Hi Tomos
I do think this kind of discussion do not belong to the english mailing list.
The issues you are raising are not only relevant to the english wikipedia. Articles could be copied from other languages than english to the japanese wikipedia, so that makes it at a minimum wikipedia-l issue, and since you are mentionning wiktionary, I guess it should go to foundation-l.
There are more and more discussions about copyrights. They spread over several mailing lists. It would be nice that they are all at the same place, especially as Tomos wisely remind us "when someone translate a gfdl article from one language to another language, history from original authors is usually lost - unless the translator thinks of mentionning the origin of the content. Even when the origin of the article is mentionned, it is tough for a user to go to the original article and consult the original list of contributors as defined at the moment of the translation. In short, most of the time, when trade of content is done, we do not respect the gfdl requirements."
Since translations happen quite often between all languages, I think any discussion of change of cp status or addition of new status or recommandation to have PD content rather than gfdl, should be project wide.
Note : I would like to know whether all wikimedia projects are under gfdl, or if some are not, or if it is planned that some will not be
Greetings
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 10:36:04 +0000
From: "Tomos at Wikipedia"
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: w to properly use articles from an outside
GFDL source?
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
There is another solution to this problem in discussion at Japanese
Wikipedia and Wiktionary. It is a bit easier than the migration to GNU Free
Content License, though I would love to see it happen soon.
We may introduce another license - so-called "intra-site public domain
license" or "intra-wikimedia public domain license." What the license says
is something like this:
"by contributing to Wikipedia, you allow others to use your contributions
within Wikipedia's projects as if they are in public domain."
Copying and pasting of GFDL texts are against GFDL in a small way. And it
happens in many contexts. (Moving Village Pump discussions to appropriate
talk pages, dividing an article into two pieces, using a boilerplate texts,
using {{subst:}}, etc.)
It is a bigger concern in Japanese Wikipedia, partly because fair use
usually have to include attribution according to the Japanese copyright law,
and because we do not yet have solid evidence to think that substantial
compliance in spirit is safe enough. In other words, if a troll says, "hey,
you violated my copyright, because you copied and pasted my contribution
into another page without following GFDL, and I am going to sue you," that's
not something we can laugh at.
The introduction of the PD license is also a way to reduce interlingual
troubles - the required level of compliance at Japanese Wikipedia is a bit
more strict/ literal than that suggested at en:Wikipedia:Copyright. But some
English Wikipedians may not know about it, and bring an image or translate
an article to English Wikipedia from ja. without fulfilling the requirement.
That, again, is a violation of GFDL, and therefore likely a copyright
violation.
If we introduce the "intra-wikimedia public domain license," we don't have
to worry about it.
If English Wikipedia can also introduce similar license, that would make
things more convenient.
Also, just in case it matters, we would still promote the GFDL-compliant
preservation of attribution, the purpose is just to reduce the risks from
legal technicalities, not to trivialize the attribution altogether.
Regards,
Tomos
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
Hello,
I am considering to add stub articles about municipalities in Switserland to
Wikipedia (EN, NL, DE). The population per municipality is publicly
available, as well as the canton it's located. I'm also able to include
URI's to the homepage. Maps are available but may, unfortunately, not
be reproduced.
However, the map machine[1] offers more than maps. When one searches
for, for example, Zernez, the postal code is given along with the map.
Further, the URI of the referenced image contains geographical
coordinates.
The copyright [2] clearly states that information may not be
redistributed, etc., etc. However, the postal code is freely available
from other sources, though not in digital form. The geographical
coordinates only state where the town is located: this information can
also be retrieved without the map machine. Does the copyright statement
apply to this information?
Is it legal to retrieve postal codes and geographical coordinates from
this map machine? I'd use the geographical coordinates to describe where
the town is located (north, south, east, west, maybe "near Zurich"), all
automated.
regards,
Gerrit Holl.
[1] http://www.swissgeo.ch
[2] http://www.swissgeo.ch/haut_int.php3?id_rubrique=6012&id_point_interet=2287…
--
Weather in Twenthe, Netherlands 27/05 13:25:
13.0°C Few clouds overcast wind 2.2 m/s WNW (57 m above NAP)
--
Ervaringen met het Syndroom van Asperger:
http://topjaklont.student.utwente.nl
Socialistische Partij:
http://www.sp.nl/
I would like some help about licensing and association
status. I remember that several months ago, when I
tried to draft a mission statement, and mentionned
gfdl would be the license of our content, Ec
mentionned that some of our projects were not or would
not be under gfdl. I would like more precision on the
topic, for tax deductions.
