spaanszt(a)xs4all.nl wrote:
>hi Gerard,
>
>Begrjp ik dat Limburgs een eigen taalcode heeft, net als nederlands en fries?
>Zo ja, zou er dan geen limburgse wiki moeten komen?
>
>teun
>
>
>>Hoi,
>>Vandaag heb ik voor het eerst een woord in het Limburgs aangemaakt. Best
>>byzonder dat dat nu pas gebeurd in de Nederlandstalige wiktionary,
>>Wikiwoordenboek. Het woord "vriedig" ofwel vrijdag is het geworden.
>>
>>De ISO 639 code voor Limburgs is li :)
>>
>>Groetjes,
>> Gerard
>>
Hoi,
Limburgs heeft een ISO 639 code net als het Fries, het Nederlands.
Daarmee is de vraag of er een wikipedia voor het Limburgs moet komen
niet beantwoord. Als je het Limburgs van Roermond vergelijkt met het
Limburgs van Maastricht, dan lijken het wel twee talen. Er is geen
STANDAARD Limburgs zoals dat er wel is voor het Fries en het Nederlands
en dat maakt het haast onmogelijk om tot een goede implementatie van een
Limburgse wikipedia te komen.
Verder zijn de wikimedia techneuten er niet happig op om nieuwe
projecten te starten. Dit weekend wordt er gesproken over een nieuwe
procedure om een nieuw project te kunnen aanvragen..
Groetjes,
GerardM
Hoi,
De Automatiseringsgids heeft een artikel geplaatst nav het persbericht
over de samenwerking tussen Kennisnet en Wikipedia. Dit artikel is
vervolgens binnen Essent verspreid. Zie hieronder.
Groet,
Fruggo
3. Steun Kennisnet voor Wikipedia
Automatiseringgids; 27-05-05
DEN HAAG --- Kennisnet heeft een samenwerkingsovereenkomst gesloten
met de online encyclopedie Wikipedia. Het Nederlandse basis-,
voortgezet- en beroepsonderwijs kan niet meer zonder de informatie uit
de databank die iedereen vrij kan raadplegen, bewerken en aanvullen,
bleek gisteren uit de bekendmaking van het partnerschap. Wikipedia kan
de steun goed gebruiken om de snelgroeiende encyclopedie betrouwbaar
en actueel te houden, verklaarde een woordvoerder.
De internetorganisatie van het Nederlandse onderwijs stelt Wikipedia
Nederland onder meer apparatuur ter beschikking. Het
gemeenschapsproject heeft baat bij de samenwerking omdat leerlingen en
docenten de encyclopedie kunnen attenderen op fouten en
onzorgvuldigheden en scholieren zelf bijdragen kunnen gaan leveren aan
bijvoorbeeld de vrije nieuwsbron Wikinieuws. In het geval van
vandalisme, valse wijzigingen, scheldwoorden en beledigingen in
bijdragen, kunnen scholen helpen de daders opsporen en waarschuwen.
Om hoeveel financiële steun van Kennisnet het gaat, kon en wilde de
woordvoerder van Wikipedia donderdag niet zeggen. "Het gaat niet om
geld, het gaan ons om de nuttige, unieke, samenwerking."
De Nederlandstalige Wikipedia ging in 2001 online en bestaat inmiddels
uit meer dan 70.000 artikelen. De hoeveelheid informatie verdubbelt
nog elk half jaar, aldus de vrijwilligers die het gemeenschapsproject
dragen.
De Amerikaanse oprichter van Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, komt volgende
week naar de eerste Open Holland Software Conference in Amsterdam om
een toelichting te geven op de samenwerking met het Nederlandse
onderwijs. (anp)
Hoi,
Last time we had a wikimeet in Amsterdam we practically started in the
first class restaurant of the Amsterdam Central Station. As far as I am
aware for coming Sunday 15:00 is a good time for you.
If you want me to I can pick you up at Schiphol.. I just need to know
your flight number (please reply seperately if you want this)
Thanks,
GerardM
to wikinl-l (please moderate my post if it does not go through :-))
cc wikipedia-l
Hello,
I have been informed by the nl moderators of the copyright issues related to the website Izynews.
