Wikimedia-l

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

4 participants
17746 discussions

Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Communs
by engelsAG＠t-online.de 31 May '04

31 May '04

"Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> schrieb: > Well, this doesn't address my technical concerns - makes single sign-on > more difficult to add when an account database already exists, existing > images will have to be duplicated again - and I fear that in terms of > policy, it would make things even worse when only a small group of people > sets the initial project policies. I don't see why single sign-on should be easier to implement on 300 existing Wikis and 1 new one than on 301 existing ones. Duplication is going on anyway, and waiting to start this up until there's a significant number of people sounds self-defeating. Besides, policy has been discussed for months already, and practice at other projects is that it's formulated by the few people who start it anyway. Andre Engels

1 0

[Foundation-l] Case - Sensitivity for Wiktionaries
by Tomos at Wikipedia 31 May '04

31 May '04

Ronny Raschkowan wrote: >>So I went here to ask you, what you would think about an case sensitivity >>for _all_ Wiktionaries. I solicited opinions on this matter at japanese wikipedia. So far, all people said case sensitivity is good. Because it is too early to tell if that is the concensus, I will post a follow-up if this discussion will be active for a while and needs further input from various wiktionaries. Regards, Tomos _________________________________________________________________ Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN Premium! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200439ave/direct/01/

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Communs
by engelsAG＠t-online.de 31 May '04

31 May '04

"Toby Bartels" <toby+wikipedia(a)math.ucr.edu> schrieb: > So perhaps the solution is to launch it ''without'' great fanfare??? > > Let's be very clear that founding the blank wiki now is a trial run, > with problems that we expected all along and have plans to fix. > This is very much in the spirit of Wikipedia's own founding, > so I believe that folks will understand. Whether I agree, depends on what you mean by 'without fanfare'. If 'without fanfare' means that people are not really informed that it is made at all, then no. If 'without fanfare' means that people are warned that it's just a first try, that changes should and will be made in the coming months, and that an important part of the announcement is a repeated call for people to help Erik get his features in, then I give you a resounding yes. Andre Engels

2 1

Re: [Foundation-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: w to properly use articles from an outside GFDL source?
by engelsAG＠t-online.de 31 May '04

31 May '04

"Ulrich Fuchs" <mail(a)ulrich-fuchs.de> schrieb: > Exactly - our only way out of the license issues we currently have is to > persuade the FSF to change it - a new license would apply to all *existing* > articles without requireing an additional statement from the authors. > However, if I remember correctly, we had some discussion in Germany some > yeras ago that this particular point of the GNU Licenses (that the author > license it's wark under whatever license the FSF will change it's current one > into) would not be legal according to german law. I don't know if and how > this was settled and if that's still an issue; I just wanted to mention that > we possibly could run into difficulties here. But it's a very minor risk in > my opinion, so it should not stop us from these talks with the FSF. Well, if you want an even worse legal problem: In the Netherlands it seems creating a published work cooperatively in the Wiki way is illegal - a writer cannot sign away their right to object to their work being published in a changed fashion. Andre Engels

1 0

[Foundation-l] Board vote translations needed
by Tim Starling 30 May '04

30 May '04

The interface text for the upcoming Wikimedia Board of Trustees election needs to be translated into as many languages as possible. Instructions can be found at: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_vote_interface_text -- Tim Starling

5 4

[Foundation-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: w to properly use articles from an outside GFDL source?
by Daniel Mayer 30 May '04

30 May '04

--- Tomos at Wikipedia <wiki_tomos(a)hotmail.com> wrote on WikiEN-l: > Mav, you are right in that the effect is limited because we cannot > retroactively apply the second license to past edits. But if we consider the > effect, it seems it is still better to introduce it than not, and we would > do just as Electicology suggested: Sorry, it is simply not possible to create a derivative dual licensed work from a GFDL-only licensed article. Doing so would be a violation of the copyright of everyone who submitted the GFDL-only text. Dual licensing would also make it impossible to accept any new GFDL-only text. We are stuck with the GFDL as is until the FSF makes changes to that license. Let's concentrate on improving the license we have - Jimmy has already stated that the FSF and CC people are interested in this type of thing. -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

2 1

[Foundation-l] Case - Sensitivity for Wiktionaries
by Ronny Raschkowan 30 May '04

