people are
warned that it's just a first try, that changes should and will
be made in the coming months, and that an important part of the
announcement is a repeated call for people to help Erik get his
features in, then I give you a resounding yes.
"Ulrich Fuchs" <mail(a)ulrich-fuchs.de> schrieb:
> Exactly - our only way out of the license issues we currently have is to
> persuade the FSF to change it - a new license would apply to all *existing*
> articles without requireing an additional statement from the authors.
> However, if I remember correctly, we had some discussion in Germany some
> yeras ago that this particular point of the GNU Licenses (that the author
> license it's wark under whatever license the FSF will change it's current one
> into) would not be legal according to german law. I don't know if and how
> this was settled and if that's still an issue; I just wanted to mention that
> we possibly could run into difficulties here. But it's a very minor risk in
> my opinion, so it should not stop us from these talks with the FSF.
Well, if you want an even worse legal problem: In the Netherlands it seems
creating a published work cooperatively in the Wiki way is illegal - a writer
cannot sign away their right to object to their work being published in a
--- Tomos at Wikipedia <wiki_tomos(a)hotmail.com> wrote on WikiEN-l:
> Mav, you are right in that the effect is limited because we cannot
> retroactively apply the second license to past edits. But if we consider the
> effect, it seems it is still better to introduce it than not, and we would
> do just as Electicology suggested:
Sorry, it is simply not possible to create a derivative dual licensed work from
a GFDL-only licensed article. Doing so would be a violation of the copyright of
everyone who submitted the GFDL-only text. Dual licensing would also make it
impossible to accept any new GFDL-only text.
We are stuck with the GFDL as is until the FSF makes changes to that license.
Let's concentrate on improving the license we have - Jimmy has already stated
that the FSF and CC people are interested in this type of thing.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.