Okay i have just gone through all the last bajllion emails from this list in the last couple of days when i should have been editing [[victor chang]], but never mind.
firstly, re: wikinews, it will be released under GFDL yes? which means that if CNN or BBC or ABC or NZBC or the guardian or even slashdot or a blog wanted to reproduce our wikinews article, then they would have to also reproduce the entire GFDL license (or did i read the GDFL incorrectly), which may well be twice as long as the news article. Has anyone else thought of this problem and come up with any solutions. Other than this my position on wikinews is not active support, but certainly close interest.
secondly, What the hell is the difference between wikicommons and wikisource? They both seem to me to be depositories for pd/gfdl primary sources.
thirdly, who's bright idea was it to make a user in wikipedia not a user in wiktionary, metawiki, etc. (and vice versa), is it too late to make every user a cross-wiki user, or are there already cross-overs (for example a [[user:jondoe]] in wiktionary and a different user but with the name [[user:jondoe]] in wikibooks?
fourthly, yes parenthisis are wonderful things. (perhaps this is in reply to en.wikpedia list, i cant remember)
fifthly, what would wikiverstiy offer that wikibooks doesnt? i fail to see how a wiki is capable of producing anything that a university offers other than text books (and class notes ect.). How is it going to be able to do dems and pracs, and class discussions? I really want to like the idea of wikiversity, but I'm gonna need some clarifying before ill do that.
sixthly, there is no sixthly.
paz e amor,
the bellman.
Robin Shannon wrote:
Okay i have just gone through all the last bajllion emails from this list in the last couple of days when i should have been editing [[victor chang]], but never mind.
firstly, re: wikinews, it will be released under GFDL yes? which means that if CNN or BBC or ABC or NZBC or the guardian or even slashdot or a blog wanted to reproduce our wikinews article, then they would have to also reproduce the entire GFDL license (or did i read the GDFL incorrectly), which may well be twice as long as the news article. Has anyone else thought of this problem and come up with any solutions. Other than this my position on wikinews is not active support, but certainly close interest.
It's not necessary to quote the GFDL inline with the text, you just have to have a short license note and a link. You don't see the full text of the GFDL in each of our articles on Wikipedia do you?
A printed version would presumably have to have the full license attached.
secondly, What the hell is the difference between wikicommons and wikisource? They both seem to me to be depositories for pd/gfdl primary sources.
The major difference is that Wikicommons is for images and Wikisource is for text.
thirdly, who's bright idea was it to make a user in wikipedia not a user in wiktionary, metawiki, etc. (and vice versa), is it too late to make every user a cross-wiki user, or are there already cross-overs (for example a [[user:jondoe]] in wiktionary and a different user but with the name [[user:jondoe]] in wikibooks?
Whose bright idea was it? Rephrase your question please. MediaWiki was written by volunteers in their spare time for the benefit of people like you. Be thankful there is a wiki at all.
fourthly, yes parenthisis are wonderful things. (perhaps this is in reply to en.wikpedia list, i cant remember)
It's spelt "parentheses".
fifthly, what would wikiverstiy offer that wikibooks doesnt? i fail to see how a wiki is capable of producing anything that a university offers other than text books (and class notes ect.). How is it going to be able to do dems and pracs, and class discussions? I really want to like the idea of wikiversity, but I'm gonna need some clarifying before ill do that.
It can't offer pracs and class discussions, the proponents were very clear on this. There's no need to be so negative about it.
sixthly, there is no sixthly.
seventhly point one, re: the latin traslation, could this be included as class work in wikiversity?
seventhly point two, i think that mediawiki should have some built in thingo to make translation and peer-review of translation easier for things such as trasnlatin between different language wikipedias ect. There are lots of people who might be able to roughly translate something (ie, fluent in one language, and half decent in another), but not up to the standard required for addition into wikipedia, however if collaborative traslation was allowed then this might be overcome. i dont know exactly how this would work, just an idea
A method for easy translation has already been implemented in EmacsWiki, see http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/community/MultilingualExperiment
The author of that feature (Mattis Manzel) has promoted potential applications for Wikimedia, especially on meta.
seventhly point three, re: the idea of footnotes raised for latin translation, i think this could apply to lots of other things (and i know that footnotes have been debated before) but i would like to add to this debate by saying that these footnotes should act as another meta-page, like discussion, page history etc. if people are interested in this idea, ill post a more detailed RFC.
