Hello, I´m new on the list!
I think that this method may be a little trickier to implement than a more
general model (we´re talking only about images and their freedom and type):
the link to a img could be IMG_link:Free_or_Non_Free_BOOL:License always.
Then we could have a page describing (printable) about all the licenses
(being easier to add more as they appear).
The printing CSS could distinguish wether a Img is printable and link the
license at will. Same as to showing at a CSS-compliant browser.
Just some ideas,
Bruno Longo (Brazil)
> >
> > We use the following tags whenever possible:
> > {{GFDL}}
> > {{DomainePublic}}
> > {{FairUse}}
> > {{LicenceInconnue}} (unknown)
> >
> > So later on, we can either clarify or remove the unknown licence images.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yann
Can someone set up another db as a memorial wiki for non-9/11 memorials?
I just took a refreshing dip in the VfD drainage pit, and was reminded
that we still have no
place for the scads of well-intentioned memorial pages and obits of
people who have been
deemed too unencyclopaedic for WP, making exception for th victims of 9/11.
There have been many different discussions about setting up a
Wikimorial or some alternately
named memorial wiki -- I think this would be an excellent idea. It
hurts noone, can be clearly
identified by skin and disclaimers as distinct from WP, and will
provide a place for people who
are interested in a genealogy wiki (cf. [[m:Wikifamily]]) to start
putting information.
I regularly see VfD comments of the form "transwiki to memorial and
delete"; where do those
end up at present? There are a number of non-9/11 memorial transwikis
listed at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Old , but
not nearly as many as
have passed through VfD in recent months.
+sj+
You all know the IRC channel, no? #wikipedia on irc.freenode.net? And
its small army of related channels?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_channels has the dirt.
Up until this point, our relationship with Freenode has largely been
ad hoc. Eloquence registered #wikipedia some time ago, and for a long
time that and the other channels were just managed as necessary.
However, Freenode also allows groups to set up an official contact
with Wikipedia. A few months ago, I took some initiative, filled out a
little form and answered a phone call and got designated as
Wikipedia's Group Contact with Freenode. (I wanted a .wikipedia
username cloak, and you needed a group contact to manage that, so...)
I've used this position mostly to give out similar IRC cloaks.
Recently, I used my group-contact status with Freenode to gain
temporary operator status to ban Michael and Lir, who had just joined
the channel to brag about their recent exploits on WP:RFA, and to stir
up ill will. Profanities were being thrown. About this time, Fire had
also set himself up as a contact, using the same credentials (some
sysop power, et cetera), and has undertaken to straighten out the
Wikipedia-related channels. In particular, he got added as a level-30
contact in #wikipedia, and added several people with ChanServ access
which would allow them to become operators.
While this is useful, and the people added were trustworthy, this
brings up a salient point. We don't just want anyone- or even any
sysop- to be able to come on and reorganize the channel structure or
anything. I think it would be useful if the Board could appoint an
Official Freenode Liason to be the #1 group contact, and if we could
decide how we would like to have these sorts of affairs managed.
The contact has a few properties: he (or she) can contact Freenode
staff and ask for a change in ownership of a project-related channel,
for access to the channel, for temporary operator status, or anything
related to the projects' channels which he cannot do by himself.
Additionally, the contact is responsible for asking Freenode staff to
apply "cloaks" for the users' hostmasks. I have used this and page on
the English wikipedia to set up people with username "Foo" as
"Foo.wikipedia" on IRC. This provides a way to prove that you are who
you say you are on IRC. However, we are running into the problem of
language-related requests, and since we don't have a unified login,
there is room for confusion. At present I have reccomended to Fire
that we keep cloaks a per-language setting, and having
user.XX.wikipedia as a cloak, where XX is a language code, *except* if
the language is English, in which case it is not used (although we
could change this if desired).
There has also been talk about a Q: line for the Recent Changes bots'
nicknames. This would prevent someone using the <enrc> or
categorically similar nicknames without authorization.
I think that all of these issues could be best resolved if we had
official sanction for at least one #1 Head Honcho group contact, and a
good place to manage these affairs.
--
You keep using that word...
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Well, I'm glad the copyright issues have been cleared up. Thank you everyone for your responses.
