So, I see several wikiquotes really confused about this. Can the
board clarify a little bit about the specific case of wikiquotes?
Since wikiquotes are much more likely needing to use EDPs, can we have
some pointers?
On 3/29/07, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> On 3/29/07, Aphaia <aphaia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/29/07, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Wikiquotes host mostly content under some sort of exemption (for
> > > instance, when quoting from TV series). Is the resolution meaning that
> > > all wikiquotes have to develop a specific EDP for TEXT ?
> >
> > As long as the language project would like to host such copyrighted
> > materials, I think so.
>
> How? Exceptions are supposed to be 1) to illustrate historically
> significant events; 2) to include identifying protected works such as
> logos, or 3) to complement (within narrow limits) articles about
> copyrighted contemporary works.
>
> 2 seems out, 3 seems out. Does 1 cover quotes about historically
> significant events?
>
> Or is the whole EDP resolution terribly biased toward images?
>
> Anthony
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
About the board resolution and wikiquote.
It says that now projects can't hold nonfree content unless they
develop an exemption policy.
Wikiquotes host mostly content under some sort of exemption (for
instance, when quoting from TV series). Is the resolution meaning that
all wikiquotes have to develop a specific EDP for TEXT ?
Hi,
I don't know if this is the right place for my complaint, but I was
taken by complete surprise by what has happened to the Belarusan
Wikipedia, i.e. the replacement of the existing bewiki (in "classical"
orthography by the incubator project in ("normative" orthography).
For one, there has, as far as I see, no formal request to close the
existing bewiki
(cf. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects ).
To me it seems that the closure of a large, active
wiki must not go ahead without a prior proposal and debate.
Second, given the deadlock in the new languages creation process, I am
more than surprised, that for the new bewiki an exception was
possible.
Third, the most desirable path to be taken would have been to have a
single bewiki which accepts both variants, just as enwiki accepts both
British and American English. Have there been serious efforts in this
direction, prior to the current decision? A Belarusan user says at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_subcommittees/Language…
,----
| That was the only cause, by which it was used mostly in be.wiki; but
| both systems were allowed to be used, and so-called "current" variant
| was also used there by minority which preferred it, and they didn't
| have any obstacles to contribute; administration welcomed contributors
| in all grammar versions.
`----
If this is true, I don't see, why the closure of the old bewiki was
inevitable.
Even if the two camps cannot be reconciled, I don't believe that the
closure of the existing project was necessary. The proponents of the
Belarusan normative wikipedia had requested bel.wikipedia.org rather
than be.wikipedia.org. Both projects could have existed in
parallel. This may be an ugly solution, but the current one is even
uglier.
Next, what strikes me is an apparent lack of transparency. At
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Belarus…
I read:
,----
| The normative Belarusian Wikipedia has been created at
| be.wikipedia.org, with the alternative Belarusian Wikipedia moved to
| be-x-old.wikipedia.org by decision of the board of trustees on
| recommendation by the language subcommittee.
`----
I would say, that those who take such a drastic decision, that risks
to deter a large number of committed authors, should be required to
deliver a full explanation of their decision. The above brief
announcement is clearly insufficient.
And lastly, if I understand the announcement at
http://be.wikipedia.org correctly, the old bewiki has been frozen, but
no decision has been taken concerning its future. This is just totally
incomprehensible to me. If langcom and the board of trustees make a
dramatic and far-reaching decision, they should make a /full/
decision, not a halfhearted one, which essentially leaves the existing
conflict open.
Forth,
--
http://www.infoe.de/
Sorry if it is a duplicate of any previous messages but it is important.
I have a question.. is it possible to change pages like this [1] or it
is rock-solid unchangeable?
> An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals.
Why base such a policy on expectations? what happens if there are no
pictures of such notable individuals for.. say 10 years? why not allow a
low resolution photo of that individual instead of leaving the article
without a photo where that photo is important in articles talking about
that individual..
It isn't very good to rely on the unknown (reasonably expect)..
That about this particular issue..another thing is how these pages are
made..I mean, shouldn't such pages be agreed on by a great number of the
contributers to all Wikimedia projects and not by "Passed with 7
supporting" only? I, of course could be wrong on how things people
agreed to work on it..IMO this kind of things aren't to be agreed on by
only the 7 members but it should be publicly announced like the fund
raiser...