How would you describe generally the content of our
projects, in terms of reusability/freedom so we could
get tax deduction. Is there a general term/reference
which could be used, or may we cite a list of licenses
? Who could help me here ? Eclecticology, what do you
think ?
ant
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>I remember when, once upon a time, my mail was bouncing for a day, and
>all the mailing lists automatically marked me as delivery disabled. I
>re-enabled the major lists, but overlooked this one, which had at that
>time almost no traffic I think.
>
>Then, I thought that discussion here had fizzled.
>
It had fizzled. It took a little bit of concerted effort to get
sustained conversations going.
>> But when we collectively, consciously or unconsciously, only discuss
>> policy issues "in his presence", our behavior gives the impression
>> of Jimbo as a MeatBall:GodKing. A number of people have criticized
>> the way these mailing lists operate, and some object to
>> participating as a result.
>...
>> I think the mailing lists are useful, but we need to be aware of
>> appearances and not reinforce the image of a cabal.
>
>I do agree with this, but what should we do? The mailing lists are
>wide open to the public, public archives, easy subscription,
>unmoderated. If my participation causes people to say that the lists
>are like a "King's Court", what do you recommend that I do about it?
>
>
I don't have a recommendation for what you should do, because I think
the problem is not with your participation, but with our collective
behavior, as I indicated. "Our" including myself and everybody _except_
you. It's not just how you behave that determines whether you're a
GodKing, it's how we behave toward you. (Though your disavowal of that
status is helpful, and it is reassuring to know you have plans on how to
transfer responsibilities to the community.)
The thing that prompted my comments was the differences I could observe
between this list, which you hadn't been reading, and the other lists
where you clearly are reading and participating. I'm sure people have
also observed how some threads take on a much greater importance simply
because you're participating in the thread. Some of that, I believe, is
that people fail to see the point in raising and discussing issues when
you're not obviously part of the conversation. We need to be more
willing to discuss (not necessarily decide) issues without your
"presence" to assist us. It's the difference between being a community
that deliberates over the issues, with a leader to assist in the
decision-making process, and being a bunch of courtiers who jockey with
each other in order to present their petitions to the king.
You don't wish to be a GodKing. I don't wish to be part of a cabal. But
wishing alone does not make it so - part of what determines these things
is the perspectives of outsiders. I agree with you that the mailing
lists are as accessible as we can make them, and that deciding not to
participate can be counterproductive. Part of what makes us "elitist" is
having people avoid joining us because we're supposedly elitist. But we
still have to keep their perspective in mind, and do our best not to
reinforce such views. The problem will not go away, we must learn to
live with it.
Anyway, this has become sort of a longish sermon, and unfortunately my
solutions have more of sentiment than specificity, so I'll cut it off here.
--Michael Snow
Erik Moeller wrote:
>Jimbo is subscribed to the list
>
Yes, but until today, every time I've looked at the list of subscribers,
Jimbo's email was marked as having list delivery disabled. So as far as
I know, he hasn't been reading the messages on this list for most or all
of its existence. That's not necessarily a criticism of Jimbo, who has
many things to attend to, and can't be everywhere at once. But when we
collectively, consciously or unconsciously, only discuss policy issues
"in his presence", our behavior gives the impression of Jimbo as a
MeatBall:GodKing. A number of people have criticized the way these
mailing lists operate, and some object to participating as a result.
When you can observe differences between one mailing list and another
for reasons like this, it unfortunately gives credence to the criticism
that the mailing list is "like a king's court" (quoting someone else's
phrase). I think the mailing lists are useful, but we need to be aware
of appearances and not reinforce the image of a cabal.
>but he started the thread on wikipedia-l, so I replied there.
>
Nothing wrong with that, and possibly Jimbo also started the thread
there because you posted the original idea there (before this list ever
existed). Another possible approach is to shift the discussion to the
appropriate mailing list. Given that some people have equated this list
with the defunct and rarely used wikilegal-l, I think it worthwhile to
put a little extra effort into seeing that this list actually gets used
for its intended purpose.
>Is there any particular reason for this thread to be
>in French?
>
Anthere wrote in French, so I replied in French. Since she preferred to
use her native language, for whatever reasons, I considered it a small
show of courtesy and good will to reply in the same language, since I'm
able to. I would be happy to translate into English for anyone who asks.
>foundation-l and wikipedia-l are multilingual to allow people to communicate who otherwise could not
>
Now that I look closely I see you added something similar to
[[Wikipedia:Mailing lists]] a couple months ago, and apparently nobody
objected. That seems like a pretty restrictive formulation to me, as if
we're only allowing multilingual discussion as a sort of concession, and
you _must_ use English unless you cannot.
