>On 7/11/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>> wrote:
>> Anthony wrote:
>> >It's not just the fact that the distribution is taking place on the
>> >Internet, though. The fact that everyone is an editor and every bit
>> >of content is a constant work in progress makes for a reasonable
>> >argument that these works are in fact not yet published at all. The
>> >more I think about it the more I see this as the most sane
>> If it has been made public it has been published. The real question
>> here is _who_ did the publishing.
"For he bat wil pupplische ony thing to make it openly knowen, he wil
to ben cryed and pronounced in the myddel place of a Town" - John
Mandeville, "Travels", 14th century. The basic meaning has been around
for a long time.
(I apologise this won't show up in threading - I've only just
subscribed and I'm reading old mesages through the archives)
> On Urdu Wikipedia, article on Israel is very short:
> I can translate it:
> "Israel, a palce where jews live. In addition to Pakistan there are many other
> countries that do not recognize this place of Jews as a country.
> Majority of the Urdu speaking public believes that there
> is no country by the name of Israel exists. But there is
> a country named Palestine, whose some part is captured
> by Jews and they call it Israel. And the English speaking
> world says that in a country called Israel some
> Palestenians want to create a country called Palestine."
> This is the whole article. Quite extraordinary, nothing to add more.
In this specific case, if my reading of the page is right, this
article has had a grand total of 21 edits, the ten most recent of them
in a single three-day period in June. Every single bit of the content
has been contributed by one single registered user; all anon edits
have been vandalism (well, one was pageblanking, that might count as
justified!) No discussion page, of course.
On the whole, while it's still a pretty terrible article, it scares me
less once I know that it's the work of one guy and it's just that
no-one sane has managed to look at it yet...
- Andrew Gray
Wikigadugi has now reached 99.1% complete conversion with the Native
Language Machine Translator. I have added a link
grammar parser for English and the next run against Wikipedia dumps will
also include a Latin-Cherokee and Scientific
Language to Cherokee Lexicon and Dictionary which should push to 99.8%
I am writing a complete grammar reference for the Cherokee Language
which will allow anyone to learn, write and
speak it rapidly. The grammar reference will be out in the fall.
Roget's Thesaurus translations and the new Otali dialect lexicon version
If anyone is interested in incorporating it into Wiktionary.
I'd like to draw the readers of this list to a new MetaProject that
has been started to sit above a WikiProject on the English Wikipedia
in an attempt to spread the usage of the Foundation's projects and to
highlight the capability to edit freely amoung communities in the real
world. I openly invite users of other projects to start a branch of
this movement locally and then link it back to the main MetaProject
(page layout for this will appear if any subprojects start).
Discussions on the English fork have developed several rough ideas for
the spreading of ideas but nothing has been really started yet - you
are encouraged to come and join us in moving forward.
I hope that through this we can spread Wikimedia further and
accomplish our goals.
sean(a)silentflame.com | xyrael.net
> Robert Scott Horning
>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>If Wikimedia wants to hold a copyright interest inthis material it needs
>>to be ready to defend those copyrights in a serious way. Having an
>>employee make ad-hoc, arbitrary and speculative pronouncements on the
>>law without a clear policy from the Board to back it up probably puts
>>the entire project into greater peril than the obvious silliness of the
>>more ignorant copyright violators.
>The precedence that I would like to use for why the WMF should hold
>copyright on Wikimedia project content is the same reason why the Free
>Software Foundation holds copyright for the GNU projects: If there is a
>copyright violation, they can be a legal party to enforcing the
>copyright and defending the GPL.
My preference here would be to have each editor appoint WMF as a
non-exclusive agent for the purpose of taking all steps to defend
editors' copyrights. This would prevent some distant future management
from using its standing as a copyright owner to do things that can only
be done by any copyright owner. By disowning any copyrights it may have
in the material it also helps to maintain its distance from the content
if it is ever named to defend some suit based on the contents.
>The same thing (I would hope) could apply to the WMF if there is a GFDL
>violation. As it stands right now, by disclaiming copyright, all the
>WMF can do to enforce a flagarant copyright violation of Wikipedia
>content is sit on the sidelines and act as a cheerleader. Brad would be
>legally excluded from even being able to offer advise. If you are an
>individual contributor and want to defend the copyright of content that
>you wrote, you would have to hire your own counsel, as would each
>seperate contributor who would want to join in the legal defense.
Being agent should permit WMF to act. The potential complications if
the individuals had to do everything themselves boggle the mind. There
is also the question that registration of a copyright is a prerequisite
for prosecuting any infringers. Whose responsibility is it to ensure
that all needed registrations happen?
>Frankly, I think this is an ugly situation, although it is "safe" for
>the WMF and from a legal liability perspective, I do understand why the
>decision to not claim copyright was done. The liability instead rests
>on the individual contributors. Each time you add some content to
>Wikimedia projects, particularly if you use the same account for each
>contribution and are prominent in the "community", you put yourself into
>harm's way legally speaking. You can be held responsible for the
>content that you added, or even failed to edit out when you made a minor
>change to a page. In other words, this approach to playing it safe
>really is just transfering liability from the WMF to individual users.
>That really should be motivation to being a major contributor to
>Wikimedia projects, isn't it?
I have no problem with the idea of WMF being "safe", and that uploaders
should be legally responsible for the material they add. I really don't
agree that a person who has acted as a mere grammatical editor has
published anything substantive. Such an editor bases his entire effort
on what is there in front of him; the research needed to establish the
legality of the substance is beyond his frame of reference.
The USA Library of Congress has requested permission to include
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict> in their collection of
Internet material concerning the crisis in Darfur.
They wish to
1. archive the page at regular intervals, and
2. publish it on their publicly accessible web site.
They completely reproduce pages for archival purposes: capturing all
identifying site documentation, including URL, trademark, copyright
statement, ownership, publication date
<http://www.loc.gov/webcapture/faq.html>; so the GFDL requirements are
met, but what about the trademark/logo? Who needs to give permission
WikiMedia OTRS ticket: 2006071110012086
LC Reference: Darfur 88979 CD
The College Art Association is also asking to reuse the Wikipedia logo
in a news <http://www.collegeart.org/news/> article (OTRS
Brad, I must say that this is amazing news! I for one am very happy to hear
this went so well.
I'm sorry that I don't have much else to add, but I just wanted you to know
that some of us do in fact lurk on this mailing list and love to hear very
good news every now and then :-)
Wikimania 2006 - MIT & Harvard - Staff
Thanks, Brad, for breaking the news to Foundation. I will just ad that it
was a very exciting trip, which will open many new opportunities for all of us,
and I feel fortunate to have been able to participate.
With regard to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, I just want to add a quick
note that their remarkable collection includes images, testimonies, videos,
and audio. They are also compiling an online encyclopedia in seven languages,
and that material will be there for us to harvest as well, according to the
terms of the GFDL. They have some amazing material on other genocides as well,
including Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur.
I will suggest, however, that people wait a few more days before taking
material from their site, so that our discussions can be formalized in a written
agreement. I hope that this can set a precedent and serve as a model for
future cooperation with other museums and educational institutions. After all, we
all have the same goal--sharing the sum of human knowledge with all people
who seek it.
Special thanks to Mindspillage who helped me with the USHMM meeting. It goes
without saying that I am ever grateful to Brad for coordinating and leading
this amazing effort and to Mindspillage and NullC for all of their technical
insights and great ideas and advice before, during, and after these meetings.