Wikimedia-l

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

4 participants
17746 discussions

Re: [Foundation-l] Re:Wikimedia Communs
by engelsAG＠t-online.de 29 May '04

29 May '04

"Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> schrieb: > Andre- > > And finally, once more I apologize for getting so angry. Especially > > because, as you said, in the end we want the same. > > No problem. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the best approach to > get this started. As I said, if you can establish a general consensus for > starting with a blank, basic wiki in spite of my objections I will of > course work with you. If you don't want to campaign for this I ask you for > just a little more patience. We *will* make this happen, one way or > another. Well, I guess my messages here are supposed to be some kind of campaign. I'm just starting to get the impression that the rest of the people here don't seem to care either way. Andre Engels

1 0

[Foundation-l] Fairness
by Anthere 29 May '04

29 May '04

Since we are talking about fairness in elections, I need help. I was notified my candidacy statement was unfair. I, on the other hand, think that elections are unfair to those who are not native english. It takes us a lot of time to answer questions, and it is difficult to write a short statement, while trying to make it sound and clear to anyone. Thus, I would like that a real english speaker edit my statement to make it appear good, clear, respect editorial rules, style, spelling and such. It also needs to be shorten (though I would not say of how much exactly since I thought I was below 500 caracters). I would like to mention that we are trying to set a Foundation to help a world wide project which will be a real revolution, and I think fighting over a couple of characters in a candidacy statement is not exactly what I perceive as terribly interesting. I would have preferred that candidates discuss with each other on their background, on their opinions, on their positions, on what they did not know, on what they loved in the project. It would be more constructive to do that, and it would have given more opportunity for participants from all projects to get to know the candidates better. I also think comparisons of positions, and consequently opportunity to have two candidates working together as beneficial or destructive would have been more easily perceived upon reading discussions between candidates, than reading about little fights upon the fairness of representativity. Complaining over the fairness of 10 characters when half of the candidates can not technically provide a fully professional candidacy statement is ridiculous. If the validity of my candidacy is impaired by the length of my statement, and by adding a short description of my contributions while it was written nowhere it was forbidden, then I think I am not interested in being a candidate anymore, and you may strike my name Danny. I am not here to play seek-and-hide game. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

3 3

Re: [Foundation-l] Re:Wikimedia Communs
by engelsAG＠t-online.de 29 May '04

29 May '04

I'm sorry about this. I made the mistake of writing email while angry again. It's just... I don't see what the big problems are. Sure, there is a chance that the project would start slower than it would when everything was ready at once, but for that it would start earlier. And the swing it will get when the features are ready anyhow. The other problems - if the way the wiki is working really makes development much harder, you might have to think again about how to do this. Just like the other aspects, the software is there to support the project, not the project to implement the software. The other problems will be encountered whichever way is chosen. We now realize the GNU/FDL was not the best licence to put Wikipedia under. But we would not have found out by just waiting. We found out by having Wikipedia under the license, and meeting its limits. Likewise, there will undoubtedly be good and not-so-good ways of setting up a structure for the information on WikiCommons. We will choose one (or a few) of them, and develop those, maybe even decide to switch. But that will happen whether we start now or later. Wikipedia wasn't build in one day. But it was built. And finally, once more I apologize for getting so angry. Especially because, as you said, in the end we want the same. We don't have a risk of making mistakes. We have a certainty of it. But delaying our decisions will not help us make better ones. Better to make our mistakes now, the earlier we make them, the earlier we can correct them. Andre Engels "Andre Engels" <engelsAG(a)t-online.de> schrieb: > "Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> schrieb: > > > Something will be made, yes, but that something may be difficult to build > > upon - in terms of content, functionality, structure, policies - and grow > > into something tremendously more useful. That is the crux of my argument. > > And with a single login and uploading this suddenly will work? Don't be > ridiculous. > > It will be easy to build upon. It's all there - content, functionality, > structure, policies. We cann build them now, or we can build them later. > Your proposal is to build until we have good functionality, and then start > making some content and structure. My proposal is to get all of them at > the same time and develop all. > > It's NOT easier to make content from nothing than to make it from content. > > We have some splendid Wiki software now, don't we? Ain't it a shame that > we already made an encyclopedia and policies for it? With this software > we would do a lot better, no? Why don't you go and start your own > Wikipedia? > > > If you can convince the others (vote, consensus etc.) that we should set > > up a blank wiki now and add all the other functionality later, regardless > > of all the problems that may ensue, then I will follow along, but my > > position remains that we should properly plan and develop a basic set of > > features before publicly launching this project with great fanfare, to > > make sure that we have a solid foundation to build on, and that we get the > > greatest possible interest in the important early stage of content > > development. > > I'm sick of this. > > andre > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >

2 1

Re: [Foundation-l] Re:Wikimedia Communs
by engelsAG＠t-online.de 28 May '04

28 May '04

"Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> schrieb: > Something will be made, yes, but that something may be difficult to build > upon - in terms of content, functionality, structure, policies - and grow > into something tremendously more useful. That is the crux of my argument. And with a single login and uploading this suddenly will work? Don't be ridiculous. It will be easy to build upon. It's all there - content, functionality, structure, policies. We cann build them now, or we can build them later. Your proposal is to build until we have good functionality, and then start making some content and structure. My proposal is to get all of them at the same time and develop all. It's NOT easier to make content from nothing than to make it from content. We have some splendid Wiki software now, don't we? Ain't it a shame that we already made an encyclopedia and policies for it? With this software we would do a lot better, no? Why don't you go and start your own Wikipedia? > If you can convince the others (vote, consensus etc.) that we should set > up a blank wiki now and add all the other functionality later, regardless > of all the problems that may ensue, then I will follow along, but my > position remains that we should properly plan and develop a basic set of > features before publicly launching this project with great fanfare, to > make sure that we have a solid foundation to build on, and that we get the > greatest possible interest in the important early stage of content > development. I'm sick of this. andre

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Re:Wikimedia Communs
by engelsAG＠t-online.de 28 May '04

28 May '04

"Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> schrieb: > Andre- > (regarding the commons and similar ideas) I'll try to remain calm... > - This is our best opportunity to get single sign-on working, a feature > which we desperately need. Because the Commons effectively requires access > to a shared database, this is a natural extension. But starting with a > separate login system makes single sign-on a *separate* goal. This is not > just a technical issue of yet another redundant user table. It's also a > social issue of not being able to use the synergy from the launch of the > commons to promote single sign-on (which will likely have some initial > hurdles to overcome) and vice versa. It's difficult to generate excitement > about small, evolutionary steps. I think the effect will rather be opposite. By introducing many things at once, it is likely that some will not be used that would be if presented separately. Also, I think we can diide the users of Wikicommons in two groups - those directly interested, and those who are interested because it helps them with another project. The first group can be got without extra features. The second group will more likely be caught with content than with features. If that idea is correct, the best way would be to start now with the first group, and capture the second one when the direct upload and reference from Wikipedia/Wikibooks/whatever is created, by showing them that there is something they can actually use - a collection of pictures, already divided into galleries. > - The initial edits on a wiki lay the foundation of what that wiki will > become. If just a few people get involved in this project, because it > offers no really cool, exciting possibilities, then the project foundation > may well not be as solid as it could be. For example, people may decide to > create image categories and upload requirements in the first two weeks. > This structure will then become harder and harder to change as it seeps > in, and when we add all the new cool features which attract more people -- > a better upload form, transparent use of commons media from all wikis, > single sign-on -- it may already be too late to quickly and effectively > fix certain problems. Too much may have grown into the structure already. Again, the cool, exciting features are I think not what draws people to the project. Their own wish for a project like this, and the content of the project are the more likely elements. Problems like you describe will definitely happen, but I think they will happen just as much if we wait as when we don't. > These concerns outweigh my desire to have something usable as soon as > possible. I still feel it differently. Apart from having a long lasting desire to just do this, even if there aren't any extras, I also think that having a database and a community already in existence will help, not hinder in getting the features working and used. Andre Engels