Don't bother with the RFC, just post PHP.
-- Tim Starling
But if it can't offer those, then I would like to repeat Robin's question: What would wikiversity offer that wikibooks doesn't? That's no negativity, that's a legitimate question. Apparently it is NOT dems, pracs and class discussions. So what is it?
Andre Engels
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:08:42 +1000, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
Robin Shannon wrote:
fifthly, what would wikiverstiy offer that wikibooks doesnt? i fail to see how a wiki is capable of producing anything that a university offers other than text books (and class notes ect.). How is it going to be able to do dems and pracs, and class discussions? I really want to like the idea of wikiversity, but I'm gonna need some clarifying before ill do that.
It can't offer pracs and class discussions, the proponents were very clear on this. There's no need to be so negative about it.
Just a few examples :
Video. Course materials such as problem sets, exams, etc. There would be an extra layer of interactivity for some of these things; login to take an exam, receive questions randomized from a large list, take a timed test, and see your score afterwards. Public reviews of submitted work.
There's a lot that can be learned from a public review -- be it a review of code, a problem set, a translation or proofreading effort, aa research paper or a page of creative writing. And even more can be learned from masterclasses -- experts coming to review the work of talented contributors. Most of this can be captured on-wiki.
Much of this is temporal, unlike the content in most books. And while all content (even an encyclopedia or dictionary) could be captured between the covers of a book, this does not make wikibooks the right place for all other wikimedia projects.
+sj+
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:40:21 +0200, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
But if it can't offer those, then I would like to repeat Robin's question: What would wikiversity offer that wikibooks doesn't? That's no negativity, that's a legitimate question. Apparently it is NOT dems, pracs and class discussions. So what is it?
Andre Engels
Wikibooks is a collection of textbooks. People aim to write textbooks.
They don't aim to directly teach people, nor do they aim to directly learn things. They don't undertake courses. This is where Wikiversity comes in.
I would also disagree with whoever suggested that you couldn't have class discussions as part of a Wikiversity model. I think that could definitely work, though pracs and the like would be near impossible.
Please, just give this a go. I'm going to have a lot of time this summer, and it'd be nice to use it to help get this project started.
Wikiversity seems to me like it should be a way to view wikibooks, or a subdomain within it, like wikikidsbooks or wikisciencefiction would be about kids books or sci-fi, but that's just me.
James
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andre Engels Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 11:40 AM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] wikinews and other stuff
But if it can't offer those, then I would like to repeat Robin's question: What would wikiversity offer that wikibooks doesn't? That's no negativity, that's a legitimate question. Apparently it is NOT dems, pracs and class discussions. So what is it?
Andre Engels
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:08:42 +1000, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
Robin Shannon wrote:
fifthly, what would wikiverstiy offer that wikibooks doesnt? i fail to see how a wiki is capable of producing anything that a university offers other than text books (and class notes ect.). How is it going to be able to do dems and pracs, and class discussions? I really want to like the idea of wikiversity, but I'm gonna need some clarifying before ill do that.
It can't offer pracs and class discussions, the proponents were very clear on this. There's no need to be so negative about it.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
*sigh* How many times do I (and any of the other people interested in this project) need to say this?
Wikiversity is *not* just about writing textbooks.
-- ambi
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 23:07:42 +0200, James R. Johnson modean52@comcast.net wrote:
Wikiversity seems to me like it should be a way to view wikibooks, or a subdomain within it, like wikikidsbooks or wikisciencefiction would be about kids books or sci-fi, but that's just me.