Is any work being done to allow the tagging of images as copyrighted or GFDL? I would like to see this happen before we have millions of copyrighted images on wikipedia. Otherwise, it could be a lot more work trying to find the copyrighted images to tag them. It concerns me that some of our free (as in freedom, not beer) content is dependent on non-free content. However, if we can draw a clear line between copyrighted and GFDL content on the database side of things, I think this will help keep the free and non-free content separate, allowing anyone to use our free content freely, without a risk of accidentally including non-free content.
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:07:14 +0200, Yann Forget <yann(a)forget-me.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le Wednesday 11 August 2004 08:49, Michael Snow a écrit :
>
> (...)
> > But online content is not that big of an issue really, because anyone
> > who says we're infringing on their copyright has to give us a takedown
> > notice first, and we can remove the offending image. The real problem is
> > print. And once you get to print, I have a _very_ hard time buying any
> > argument that the image which illustrates an article is somehow a
> > separate and independent work from the article text. The one kind of
> > print version for which I might entertain this argument is if the images
> > are segregated as is done in many books, on separate glossier facing
> > pages or in a batch of illustrations in the middle of the book. But in
> > the routine print version, where the image is printed out on the same
> > page as the article, they look like part of one document and I don't see
> > how you can make much of a case that they're not. As a result, I think
> > the article as a whole, _including_ associated images, is the smallest
> > Document to which we can legitimately atomize the GFDL.
>
> I would agree with you on the interpretation of the GFDL, but I think that the
> online and paper projects have to be treated differently.
> Some people even say that the WMF should never publish a paper edition on its
> own, and they may have some good points, but IANAL.
>
> Anyway, I think it's the responsibility of the publisher of the paper edition
> to remove fair use images. So it is important that images are clearly tagged,
> so they can be easily removed with a simple SQL query.
>
> And I can imagine another scenario where an organisation could buy the rights
> of copyrighted images to include them in a paper edition. But I can't say if
> this would be valid under the GFDL.
>
> > --Michael Snow
>
> Yann
>
> --
> http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
> http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre
> http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
--
Michael Becker
Hi, this is my first mail to this list, to which I've just subscribed.
I understand the below discussion has been moved here?
The discussion in question concerns various issues I described in
detail on a password-protected area of my website (as there were
problems w/ list members receiving the relevant HTML file containing my
writings). I would invite list members here to also read this page.
From a previous email I sent:
> I have thus now posted my "little paper" on my website, at:
> http://www.ropersonline.com/Area_51/wikipaedia.html
capitalization matters on the URL, btw.
> Note that Area 51 is restricted access only. Please log on as follows:
> user name: guest
> password: 1ns4nI+y
> The clear text password is of course only a modest precaution -- I
> just don't want to give the rascal I'm exposing there easy opportunity
> to sue me.
> Please feel free to pass these account details on to other *trusted*
> Wikipedians.
>
> _Please, PLEASE DO have a look at it and read it!_
>
> Please, let's start tackling these issues! If there is a better place
> to take this, please tell me so! -- I am still fairly new and chances
> are I'm just not aware of it.
> I really do want these issues addressed!
In case people have commented on this issue already, I would be very
grateful to be forwarded copies of any relevant emails. I would not
have received them previously as I wasn't a list member till now.
In response to my email, Angela_ responded as follows:
On 11 Aug 2004, at 16:29, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:59:25 +0100
> From: Angela_ <beesley(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: domain donation, cybersquatter, our copyright
> To: foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
> Cc: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <8b722b800408101459821267b(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> (moving thread from wikien-l to foundation-l. Please reply there)
>
> Jens Ropers wrote:
>
>> 1. I am seeking to donate the wikipaedia.net domain name (which I have
>> registered) to the Wikipedia Foundation.
>
> Thank you for offering us this. My only concern is that confusion
> could arise if we own wikipaedia.net but not the other wikipaedia
> domains. If we don't own any of them, it's more obvious that
> wikipaedia is nothing to do with us.
True, but that confusion is already there. People /are/ accessing
wikipAEdia domains. I did. Also, as I observed in my wikipaedia.html
paper above, Dr. Schlabeck is actively furthering that confusion by
impersonating us and linking to us in a confusing (non-working) way.
(See Gripe #1, #3 and #4.)