I was told about three issues
* replacement in the website of the word wikipedia by the word encyclopedia, with as a result inappropriate citation of the source in some areas (such as the copyright page) and a totally stupid article on "wikipedia" itself.
* total lack of source and copyright mention in images for the nl part of the website
* errors in the copyright mention for images (for example cc-by images are tagged gfdl)
I do feel Izynews is acting in good faith here, as the second point (lack of source and copyright mention) was only a problem in the dutch part of the website. In the french part of it, all images are missing. In the german part of it, tags are correct.
This second point has actually been resolved overnight, and the website now properly report Wikipedia as the source of images. So, I tend to believe they were in the process of fixing the issue.
To be fair, I would even go as far as saying as generally, they are particularly well compliant with regards to our copyrights, since they point to wikipedia, point to the foundation, point to the history, put the GFDL copyright tag, and added a small wikipedia logo on top.
Two issues are still pending
* the replacement of the term "wikipedia" by "encyclopedie" in many pages
* the errors in the image tagging.
I wrote them a letter yesterday to mention them the two issues and ask them to fix it as soon as possible. You may find a copy of this mail here :
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-May/039822.html
If necessary, I will write to them again in a little while, and if no improvement is visible, I will talk about it to our legal team on juriwiki-l mailing list.
But I am quite confident it will not be necessary.
I feel they are acting in good faith here and will fix the problem.
The replacement of the term wikipedia should be easy for them to fix.
The issue of tag mistake is more problematic. We do not ourselves provide proper information for website to respect the licence, in particular when the images are displayed in the encyclopedia, but are hosted in wikicommons, as the image information is not so easily reachable. It might be that the issue has to be discussed on wikitech-l.
I hope the two moderators on "strike" will have the patience to give them time to react and fix all this.
I will repeat what I said, cheer up :-)
Aside from this, I would like to discuss a couple of things.
1) I understood that some of you are deeply unhappy with the fact some websites use our content to make cash :
It is perfectly normal that websites use our content, as it is the goal of our project to first build the resource, and second make the information widely available. The license allow use of the content aside with advertisements; It is also possible to make books with partial or full content from Wikipedia, to sell them and make cash with them. I fully understand it might be painful to see some people are making money with the work you are providing for free, but this is just necessary with our goal.
I will give you an example of why it is important : hosting information on a website does not cost much money, so most people with internet access can get the information for free. However, in other countries, with minimal net access, information is also necessary and will have to be provided via cd rom, dvd, books, wikireaders etc... All those cost money to "publish" and to "distribute". So no one will make them if their costs are not at least covered. That means they must have the possibility to "sell" them, at least to cover their costs, or possibly to make money on them. So, our content, our images should be useable by anyone, even for commercial reasons. If you forbid use for commercial reasons, no content, no images will ever be available to all those who can not access the website.
Second, it must be available for commercialization, because we want people to be able to use bits of our content in other works, which might be for sale.
2) I understood that a template has been created, to be used on images, with a label "For Wikipedia use only"
If images or content are under a restriction of use (ie, if editors put them under a licence which restrict use to wikipedia only), no one else than us will ever be able to use our content. We'll create a monopoly. Just like Microsoft. This is not what most of us want to do. We want the information to be free to use by anyone, this is our mission. The mission is not to create a monopoly, nor to create content under copyright restricting usage.
Putting images under a "for wikipedia use only" has a name. It is called a "copyright". So, in creating a tag "for wikipedia use only" to tag your pictures, you are specifically putting copyrighted content in Wikipedia. This is not alright as our goal is to provide "free" content.