James
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andre Engels Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 11:40 AM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] wikinews and other stuff
But if it can't offer those, then I would like to repeat Robin's question: What would wikiversity offer that wikibooks doesn't? That's no negativity, that's a legitimate question. Apparently it is NOT dems, pracs and class discussions. So what is it?
Andre Engels
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:08:42 +1000, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
Robin Shannon wrote:
fifthly, what would wikiverstiy offer that wikibooks doesnt? i fail to see how a wiki is capable of producing anything that a university offers other than text books (and class notes ect.). How is it going to be able to do dems and pracs, and class discussions? I really want to like the idea of wikiversity, but I'm gonna need some clarifying before ill do that.
It can't offer pracs and class discussions, the proponents were very clear on this. There's no need to be so negative about it.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Rebecca a écrit:
*sigh* How many times do I (and any of the other people interested in this project) need to say this?
Wikiversity is *not* just about writing textbooks.
-- ambi
It might be that information is not clear enough then.
Honestly, it is not clear in my mind what the difference is. I suppose it is my fault for not reading enough all mails about both. But still... it *is* confusing.
Anthere
firstly, re: wikinews, it will be released under GFDL yes? which means that if CNN or BBC or ABC or NZBC or the guardian or even slashdot or a blog wanted to reproduce our wikinews article, then they would have to also reproduce the entire GFDL license (or did i read the GDFL incorrectly), which may well be twice as long as the news article. Has anyone else thought of this problem and come up with any solutions. Other than this my position on wikinews is not active support, but certainly close interest.
One solution would be what Tim Starling proposed on WikiCommons: We get our own Wikimedia license, which specifies that material under the Wikimedia license may also be distributed under the GNU/FDL license (as well as CC-BY-SA and perhaps others). The Wikimedia license then could specify that mentioning "This material may be published in changed or unchanged state under the Wikimedia license" would be enough.
Andre Engels
I strongly support the Wikimedia License idea. GDFL is not that appropriate to Wikis for plenty of reasons. I'll tell them when there'll be a real issue here :) Suffice it to say that considering what wiki actually is, technically, and what kind of ambition Wfoundation actually has, a tailor-made license would be just *better*. Of course, I would join any thinktank about this topic and even would accept to draft the main lines - with the help of a decent French-English translator ... of course. villy
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andre Engels" andreengels@gmail.com To: "Robin Shannon" robin.shannon@gmail.com; "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 11:25 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] wikinews and other stuff
firstly, re: wikinews, it will be released under GFDL yes? which means that if CNN or BBC or ABC or NZBC or the guardian or even slashdot or a blog wanted to reproduce our wikinews article, then they would have to also reproduce the entire GFDL license (or did i read the GDFL incorrectly), which may well be twice as long as the news article. Has anyone else thought of this problem and come up with any solutions. Other than this my position on wikinews is not active support, but certainly close interest.
One solution would be what Tim Starling proposed on WikiCommons: We get our own Wikimedia license, which specifies that material under the Wikimedia license may also be distributed under the GNU/FDL license (as well as CC-BY-SA and perhaps others). The Wikimedia license then could specify that mentioning "This material may be published in changed or unchanged state under the Wikimedia license" would be enough.
Andre Engels _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
We've recenly found GFDL to be a headache, and most wished that CC existed at the start of WP so we could use it. Now that we're starting Wikinews from scratch, is there any reason to stick with GFDL, other than familiarity? I like the CC or special Wikimedia route. Perhaps we could get Lessig to help craft one appropriate to our needs.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:20:15 +1000, Robin Shannon robin.shannon@gmail.com wrote:
Okay i have just gone through all the last bajllion emails from this list in the last couple of days when i should have been editing [[victor chang]], but never mind.