We're not helping ourselves by avoiding the battle and "yielding
ground". We should claim and hold what ground is rightfully ours and
systematically pursue our claims on the domains Dr. Schlabeck currently
controls. (Sorry about the militaristic lingo. Couldn't think of a
clearer way to put it.)
I would also suggest that things get implemented as follows as far as
DNS servers:
1. Make wikipaedia.net /redirect/ to wikipedia.org, so that users
hitting wikipaedia.net will find themselves looking at the Wikipedia,
/with/ a wikipedia.org URL in the address bar. (And let's /not/ put in
one of those silly 5-second-delay-to-redirect, "please change your
bookmarks" pages. Those are pretty friggin useless anyway.
2. Configure the DNS boxen in such a fashion that, say, a URL of
http://en.wikipaedia.net/wiki/Charlie_Muffin will automatically
redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Muffin. This may be
slightly controversial in that there's the downside that such a
"forgiving" behaviour might encourage people to keep using the "wrong"
URL. On the other hand, as long as it fully redirects to the correct
.org address, there shouldn't be much to worry about as people will
realize very quickly that our "main" URL is wikipedia.org. And it's not
as if we had to fear loosing wikipaedia.net anytime soon.
I've also email Jimmy on this -- no reply yet -- because I wanted to do
the actual turning over of the domain directly to him, to avoid any
possible issues, say, with someone untrustworthy reading this list,
grabbing the domain and sodding off with it.
In the meantime, the suggested DNS changes could already be
implemented! :)
I don't have a DNS server and I don't have the option to directly enter
a redirection URL with my domain name registrar (i.e. they're not
offering DNS services for this domain-name-only account). What I can
enter are DNS server addresses. So if the appropriate Wikipedia admins
(Jimmy?) were to include the appropriate records with their name
servers (possibly zwinger.wikipedia.org and gunther.bomis.com?), I
could then enter these server addresses into the wikipaedia.net domain
control panel and things should be working, even before the actual
domain ownership gets formally transferred to the WP Foundation.
>> 2. A particularly bad serial cybersquatter is controlling
>> wikipaedia.org, wikipaedia.com and wikipaedia.de. We really should get
>> these domains off him (and would be able to do so).
>
> I asked in the German IRC channel about this. Maybe I'm assuming too
> much good faith, but I think we ought to approach that site owner in a
> friendly way at first before we get too heavy handed. Sansculotte is
> going to take this to the VereinDE-l mailing list and discuss it
> there. Hopefully someone who speaks German can contact the site about
> this. We might well get no reply, but at least we can say we tried
> before taking this any further. It is worth noting that Akl was
> successful in getting the wikipedia.ch and wikipedia.at domains back,
> so perhaps this can be successful too.
>
> Angela.
True, it can't hurt to ask -- and it's The Right Thing™.
However, I still have my doubts, because Dr. Schlabeck is not only
cybersquatting on us but also impersonating us and infringing our
copyrights (see Gripe #1, #2, #3 and #4). To top things off, he seems
to be a truly "remarkable" serial cybersqatter (see Gripe #5). I think
what'll happen is this:
1. He'll claim ignorance on the content copyright infringement and
impersonation issues ("I thought it was free!").
2. He'll demand cash, and not only cash but extortionate sums for the
wikipaedia domains he currently controls.
But -- true enough -- it can't hurt to ask. It actually strengthens our
case.
As regards the VereinDE-l mailing list, well, actually, I happen to
speak German. So I'll join the VereinDE-l ML (any minute now...) and
see what can be done there. (I was actually hoping others to take over
the baton from me with these things, because I've already spent quite a
bit of time on this. ;-) Anyhoo, the wikipaedia.de and content
infringement issues are probably better dealt with by the German Verein
(because the domain and content in question are German).
BUT:
I would still suggest tackling the wikipaedia.com and wikipaedia.org
issues from our end, because these issues concern us more than our
German Verein. Plus, we don't even have to sue: It is /perfectly
sufficient/ to pursue our claims on these gTLD domains under the ICANN
UDRP! (And, IANAL, but the way I read the UDRP we're pretty much
/guaranteed/ to win there. The only semi-legitimate "claim" Dr.