Some wikipedia projects have chosen to entirely ban all non-free pictures from their site. Others have chosen to accept copyrighted images under fair-use, but try to restrict their use to situations where there is no other choice than using a copyrighted pictures (for example movie poster). Generally, the recommandation is "avoid using copyrighted images, and only do if there is NO free image possible." As Walter indicated... if the "image for wikipedia use" exist when there is no images available otherwise, well, yes, I suppose it is better than nothing :-)
But, while we sometimes have to use copyright images, I do not think it is a good idea that wikipedians themselves contribute in releasing their own images under a copyright. I think it is diverting our goal. If images of the sort stay a very limited number, I do not see the problem. If it is generalized, I think it will be a major issue. I suppose that one day you will make a cd rom of nl content, and it is likely it will be commercialised by an external provider, and this will lead to the distribution of a very poorly illustrated product, as nl will have to remove all these pictures. I think this is unfortunate.
Since somebody asked, yes, I presume that any image with a "for Wikipedia use only" will be deleted from Wikicommons. Wikicommons is a free content repository, not a copyrighted content repository.
3) Last. A moderator mentionned he was not happy to see some websites use the content to make cash, when he, as a contributor is severely lacking money for his own survival.
I of course feel empathy toward you. I am sorry to hear about your misfortune. It is indeed a fact that volunteer work is only possible for those who have already satisfied their basic needs (shelter, food, warmth and love). Those have to struggle to get this, and will not be able to help do charitable work. This is our choice to help do this. And I am sure many wikipedians amongst us are also on the verge of not satisfying their basic needs.
It is also a fact that some have always made profit of others work. Yes, even when you try to gather and ship medicine for people after a earthquake, there are always some assholes to steal part of the merchandise and make cash with it and let die people in needs. We have to live up with this.
But I have two suggestions to offer to you my friend :
* why not contacting these websites owners... and tell them simply "hi, we are happy you mirror our content. I think your business would benefit from us providing a good content, and benefit from you helping us providing good content. Would you possibly consider helping us and making a small donation to help our charitable goals ?".
Perhaps they would.... some mirrors are already doing this.
In some countries, in particular some arab ones, Islam requires that one gives 10% of his income to charitable institutions. If you do not do it, you are a bad muslim. Donation is one of the pillar of the religion. It is even included in the income tax forms in Maroco :-) You can select some charitable institutions you want to give to.
Well, try to reach for people Karma. Make them feel good in giving us a bit of cash. If you succeed to do this with an "ads mirror", I will personally push so that your trip to come to Wikimania is paid by the Foundation :-)
* second idea if you have enough free time. Other wikipedians already tried it. I am not sure they really were successful though. Be yourself a distributor of Wikipedia content, and make a bit of cash on it yourself. Be kind with other contributors, redistribute part of your benefits if you make some. But keep a bit for yourself to be well fed, well dressed, and keep your girl friend happy. If I had to choose, I think it would be best that wikireaders or books or specialized websites using our content or advertised mirrors, benefits our own contributors rather than benefiting people we just do not know.
...might be a controversial idea... but I stick to it :-)
Anthere
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site!
Hoi,
For tonight at 20:00 an IRC chat was planned. I was to ask the board and
elian for the de:chapter and I was under the impression that someone
else would notify the Dutch community in "de Kroeg". Somewhere it
slipped. It turned out that some things went wrong as well technically.
Anyway, As far as I am concerned I would really like to have the IRC
chat tonight anyway. That is one reason for this e-mail. Some people
will not be able to make it, I am sorry about that. The thing is there
have been valid reasons for the past few weeks why not to have this
chat. The result is that we are not moving forward on the creation of a
Dutch chapter. In itself it is not bad, there is no rush, but it is now
in need of some more energy.
The topic would be:
* what is the aim for the organisation.
My idea is to represent the Wikimedia Foundation in the Netherlands
*what type of organisation will it be a "vereniging" or a "stichting"
*what would the relation be with projects and the organisation.
There are many Dutch people not involved in nl:wikipedia but are
active on en:wikipedia, wiktionary etc
Thanks,
Hope to see you on #nl.wikimedia at 20:00
GerardM
Hoi,
Toen Mozes van de berg aan kwam zeulen met stenen tafelen was hij
bepaald niet het snoepje van de week. Hij moest een tweede keer die berg
op en kwam toen met 10 geboden terug.. Aldus de overlevering. Op het
ogenblik wordt er nogal gestoeid over het belang van onze gemeenschap
vis a vis de doelstelling van wikipedia.