firstly, re: wikinews, it will be released under GFDL yes? which means that if CNN or BBC or ABC or NZBC or the guardian or even slashdot or a blog wanted to reproduce our wikinews article, then they would have to also reproduce the entire GFDL license (or did i read the GDFL incorrectly), which may well be twice as long as the news article. Has anyone else thought of this problem and come up with any solutions. Other than this my position on wikinews is not active support, but certainly close interest.
secondly, What the hell is the difference between wikicommons and wikisource? They both seem to me to be depositories for pd/gfdl primary sources.
thirdly, who's bright idea was it to make a user in wikipedia not a user in wiktionary, metawiki, etc. (and vice versa), is it too late to make every user a cross-wiki user, or are there already cross-overs (for example a [[user:jondoe]] in wiktionary and a different user but with the name [[user:jondoe]] in wikibooks?
fourthly, yes parenthisis are wonderful things. (perhaps this is in reply to en.wikpedia list, i cant remember)
fifthly, what would wikiverstiy offer that wikibooks doesnt? i fail to see how a wiki is capable of producing anything that a university offers other than text books (and class notes ect.). How is it going to be able to do dems and pracs, and class discussions? I really want to like the idea of wikiversity, but I'm gonna need some clarifying before ill do that.
sixthly, there is no sixthly.
paz e amor,
the bellman. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
CC would be wonderful. Anything wrong with CC-by? Any other particulars people would like in a 'special' CC license?
--sj--
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:05:45 +0800, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
We've recenly found GFDL to be a headache, and most wished that CC existed at the start of WP so we could use it. Now that we're starting Wikinews from scratch, is there any reason to stick with GFDL, other than familiarity? I like the CC or special Wikimedia route. Perhaps we could get Lessig to help craft one appropriate to our needs.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
Andrew Lih wrote:
We've recenly found GFDL to be a headache, and most wished that CC existed at the start of WP so we could use it. Now that we're starting Wikinews from scratch, is there any reason to stick with GFDL, other than familiarity? I like the CC or special Wikimedia route. Perhaps we could get Lessig to help craft one appropriate to our needs.
Discussions with Lessig, Stallman, Moglen, and others have been going quite well. I'm sending off a document to them all with our specific concerns, and there seems to be broad support from all of them to make changes to simplify and clarify the license to make it better suit our needs.
This just takes time, that's all.
--Jimbo
Robin-
firstly, re: wikinews, it will be released under GFDL yes?
Currently I'm leaning towards it for reasons of compatibility. But I'd really like to ask Jimmy to give us a quick update on where the talks with the FSF and the Creative Commons folk stand on making the FDL 2.0 CC-SA- compatible.
secondly, What the hell is the difference between wikicommons and wikisource? They both seem to me to be depositories for pd/gfdl primary sources.
Yes, which is why I initially proposed Wikimedia Commons to include what is currently on Wikisource. I still think the two should be merged.
thirdly, who's bright idea was it to make a user in wikipedia not a user in wiktionary, metawiki, etc. (and vice versa), is it too late to make every user a cross-wiki user
A migration to single sign-on is being worked on.
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Currently I'm leaning towards it for reasons of compatibility. But I'd really like to ask Jimmy to give us a quick update on where the talks with the FSF and the Creative Commons folk stand on making the FDL 2.0 CC-SA- compatible.
This is very important; I just had somebody contact me about using one of my dual-licensed (FDL / cc-by-sa) images in a book he is writing and I had to warm him against using the image under the GNU-FDL since its mass print requirements are relatively onerous (printing all 7 pages of the FDL being the worst part).
A GNU FDL / cc-by-sa dual licensing scheme could be used for Wikinews... But this would eliminate the option of re-incorporating third party improvements back into Wikinews and would also make it impractical to incorporate Wikipedia content into Wikinews for background content (since in both cases the third party/Wikipedia users would have to agree to dual-license their work). So what we really need is GNU FDL and cc-by-sa compatibility ASAP.
Yes, which is why I initially proposed Wikimedia Commons to include what is currently on Wikisource. I still think the two should be merged.
