Hi,
Robert Horning a écrit :
>
> mathias.damour wrote:
> > Another point is that Wikijunior "only" aims to produce and
> > offer content for children whereas Wikikids.nl and Vikidia
> > want children to be involved in building this content. We want
> > to let them be active with knowledge for pedagogical interest.
> > See this article : http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Writing-to-learn
>
> I have serious doubts about the ability of children to get involved in
> this process, other than to the extent that they already are involved
> with Wikimedia projects. There are minors (including some that have
> administrator access... as discussed in some earlier threads) who are
> involved with Wikipedia content (and a few I suspected on Wikibooks as
> well), but these tend to be kids that are exceptionally motivated. And
> they participate on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects as peers to
> everybody else who is a contributor, with no special distinction. While
> the idea of having kids write for kids sounds appealing on paper, a
> bunch of 4th graders write like... well... a bunch of 4th graders. They
> are still trying to learn the basic mechanics of writing, and ought to
> be learning how to write from those who have already mastered the skill,
> not from those who are still apprentices in the subject. I digress if
> you think some contributors on Wikipedia don't know how to write, but
> that more or less proves my point as well.
It would be nice to have a feed-back from those who are involved in the
Wikikids.nl project on this point.
I would say a few things :
- We choosed not to make special distinction related to age on Vikidia (no
more than on Wikipedia). It is just asked that if you tell your age on your
user page, you shouldn't cheat about it, just as you shouldn't cheat about
your Diploma/academic degree on Wikipedia. (It's written in the disclaimer
that a user could be blocked if he cheat about his age, but that you
shouldn't assumed that it has been checked.)
- 8-13 years is the readers target age. They are welcomed to edit, but
adults so as - say - 13-18 years are welcomed too. We could guess that
quite a lot of these (teenagers) could be willing to edit in a wiki, but
don't feel able to do it on Wikipedia. They can be pleased to do it for
younger people. That's what happen on Vikidia, where teenage editors are
quite importants.
- it seems that children are not able to write as much as older people,
but they could do a quite good job on one subject. Anyway, it's a wiki so
their articles are to be bettered by others (which can be formative to them).
They can aslo get involved in maintenance task (internal links...) which
make them become active readers rather than only content recipient.
Participation of children is nevertheless something like a pillar for
these wikis.
> What I'm trying to point out is that those who are involved with
> Wikijunior were not even contacted about this idea in the first place
> when the idea was originally brought up on Meta, and suggestions on Meta
> to look at the Wikijunior project as perhaps something to work with were
> met with incredible hostility by those suggesting this Wikikids
> project. This doesn't have to be an either-or situation, as I believe
> the sum is healthier than the individual parts alone.
I'm not sure I understand well ; "This doesn't have to be an either-or
situation" do you mean that they can be book for children AND adults on
Wikibooks, or that they can be wikibooks AND an encyclopedia for children.
That's what I would say.
> I am presuming that you are writing about this because you want to seek
> input from the Wikimedia community, and would like to enlist support for
> those who might want to get involved with a project of this nature. I'm
> merely suggesting here that there are individuals who may want to join
> in this sort of project, and you should try to join with these efforts.
> There have been some attempts in the past to move Wikijunior to a
> completely separate project and domain name, including forming
> Wikijunior as a completely independent Wikimedia sister project. One of
> these proposals, and not rejected by the Wikijunior community, was to
> move to a more Wikipedia-like format of articles rather than the themed
> collections organized into books such as currently exist on Wikibooks.
> Please ask those involved with the development of Wikijunior to at least
> comment on your ideas. For English Wikijunior, the best place is at
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Talk:Wikijunior
>
> What all this concept is lacking is a very motivated leader who is
> willing to take the next step and demonstrate that there is a large
> concensus among those want to go this route. And unlike the problems
> that existed with Wikiversity on Wikibooks, there is virtually nobody
> who wants to see Wikijunior "kicked off" of Wikibooks. Wikijunior
> enjoys a nearly independent existence without having to worry about the
> project overhead of maintaining a separate group of admins, and a
> strongly symbiotic relationship exists as well between Wikibooks and
> Wikijunior to bring new users and contributors to both projects. I
> think that Wikijunior would struggle with a great many issues if it had
> an independent existence at the moment that it doesn't have to worry
> about right now.
I had a look to the wikijunior pages in english and french. On the english
talk page, the topic on a separated website is about either a read-only
website for safe reading for children, or a separate wikibooks. I can
understand that if wikijunior should still aim to writes books, there is
no determining utility to make a separate wiki for it.
But the wikikids idea is quite different, since it has a "Wikipedia-like
format" as you say, and for it aims to let children write on it.
I don't know if wikijunior could (and would like) to move to that, and
anyway "This doesn't have to be an either-or situation" ;-)
Mathias Damour
On this topic, I find it disappointing (at least in the footer and the
"English explanation of WikiKids") that Kennisnet hasn't made the
project's content available under a free license. On edit pages it
notes:
"GEBRUIK GEEN MATERIAAL DAT BESCHERMD WORDT DOOR AUTEURSRECHT, TENZIJ
JE DAARTOE TOESTEMMING HEBT!"
which means:
"USE NO MATERIAL WHICH IS PROTECTED COPYRIGHT, UNLESS YOU HAVE TO THIS
END AUTHORISATION!"
But beyond shooing away plagiarism, there doesn't seem to be any
obvious mention. They've even removed the default mention of the GNU
FDL that appears by default on Wikia hosted wikis.