Schlabeck could put to the domain is to say the -paedia bit stood for
Paediater (German for pediatrician) --- but he's a psychiatrist, not a
pediatrician!) Anyways, if needed I could translate agreed-upon
Schlabeck-addressed correspondence to German (if it's not too long.)
Besides, IMHO we needn't necessarily worry about a language barrier
from our end. -- It is quite reasonable to expect holders of gTLDs to
respond to related correspondence in English.
Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers
There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the
ones who watch progress bars.
http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683
Ah, that is a great idea! I might try and push for something like that on the en version, if it isn't being done already. Unfortunately, I've been gone so long that I don't know how these {{}} tags actually work. Could someone point be to the appropriate article on en that explains them? Thanks!
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:23:11 +0200, Yann Forget <yann(a)forget-me.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le Wednesday 11 August 2004 16:56, mbecker a écrit :
> > Well, I'm glad the copyright issues have been cleared up. Thank you
> > everyone for your responses. Is any work being done to allow the tagging of
> > images as copyrighted or GFDL? I would like to see this happen before we
> > have millions of copyrighted images on wikipedia. Otherwise, it could be a
> > lot more work trying to find the copyrighted images to tag them. It
> > concerns me that some of our free (as in freedom, not beer) content is
> > dependent on non-free content. However, if we can draw a clear line between
> > copyrighted and GFDL content on the database side of things, I think this
> > will help keep the free and non-free content separate, allowing anyone to
> > use our free content freely, without a risk of accidentally including
> > non-free content.
>
> On fr:, we are doing it now.
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:Tipiac/images
> and the list is getting smaller every minute.
>
> We use the following tags whenever possible:
> {{GFDL}}
> {{DomainePublic}}
> {{FairUse}}
> {{LicenceInconnue}} (unknown)
>
> So later on, we can either clarify or remove the unknown licence images.
>
>
>
> Yann
>
> --
> http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
> http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre
> http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
>
--
Michael Becker
They are off the air for now, following my spam complaint.
There have been a few chanages as well to their domain registration
after I complained that the domain was registered to a fake address
(in an nonexistent city).
Their hosting company, 'hostingspot.biz' uses a hidden frame to
display the site of 'christianhosting.com', another innocent victim.
So I think that hostingspot.biz is a questionable operation as well.
So I ended up complaining to aplus.net, the next level up the chain,
and apparently action was taken.
Quite possibly, problem solved.
--Jimbo
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> There is also something like fair dealing in the Berne Convention.
> The exact term escapes me for now.
Fair practice.
--Michael Snow
(moving thread from wikien-l to foundation-l. Please reply there)
Jens Ropers wrote:
> 1. I am seeking to donate the wikipaedia.net domain name (which I have
> registered) to the Wikipedia Foundation.
Thank you for offering us this. My only concern is that confusion
could arise if we own wikipaedia.net but not the other wikipaedia
domains. If we don't own any of them, it's more obvious that
wikipaedia is nothing to do with us.
> 2. A particularly bad serial cybersquatter is controlling
> wikipaedia.org, wikipaedia.com and wikipaedia.de. We really should get
> these domains off him (and would be able to do so).
I asked in the German IRC channel about this. Maybe I'm assuming too
much good faith, but I think we ought to approach that site owner in a
friendly way at first before we get too heavy handed. Sansculotte is
going to take this to the VereinDE-l mailing list and discuss it
there. Hopefully someone who speaks German can contact the site about
this. We might well get no reply, but at least we can say we tried
before taking this any further. It is worth noting that Akl was
successful in getting the wikipedia.ch and wikipedia.at domains back,
so perhaps this can be successful too.
Angela.
Because I have had no success in discussing things with "Kate" of
wikiverse.org regarding their spamming of every single website we link
to, I have decided to escalate this and get their website shut down by
their ISP.
I have no idea whether 'hostingspot.biz' will help us out, but if they
don't we can surely escalate to their upline providers, including
abac.net and level3.net until someone does help.
Taking our free content, and using it to spam, it's horrible.
I should add that most of the people who complain to me about this,
the victims of the spam, are under the impression that wikiverse.org
is either *us* or *authorized by us*.
wikiverse does little to correct this misimpression, and much to
further it, including claims that their content is hosted in Florida,
which is not true as far as I can tell.
--Jimbo