3 2

[Foundation-l] (no subject)
by daniwo59＠aol.com 28 May '04

28 May '04

The intention was for 500 characters (words in the previous response was my error) to respond to each of the two questions. As I stated earlier, we did not specify whether blank spaces between words are characters or whether links are characters. We expected that the candidates would understand that their answers to these two questions would be succinct, so that the page would be wieldly and user-friendly--nothing more and nothing less. I have asked those users who exceeded 500 characters to shorten their statements, but I do believe that _everyone_ acted within the spirit of the 500 characters, so I do not intend to chop up their statements or disqualify them. Danny

3 2

[Foundation-l] Fairness and the elections
by daniwo59＠aol.com 28 May '04

28 May '04

I want to clarify regarding the discussion on the length of the candidates' statements. There is NO discussion between Imran and myself about invalidating any candidate because of the length of their statements on the Candidate Page. NONE. One candidate simply pointed out that on that page, people were asked to limit their comments to 500 characters. Without getting into a discussion over whether that number includes spaces or not (and the issue has been raised), the purpose was to allow each candidate to provide a BRIEF summary of their positions on two questions. Much lengthier statements could (and were) be made on the candidates own pages. In fact, there was no limit to the amount of space that could be used there. People could write thousands of words, or they could provide succinct comments about what they believe and the which goals they hope to pursue. However, one candidate brought up the issue that certain candidates had exceeded the 500 word limit on the Candidates Page and there only. In fairness, and since that was a request by a candidate, I asked the candidates who had exceeded that amount to try and trim their statements. This was done via personal email precisely because I wanted to avoid this kind of ruckus. They were asked to cut out some words and redirect to their user pages. Nowhere was there any talk of disqualifying anyone. This is not an issue I intend to pursue any further. 15 words more or less on that page is not going to sway the election one way or another. 500 characters was a round figure, chosen arbitrarily, to provide an approximate size of a text that would ensure that the page was readable. I hope that no one intends to drop out of the race because of this request. I hope all the candidates understand my position on this and will not use this to contest the election, that has been proceeding smoothly so far. Thank you, Danny

4 3

[Foundation-l] Fairness
by Erik Zachte 28 May '04

28 May '04

Erik Moeller wrote: "Just imagine a situation where this election wouldn't be done on a website, but orally, and each candidate would be given 5 minutes to introduce themselves." Erik, a bad analogy. This medium has its own rules, as you often like to point out yourself. On one of the talk pages you used unequal TV exposure as an comparison. Same answer. If a candidate is willing to take the risk that the reader turns away from his or her statement because it is more words than content, so be it. I'd rather be the judge of that myself as a reader. Your second argument, that this is a rule per se and all have to abide, makes me smile. Wikipedia convinced me that anarchism can work at times, and now petty fighting over silly rules takes hold. Let me suggest to the committee to exchange this rule for a smarter one: present candidacy statements in order of number of words. Shortest statement comes first. By the way - I propose all candidates apply for both positions, so as to make this a non-issue. We want two candidates that are capable and willing to handle all kinds of issues, and not be confined to vague role playing. With only three real wikipedians on the board there is no room for segmentation. Also, I sensed on several discussions that many do not see a clear distinction between the roles. - As for ex officio board members Michael and Tim. I would welcome it if they took the time to present themselves, or rather their views on WikiMedias future. Tim has a user page, but not much in it. Regards, Erik Zachte

2 1

[Foundation-l] Re: w to properly use articles ...
by Anthere 28 May '04

28 May '04

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

1 0

[Foundation-l] Legal issue: info un-freely available digitally, freely available non-digitally
by Gerrit 28 May '04

28 May '04

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/

2 1

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