Nick
Hello,
Sorry if i'm in the wrong place, but i wonder what one can do if they
think their ban on meta is unjustified.
trying to talk to the blocking admin by email or irc (and to others)
led nowhere.
m:user:Azdiyy was blocked indef on may 24 with no warning. if meta is
not suitable
for my postings i am willing to learn. but an indef ban is too much imo.
many thanks,
azdiyy
> Following a deletion debate on Commons [1], we are left with the
> problem whether or not Public domain images that are under other
> restrictions, such as coats of arms, are allowed under the Foundation
> Licensing policy. If I quote Erik Moeller, from another thread [2] on
> the mailing list:
>
> '[...]the licensing policy has been specifically formulated to avoid
> that problem. It requires content to be under a Free Content License,
> which is defined as "a license which meets the terms of the Definition
> of Free Cultural Works _specific to licenses_".[...]'
>
> However, since we are talking about public domain, this does not apply
> for this image, since public domain is not a license. This means that
> another section of the resolution applies:
>
> '[...] or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of
> Free Cultural Works' as referenced above.'
>
> Which is not the case, this specific image is under more restrictions;
> see the deletion debate for details. Is this analysis correct? Or
> should we just treat public domain as a "free content license"?
>
> Bryan
> (cc'd to commons-l)
>
> [1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SilaTonga.svg
> [2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-April/029468.html
I agree with en/Commons user Lupo who has, referring to the discussion at
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Grundsatzfragen
written:
"Now, the problem is this: freedomdefined.org states that a "free"
work "must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts,
etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the
freedoms enumerated above." That would mean that we'd need to look
beyond copyrights, and that the foundation's licensing policy did not
consider COAs and the like "free" works, even if they were fine
copyright-wise, because their use is often restricted by other laws.
Ugh. Looks like the overarching "free culture" activism expressed at
freedomdefined.org has some rather drastic and unpleasant consequences
for us".
There is a non exhaustive list of non-free content (content which can
be used for any purpose) in the German Wikipedia at:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilfe:FAQ_Rechtliches#Sind_alle_Inhalte_der_Wi…
According to the free content definition we cannot show at commons
(nor in the local branches without EDP):
* pictures of living persons (because according to German law
commercial use is only allowed with the content of the person AND it
is strictly forbidden to manipulate pictures, decision of
Bundesverfassungsgericht)
* pictures of coat of arms which are used by an institution (because
there are non-copyright-restrictions in all cases)
*pictures of Geschmacksmuster-protected objects like cars
*the Olympic rings
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Olympic_Games
and so on.
Klaus Graf
Hello there,
I'd invite you to take a look at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_election/Candidate_presentation_guidel…
Eventually I'm in charge of the election organzation, I spoke there as
one of regular meta editor. While it is a guideline about election, it
is not written on behalf of Election committee (at least now, and
currently I foresee no possiblity of changes). In my opinion the
characters of this document may be suggestions from the community, so
I would love all interested people to join its editing.
At first, I put a widely heard complaint from translators, since it
has been repeated by several translators. Some facts may be wrongly
remembered. My wording may be brunt even to the unnecessary extent, so
your copyedit would be very appreciated :)
Cheers,
--
KIZU Naoko
Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
* habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *
--
KIZU Naoko
Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
* habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *
I would like to announce the board steering committee for the upcoming
board elections. (All usernames are on meta unless otherwise indicated):
Aphaia
Mako
Newyorkbrad
en:Phillipe
Jon Harald Søby
Tim Starling
As the committee organizes itself, you should expect to see the election
official positions and roles be decided and presented on the meta site.
Cary Bass
Volunteer coordinator
Take Notice:
User:Jpgordon (Arbitrator en.wiki) was granted Check User Privilege:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hipocrite&diff=13256710…
Eptypes is a confirmed sock of [[User:Khunter]], [[User:Goingempty]],
[[User:Parker007]], [[User:Shines8]], and/or [[User:Paracit]].
--[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]] 00:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Mackensen (Arbitrator en.wiki) was granted Check User Privilege:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitrat…
Hello {{user|Endgame1}}. --[[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] 02:25, 22 May 2007
(UTC)
These 2 users have abused the check user privilege granted to them. There
was No Check User Request filed. They are supposed to only use their
privilege:
Wikimedia privacy policy
On Wikimedia <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia> projects, privacy
policy <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/privacy_policy> considerations
are of tremendous importance. Unless someone is definitely violating policy
with their actions (*e.g.* massive bot vandalism or spam), revealing their
IP, whereabouts or other information sufficient to identify them is likely a
violation.
CheckUser requires the level of confidentiality one would apply to our most
confidential user data.
The relevant section of the privacy
policy<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy>is:
*Policy on release of data derived from page logs* *It is the policy of
Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or
through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released
by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the
following situations:*
1. *In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from
law enforcement*
2. *With permission of the affected user*
3. *To the chair of Wikimedia Foundation, his legal counsel, or his
designee, when necessary for investigation of abuse complaints. *
4. *Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider
or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical
issues.*
5. *Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently
behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the
targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to
relevant Internet Service Providers*
6. *Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property
or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.*
Wikimedia policy does not permit public distribution of such information
under any circumstances, except as described above.
*Information release*
Even if the user is committing abuse, it's best not to reveal personal
information if possible.
- Generally, do not reveal IPs. Only give information such as same
network/not same network or similar. If detailed information is provided,
make sure the person you are giving it to is a trusted person and will not
reveal it himself.
- If the user has said they're from somewhere and the IP confirms it,
it's not releasing private information to confirm it if needed.
- If they're on a large national or international ISP (*e.g.* AOL,
NTL, BT, Telstra) where they're one of millions of users, saying so is
unlikely to be personally identifiable.
- Revealing the country is generally not personally identifiable (*e.g
.* "User:Querulous is coming in from the UK, User:Sockpuppet is coming
in from Canada").
- If you're in any doubt, give no detail.
