As Erik pointed out, it is very easy to make a hoax seem legitimate if you
cite a phony print source. What's not needed is new rules involving the use
of print sources, but to utilise something we had all along: Google.
Something we could do is Google the title of the book being referenced, and
then see if it exists (beyond being mentioned in wiki mirrors). If it
doesn't exist, then we take further action. One thing we could do is for
every print source approved in an article, we can note that said print
sources have been verified to be true on the talk page (via some sort of
yellow talk page box). Comments?
--James
I would really like to see a function like this developed into MediaWiki,
either an an extension or into a new version. Put simply, one should be able
to perform searches, limiting the field of search to articles in a given
category. The reasons why this would be useful are probably obvious. If not
- the simplest one is just that categories split articles into topics - and
this would allow a user to search in a given topic.
I see two ways of enacting this, and I think both should be looked into.
Firstly, an "advanced search" option, which I think is not as favourable.
Secondly, and this is what I think would really be good, a search box
automatically appears on a category page.
Alternatively, when one is viewing a category page, the normal search box
(on the left) acquires a check box - "search in this category".
Additionally, a further checkbox could be interesting: "also search
subcategories".
I can't imagine this would be too difficult to implement, but would
certainly be very useful and would make more use of the categorisation
system in MediaWiki.
I moved my list summaries to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS
and completed the second one, covering this last week's worth
of foundation-l. I suspect y'all won't want me to
post notes every week announcing that, so keep an eye
out there for future postings (unless there's a list
consensus that y'all actually do want me to drop a note
here every time). I would love to hear from people
interested in translating the summaries to other languages.
---
Pat Gunn
mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom
http://dachte.org
Politics is more difficult than Physics
-- Albert Einstein
Mr. Raymond Noorda, founder of Novell and pioneer of the networking
industry, passed away this morning in his home in Orem, Utah surrounded
by his close family. He was 82. He was deeply loved by all of us here
in Utah.
Jeff
But what if that hypothetical hotel chain wrote an article about their hotel
in the area, complete with amenities, prices for rooms, and a phone number
for booking. Would that be worthy of inclusion?
In a message dated 10/2/2006 4:49:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
lars(a)aronsson.se writes:
daniwo59(a)aol.com wrote:
> I am currently reading the Terms of Service of Myspace. [...]
> Forbidden thing 11 is:
> displaying an advertisement on your profile, or accepting
> payment or anything of value from a third person in exchange for
> your performing any commercial activity on or through the
> MySpace Services on behalf of that person,
The Wikipedia community's background in free software is different
from this. The reason why you cannot use your personal Myspace
account for selling advertising is not that Myspace wants to be
ad-free, but because Myspace wants to sell that advertising
themselves. On the other hand, if some company wants some
functionality added to Linux or to the Mediawiki software (for
example, to adopt to the company's file format or hardware), they
are free to pay somebody to do this, and release the modifications
under the same GPL license.
If a hotel chain wants to promote tourism in their area, they are
(and should be) free to pay somebody to write good articles for
Wikipedia about places, sights and monuments in that area. Of
course, the articles must be NPOV and contain verifiable facts,
describe notable objects, the contents must not violate any
copyrights and it must be released under the GFDL. But the
commercial purpose is not forbidden, and the WMF doesn't need a
cut from the money that went into the authoring of this contents.
If the hotel chain went and talked to Myspace, I assume that
Myspace could allow them to set up a non-personal (commercial)
account for a fee with different terms of service. I don't use
Myspace and I don't know if they sell such accounts, but I guess
it could be a good business to do so.
--
Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The Bosnian WikiNews translations have been completed by mostly myself
(User:Kseferovic) and another user (User:Emx). I ask that the Bosnian
WikiNews be launched. All of the text has been checked for spelling and
gramatical errors. We would like the typical domain (bs.wikinews.org) be
opened for us. Everything is complete from templates to pages. We are ready
for launch.
(The Pre-Launch site said we had to post here in order for the WikiNews to
be launched)
Thank you and Greetings, User:Kseferovic
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kseferovic
_________________________________________________________________
Share your special moments by uploading 500 photos per month to Windows Live
Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://ww…
Hey everyone, I have a question I'd like to ask:
I have an idea for a (hopefully profitable) website, and I'd like to use
content from Wikipedia for it. About half of the content from the
website will be from Wikipedia. Of course I will mention Wikipedia as a
source and I will donate some of my profits to Wikimedia, but is it okay
to have other content on an individual webpage, besides the
Wikipedia-content, that is not GFDL-licensed? The GFDL is not very clear
on that, and people on the Dutch and English Wikipedia couldn't answer
this question. Is there anyone who knows this? I'm afraid I can't afford
a lawyer :( Thanks in advance!
Yorian
> Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 18:32:38 +0200
> From: Yorian <webmaster(a)compumania.nl>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Using content from Wikipedia
>
> Hey everyone, I have a question I'd like to ask:
>
> I have an idea for a (hopefully profitable) website, and I'd like to use
> content from Wikipedia for it. About half of the content from the
> website will be from Wikipedia. Of course I will mention Wikipedia as a
> source and I will donate some of my profits to Wikimedia, but is it okay
> to have other content on an individual webpage, besides the
> Wikipedia-content, that is not GFDL-licensed? The GFDL is not very clear
> on that, and people on the Dutch and English Wikipedia couldn't answer
> this question. Is there anyone who knows this? I'm afraid I can't afford
> a lawyer :( Thanks in advance!
>
> Yorian
>
Interesting question. The GFDL is about documents and therefor only mentions
documents. It doesn't say anything about websites. The two applying sections
in the GFDL are:
----
You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under
the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release
the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified
Version filling the role of the Document.
A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the
Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with
modifications and/or translated into another language.
----
The problem is, what is a "work" in terms of internet websites? Is a whole
website a "work"? Or is a single page a "work"? This could for example be
the case if every single page can again be edited by different people...
which would probably make it a single "work" again.
So, if you say a Website is a "work", than it would be the modified version
and therefor any text on the website must be under the terms of the GFDL. If
a single page is a "work", than only this page has to be put under the terms
of the GFDL again. Hard to tell... You would be on the secure side if you
put everything under the GFDL. It seems to me, the GFDL is not yet internet
ready ;) You can of course take a chance and if you get rich with your
website and the Wikimedia Foundation sues you, you can afford a lawer who
will maybe win the case for you ;) Its realy hard to tell because those free
software and free document licenses are rarely taken to court and therefor
only few official legal interpretations for them exist.
greetings,
Markus
PS: I am no lawer and all I'm saying can be just crap anyway ;) Just to
disclaim any liability ;)
#wikimedia-ops has just been launched to allow people to get help from
channel operators quickly and efficiently. It's also a place for
co-ordinating efforts on mass attacks, but it's not private and is
open to all. We've started off with ops for all access-modifying
existing operators, and autovoice for all other operators. Let myself
or Mark_Ryan know if you haven't been given this.
We hope this is a useful resource on IRC, and as always are totally
open to discussion and comments. Thank you.
S
--
—Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty
sean(a)silentflame.com | xyrael.net