As do I.
A migration to single sign-on is being worked on.
This is also very important.
</aol>
-- mav
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
Erik Moeller wrote:
secondly, What the hell is the difference between wikicommons and wikisource? They both seem to me to be depositories for pd/gfdl primary sources.
Yes, which is why I initially proposed Wikimedia Commons to include what is currently on Wikisource. I still think the two should be merged.
I see Wikimedia Commons as being more of a repository, while Wikisource is more of a general text-document-oriented site that isn't merely a dumping ground for documents, but also organizes them, translates them, annotates them, and so on. It's not clear how the proposed translation project would fit in at the Commons, for example.
(I could be misinterpreting what the Commons is supposed to be.)
-Mark
IMHO the overlap between Commons and Source mainly concerns text documents. And IIRC Source started out as a text repository while Commons started out as an image repository. Then Commons somehow grew into an "all kinds of shared files"-thing, hence the present overlap.
</my2cents>
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On 15 Oct 2004, at 22:54, Delirium wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
secondly, What the hell is the difference between wikicommons and wikisource? They both seem to me to be depositories for pd/gfdl primary sources.
Yes, which is why I initially proposed Wikimedia Commons to include what is currently on Wikisource. I still think the two should be merged.
I see Wikimedia Commons as being more of a repository, while Wikisource is more of a general text-document-oriented site that isn't merely a dumping ground for documents, but also organizes them, translates them, annotates them, and so on. It's not clear how the proposed translation project would fit in at the Commons, for example.
(I could be misinterpreting what the Commons is supposed to be.)
-Mark
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Delirium-
I see Wikimedia Commons as being more of a repository, while Wikisource is more of a general text-document-oriented site that isn't merely a dumping ground for documents, but also organizes them, translates them, annotates them, and so on. It's not clear how the proposed translation project would fit in at the Commons, for example.
This is a very logical distinction at the present time, because we haven't really put much effort into "wikifying" anything beyond text. There are a few things which can open up this horizon though:
* SVG support, which is currently in CVS, makes it relatively easy to create translations of vector graphics like maps and diagrames.
* The various extensions like timelines and Wikitex (not to be confused with the current math support) can also be openly edited.
* It is possible, with a helper application, to add support for arbitrary external applications to edit all media types and upload them back to the server. Zope has this already: http://www.zope.org/Members/Caseman/ExternalEditor
* It is desirable to have an easy way to overlay bitmap images with textual explanations. Perhaps SVG can help here. Similarly, we will want to make it easy to create image maps.
Thus, the distinction between Wikisource and WikiCommons will erode further, as we will do many of the same things with images, sound and video that the Wikisource community is doing with text.
The other side is that we will also want to make it possible to transclude textual content in the Wikimedia projects, e.g., "show me the first paragraph of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the English version". This means that Wikisource will be used in a manner that is very similar to the Wikimedia Commons, i.e. to enrich other Wikimedia content. Given this overlap, I will launch a merge initiative when the time is right (unless someone else does).
That being said, we should absolutely, 100% launch a systematic effort to translate Wikisource materials. Free content translations are very hard to come by. Perhaps, through this, we can also entice people to put their content under a free license (provided the content is valuable to us).
Regards,
Erik
Delirium wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
secondly, What the hell is the difference between wikicommons and wikisource? They both seem to me to be depositories for pd/gfdl primary sources.
Yes, which is why I initially proposed Wikimedia Commons to include what is currently on Wikisource. I still think the two should be merged.
I see Wikimedia Commons as being more of a repository, while Wikisource is more of a general text-document-oriented site that isn't merely a dumping ground for documents, but also organizes them, translates them, annotates them, and so on. It's not clear how the proposed translation project would fit in at the Commons, for example.
-Mark
My vision coincides more with Mark's on this. Texts are handled diferently from the multimedia material that I would expect to find in the Commons. Illustrations are relatively uneditable.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org