[1] = http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
Mohamed Magdy~alnokta
The updated gfdl-wikititle program has been posted to:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gfdl-wikititle
This program is released under the GNU GPL version 3. This release
corrects failures with importDump.php and will remove and fix
corrupted article titles in the XML dumps provided by the Foundation.
At present, two articles in the enwiki-20070206 dumps will cause
importDump.php to fail in MediaWiki 1.9.3 and prevent the XML dumps from
being imported into MediaWiki and to fail with NULL title
errors. The problem appears to be related to titles which A) exceed
256 bytes in length and B) also contain multi-part paths. This same
bug manifests from MediaWiki 1.7.3 through MediaWiki 1.9.3. versions
with the enwiki-20070206 XML Dumps.
This tool allows the XML dumps to be imported into MediaWIki 1.9.3
(which routinely fail on most Linux distros) by removing corrupted
titles. This tools also supports insertion of interwiki links back into
the originating Wikipedia language site for each dump to provide a GFDL
compliant link back to the original article and its edit history and
authors. I have also updated
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_dumps
with instructions on how to get around the problems with importing the
dumps.
There were two titles which caused the failures:
Article number 2698248:
<title>Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for
deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for
deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for
deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greatest Hits Volume One (The
Byrds)</title>
(I have censored the actual text in this article title and replaced it
with X characters as it is inappropriate language to post to a public
mailing list.
Article Number 4443711:
<title>Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Former
(XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) by Ashley
Giles and Bradley Hogg.</title>
It may be prudent to consider a filter to remove titles longer than 256
characters when the dumps are made which contain multi-part paths.
There were two titles in the last dumps and they both cause
importDump.php to fail with NULL title errors.
Jeff
Call for volunteers:
The Wikimedia Foundation is looking for volunteers to contribute to
forming a Communications Projects Committee, for the purpose of acting
on specialized communications requests, such as researching press lists,
analyzing media coverage, as well as other functions not presently
covered under ComCom.
This committee will be made up of translators, wiki liaisons and
consultants, from a variety of countries, including graphic artists. We
are looking for volunteers who are willing to make ComProjCom their
first priority.
ComProjCom will be responsible for executing and carrying out PR
campaigns. Members of ComProjCom will also be given the opportunity for
training and eventual entry into the Communications Committee.
Interested parties should contact Sandra Ordonez at
sordonez(a)wikimedia.org or myself with your details and/or specialties.
Cary Bass
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: posting on foundation-l
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:42:42 +1000
From: Robin Shannon <robin(a)shannon.id.au>
To: foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
g'day,
I have tried to send the following email about a possible abuse of
trademark to foundation-l 3 times but it keeps getting rejected. Could
you please forward it to the list (or other appropriate person) for
me.
Thankyou,
-rjs.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robin Shannon <robin(a)shannon.id.au>
Date: 29-Mar-2007 09:37
Subject: Possible abuse of Wikipedia trademark
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
I don't pretend to understand trademark law, but in this month's issue
of cleo <http://cleo.ninemsn.com.au/cleo/> there is a section called
"cleo's guy wikipedia" or something to that effect. Basically it is a
bunch of articles along the line of "if a guy says this he really
means this". Anyways, it has nothing at all to do with wikipedia
except for the use of our name.
I'm not sure if this is the right list to bring this up but since
wikilegal was closed down i guess it must be.
Paz,
-rjs.
--
Hit me: <http://robin.shannon.id.au>
Jab me: <FIRSTNAME(a)LASTNAME.id.au>
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor
should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
--- George Bush
From: "Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>
>Can you explain for us why Wikibooks needs fair use? I'm not sure I
>see as much of as a use case as I do for Wikipedia. Can you provide
>some pointers?
There are certainly some examples, more wide-spread then you might imagine.
We have several books devoted to the use of particular software packages,
many of which are copyright. Screenshots of these programs, which are an
invaluable learning aide, are fundamental to these books. For some programs
there are free alternatives whose screenshots can be reasonably substituted
for the copyrighted versions (albeit with some explanation as to the
disparity), but for other programs, there are no such equivalents.