For an organization as diverse and multilingual as Wikimedia, I think we
should take a more friendly attitude toward the use of other languages.
After all, for many languages there are also various people using the
list who can take a stab at translation. I would just as soon see a
person post in their native language, and rely on someone else with good
English skills to translate, than try and sort out from their broken
English what they really meant. Basically, I think it would be more in
keeping with the spirit of the project, if we allow people to post to
project-wide mailing lists in whatever language they choose. Many will
probably prefer to use English, but they don't need to be told to do so,
and by not telling them we do less to intimidate those who feel less
secure in their English.
Well, I've raised my concerns, and we can discuss it further on the talk
page.
>not to have semi-private exchanges on a public list.
>
>
I see discussions all the time on the mailing lists that are basically
conversations involving a very small handful of people. I don't see
anything wrong with that, any more than there's anything wrong with two
people engaging in a conversation on a talk page, which is equally
public. Whoever is interested can always join in, and I'm happy to shift
between my limited selection of languages to accommodate other participants.
--Michael Snow
Erik Moeller wrote:
>The point of language is to communicate. When we use language, we should
>use the one which allows us to communicate best.
>
Yes, but which one is that, the language in which the writer (or
speaker) can best express themselves, or the language that can best be
understood by the audience? It's a judgment call in each instance,
depending on the writer, the audience, and the subject matter. I'm
content to trust participants on the mailing list to make those
judgments for themselves.
>If a plausible argument can be made that in this instance, and in others, French was a better way to communicate than English, then I'm open to hearing it.
>
Readily. In this instance, since posts in French are unusual, I think a
reasonable case can be made that writing in French actually drew more
attention than writing in English. That helped accomplish the two things
my post addressed - promoting the use of foundation-l as the mailing
list for Wikimedia-wide projects, and highlighting the fact that Jimbo
wasn't receiving messages from this mailing list. I think both
situations have significantly improved.
>It seems to me that the much more realistic explanation is that some people prefer to switch to a language which they think other people won't understand when they want to make comments which they don't want other people to read.
>
Since, as has been pointed out several times, this is a public list, and
various participants are able to provide translations or use machine
translators, it seems foolish to me for anyone to think that you can
make any comments here that some other person won't be able to read or
understand.
>I would appreciate it if we could all agree to make our conversations as open as possible.
>
Of course. That's why I'm willing to translate my statement (if anybody
is still wondering what I said), and why I'm also willing to communicate
in other languages.
--Michael Snow
"Daniel Mayer" <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> schrieb:
> > By the way, was not there an old project aiming at
> > translation at least 2 years ago ?
>
> Yep
> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Machine_Translation_Project
>
> Although the wiki is not available right now...
>
> Machine translation has come a long way since that idea was first put forward
> for Wikipedia. We may want to look at the idea again. A special:translate
> function might be a nice tool to have - that way humans would control the
> process on an article by article basis (correcting any errors that result).
>
> If done correctly, the result should be no worse than copyedited and
> error-checked EB 1911-derived articles (many of which are pretty good).
You seem to have a more positive view of machine translation than I have.
Machine translations can be helpful in translating, but no good translation
will be got by taking a machine translation and 'correcting the errors'.
Rather, one will have to write at least half and probably everything by
hand, and have the machine translation only as a reference.
Just change the following into correct English (from es:EtimologÃa del topónimo Perú)
It is known that, at least from 1523, ten years before the Spanish conquest, the Peru name already is fixed, as they testify referring documents to the payment of tributes by gold obtained in the Paschal expedition of of Andagoya "que went to the province of Peru, and Juan Garci'a de Montenegro, who was by Veedor (...) certain gold which they said had been it the this trip of the Perú". Before paying attention the form definitive of the name it had had variant like Birú, Berú or Pirú, with which one is in diverse documents of the time.
Andre Engels
On japanese wikipedia, some had a discussion regarding copyright of fonts. I
thought this is something I should share with people outside of japanese
wikipedia.
Our projects are based on web sites, so we do not offer any fonts, probably.
But when people print out articles, or a wikibook for distribution, do they
have to use GFDL-compatible fonts?
My limited research indicates that fonts are protected by special law,
copyright law, or some other intellectual property law in many countries. In
Japan, it seems that the court have said that a font set is not a copyright
work, but a work of industrial design.
What if we offer some info. via PDF files or pngs? I know there are
WikiReader (print) and timeline (png with text) are coming out. Any tips for
others for others who want to do similar projects?
regards,
Tomos
_________________________________________________________________
Learn to simplify your finances and your life in Streamline Your Life from
MSN Money. http://special.msn.com/money/0405streamline.armx