30 May '04

Hello. On the german Wiktionary [1], we have discussed about the case sensitivity for our Wiktionary and the purpose was voted pro. I asked TimStarling if it would be possible to convert then the de: Wiktionary to case-sensitivity, that means to turn the automatic capitalisation off. He said, he wouldn't do that for only one Wiktionary, but for all at a time. So I went here to ask you, what you would think about an case sensitivity for _all_ Wiktionaries. Sure, there would be a huge of broken links, but as the Wikis are still little and only have a few articles, it is not a big problem to repair this. Except the en: Wiktionary, of course, as a special case, who would need long to be converted/ to repair the broken links. Why all this: Most of latin languages have most words with lowercase letters (ex.: german, french, english, ....). In the Wikipedia, it is not a big problem to have only uppercase letters. But in a dictionary, it is very important to have a difference between upper- and lowercase words. What do you think about that idea? Should it be voted on all the local Wiktionaries? Which shouldn't be converted? Sincerly yours, Ronny Raschkowan [[u:Fire]] -- [1]: http://de.wiktionary.org

2 1

[Foundation-l] Copyright issues of wikimedia projects
by Tomos at Wikipedia 30 May '04

30 May '04

To Ulrich Fuchs and Anthere: Just to clarify - on WikiEN-l, I was introducing an idea that has been discussed on japanese wikipedia, and that could be of an interest of en. wikipedians. And I wrote in the first email: >If English Wikipedia can also introduce similar license, that would make >things more convenient. Regardless of the decisions made in en., ja. will make its own decision. Your inputs are welcome, as always. I suppose the English wikipedia has the same stance to an input from a wikipedian like me (who is primarily active at other wikipedia.) So, don't be disappointed about that, please. :-) If you are interested in the idea I was talking about, I am more than happy to inform you. The basic stuff is already posted at wikiEn-l: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-May/012970.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-May/012992.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-May/012993.html Cheers, Tomos _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with the new version of MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

1 0

[Foundation-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: w to properly use articles from an outside GFDL source?
by Tomos at Wikipedia 30 May '04

30 May '04

Well, I think many people, including I, want to see GFDL changed and/or becoming compatible with CC-by-sa. The reason is just as you cited: We are stuck with it. But such a change might take a long time (it has been already taking for a long time), while somewhat questionable practices (copying and pasting of texts or images without preserving history) are happening day by day. And that is where a quick temporary fix like the introduction of the PD license can help. Probably I was not clear on this, but it is not contradictory to the change to GFDL, (or drafting of GFCL) as I understand. Also, if you are concerned about the importing of GFDL'd contents from outside sources, the PD license could specify that contents in the article, image, and media namespaces are not dual-licensed, but simply GFDL'd. But then, again, we are doing something questionable when we translate an article containing such a text from one language to another without preserving its history. Like I suggested in the other email, it seems that the American Wikipedans are reasonably safe. Court may find, even in case a lawsuit happens for some reasons, not preserving history here and there is not a problem. And maybe other en. Wikipedians are as safe (or maybe not. That part is something I really don't know). So I am not urging that en. should adopt such a license. But like I said, the license has its own benefits, both for en. wikipedians and potentially for others who copy contents (text or image) from en. without preserving history. Regards, Tomos >From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> >To: foundation-l(a)Wikimedia.org >CC: wiki_tomos(a)hotmail.com >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: w to properly use articles from an outside GFDL >source? >Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 12:56:27 -0700 (PDT) >--- Tomos at Wikipedia <wiki_tomos(a)hotmail.com> wrote on WikiEN-l: > > Mav, you are right in that the effect is limited because we cannot > > retroactively apply the second license to past edits. But if we consider >the > > effect, it seems it is still better to introduce it than not, and we >would > > do just as Electicology suggested: > >Sorry, it is simply not possible to create a derivative dual licensed work >from >a GFDL-only licensed article. Doing so would be a violation of the >copyright of >everyone who submitted the GFDL-only text. Dual licensing would also make >it >impossible to accept any new GFDL-only text. > >We are stuck with the GFDL as is until the FSF makes changes to that >license. >Let's concentrate on improving the license we have - Jimmy has already >stated >that the FSF and CC people are interested in this type of thing. > >-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav) _________________________________________________________________ Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright issues of wikimedia projects
by engelsAG＠t-online.de 29 May '04

29 May '04

"Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> schrieb: > Anthere- > > We are setting the foundation status. The current > > status are indicating that ALL OF OUR CONTENTS > > (wikimedia projects) will be distributed under the > > gfdl license. > > > Should we do that or not ? > > No, please do not. We should have the option to decide for any new > Wikimedia project whether to use the FDL or another license. > > Take the Wikinews project as an example. If successful, Wikinews will not > only compete with CNN but also with AP and Reuters. That means that > newspapers, magazines and websites may be interested in using our content > instead of the expensive AP feed. But the FDL with its long license text > and complicated terms is not very practical for that. There is even the > question if we really want to force Wikinews users to copyleft their > content, or if the public domain or an attribution license wouldn't be > more practical in this instance. Not to mention that technically _no_ Wikipedia project holds the GNU/FDL. We never should have taken it in the first place, we certainly should not bind us to it any more than we are by the situation of already having content under it. Andre Engels

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l