Other books, such as art or history books tend to make use of fair use
images as well. We dont have nearly as many art or history books as we have
computer software books, however.
>At most it would seem to me that it would be something that should
>only be permitted by exception on a book by book basis based on the
>subject matter of the book.
It's a matter that has been discussed on our project. We have toyed with the
idea that each book could have it's own localized policy documents dealing
with issues like this. Many authors tend to overexaggerate their own need
for special exceptions, however, and so we have generally not followed that
path.
>The prospects of printing wikibooks is probably much greater, to the
>complications and harm from using non-free images is also probably
>greater. This should cause us to consider more carefully.
This is precisely the reason why I have personally called for a reduction in
fair use, long before the WMF resolution on the issue. Wikibooks in my
experience is more oriented towards printing and distributing then wikipedia
is, for instance. Readers in areas that dont allow fair use are at a
distinct disadvantage because they cannot usually print or distribute our
books. Some books are at a disadvantate without fair use, however, and we
need to weigh these issues carefully.
--Andrew Whitworth (b:User:Whiteknight)
_________________________________________________________________
Watch free concerts with Pink, Rod Stewart, Oasis and more. Visit MSN
Presents today.
http://music.msn.com/presents?icid=ncmsnpresentstagline&ocid=T002MSN03A07001
From: Robert Horning <robert_horning(a)netzero.net>
>As I feared would be the case, this new foundation policy has become a call
>to arms by deletionists to institute a massive removal of all fair use
>content on all Wikimedia projects. I don't know if this was the intent,
>but on at least en.wikibooks, the most active bureaucrat there has demanded
>that all fair use content be eliminated from Wikibooks. And has used this
>policy to strength his own counter claim that we should never have allowed
>fair use onto that project in the first place.
As the most active of the three bureaucrats on that project, I can only
assume Robert is talking about me. This is a gross miscategorization of my
words and actions, and should not be used to cause alarm among foundation
members.
After reading the resolution, I suggested in a local forum that we needed to
finalize our EDP policy proposal (which is an "unofficial" de facto standard
at the moment), we needed to increase our monitoring and tagging of fair use
images, and we needed to educate administrators about the use and misuse of
fair use media. I specifically called for people not to delete any fair use
media until our EDP policy was finalized, and so far no images have been
deleted because of this.
>... unless you have already "approved" an EDP (whatever that means.... and
>the process of approval is certainly vague here)
It's not vague at all, en.wikibooks has a method for approving new policy,
and we are employing that method now to our own EDP. Again, no cause for
alarm here.
>Because of the earlier discussion about fair use that was started by Kat
>(before this policy was written), this same bureaucrat on Wikibooks also
>deleted and rewrote the fair use policy to simply say that fair use was
>banned, presuming authority on the part of the WMF.
A mistake on my part, which I personally reverted when I learned of my
errors. I had been under the impression that Kat's essay carried more weight
then it actually did, and that the forthcoming WMF resolution would be
significantly more restrictive about fair use then our previous policy on
the matter was. I was right, and there are significant restrictions on it.
>But because this is a smallish project with only a handful of users who set
>policy, it makes it easier for some users to wildly mis-interpret what has
>been said.
And it is also easy for people like this to wildly misinterpret the actions
of their fellow wikimedians. It's easier to raise alarm if you lie and say
that our project is going to hell in a hand basket. It's harder to raise
that alarm when you admit that our project is functioning normally, and is
making a community effort to meet the expectations of the WMF resolution.
In the future, if you are going to lie about me, do it in private so I dont
need to call you out about it in public. It's just rude.
--Andrew Whitworth (b:User:Whiteknight)
_________________________________________________________________
Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon.
http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglinema…
Wikiquote (http://www.wikiquote.org <http://www.wikiquote.org/> ) now has a
mailing list! (It is the last project to receive one! :)) I just got a
mailing list (Wikiquote-l) created for the Wikiquote project. You can sign
up for it and read the list information at
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquote-l. Hopefully, this
will be a mailing list for all the Wikiquote projects where we can talk
about issues related to us all and ask for help on discussions. Among other
things, we can discuss GFDL and copyright requirements to make sure that we
don't get a Wikiquote closed again.
Cbrown1023