Laat me nou gevraagd zijn "de letter from the Founder" te vertalen. Ik
moet me vandaag nog scheren, dus wat dat betreft lijk ik misschien op
deze bijbelse grootheid. Op mijn tafel staat:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/WQ/3/En/2
Ik hoop dat ik in tegenstelling tot Mozes het beloofde land niet alleen
mag zien maar ook mag betreden.. Nu we toch Bijbels praten, laten we het
kalf slachten als de verloren zoon weer tot ons komt in plaats van het
kalf te aanbidden..
PS Ik doe niet aan exegese.
PS2 Met dank aan pjetter voor het proof lezen :)
Groetjes,
GerardM
-------------------------------------
De doelstelling van Wikimedia is om de kennis van de wereld beschikbaar
te stellen aan ieder mens op aarde in zijn eigen taal. Als onderdeel van
die missie is het doel van Wikipedia om een encyclopedie te maken, en
beschikbaar te maken. De vraag of de gemeenschap belangrijker is dan dit
doel is eigenlijk een verkeerde vraag, de gemeenschap heeft als doel die
encyclopedie te maken
Wikimedia's mission is to give the world's knowledge to every single
person on the planet in their own language. As part of that mission,
Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a
free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality. Asking whether the
community comes before or after this goal is really asking the wrong
question: the entire purpose of the community is this goal.
Er is mij geen geval bekend van echte spanning tussen deze twee zaken.
Dat wil zeggen dat de kern van de gemeenschap, de mensen die het echte
werk doen, allen gepassioneerd bezig aan dit ene doel, het creeeren van
iets van een extreem hoge kwaliteit. Zij zijn niet bezig met een
gemeenschap om de gemeenschap
I don't know of any case where there is a genuine tension between these
two things, either. That is to say, the central core of the community,
the people who are really doing the work, are all passionate about this
point: that we're creating something of extremely high quality, not just
building an online community for its own sake.
De gemeenschap komt niet voor deze taak, de gemeenschap is georganiseerd
om deze taak heen. Het verschil is dat beslissingen niet genomen moeten
worden op wat goed in de gemeenschap valt of andere traditionele
waarden, maar in het licht van de taak die we ons gesteld hebben.
The community does not come before our task, the community is organized
*around* our task. The difference is simply that decisions should always
be made, not on the grounds of social expediency or popular majority or
traditional credentials, but in light of the requirements of the job we
have set for ourselves.
Ik onderschrijf het beeld niet dat door een minderheid gehuldigd wordt
dat Wikipedia anti-elitair is of anti-specialisten. In tegendeel we zijn
in extreme mate elitair, we hechten echter weinig waarden aan rangen en
standen. Dat wil zeggen, we zoeken bedachtzame intelligente mensen, die
met veel inzet samenwerken om een acuraat en gebalanceerd resultaat te
produceren. Met minder nemen we geen genoegen. Een academische titel
geeft blijk van een potentieel, het aantrekken en behouden van
academische specialisten is een van onze doelen.
I do not endorse the view, a view held as far as I know only by a tiny
minority, that Wikipedia is anti-elitist or anti-expert in any way. If
anything, we are *extremely* elitist, but we are anti-credentialist.
Attracting and retaining academic specialists is one of our goals. That
is, we seek thoughtful intelligent people willing to do the very hard
work of collaborating with others to be both accurate and balanced, and
we don't accept anything less than that. A PhD is valuable evidence of
that willingness, but it is not a substitute for these qualities.
Echter, een academische kwalificatie is geen substituut voor de
kwaliteiten die we zoeken. Het kan gebeuren dat een artikel als
persoonlijk eigendom gezien wordt, of dat het niet geaccepteerd wordt
wanneer een standpunt in twijfel wordt getrokken of dat het geduld niet
opgebracht wordt voor een discussie. In die gevallen is expertise van
een beperkte waarde, als iemand niet op een vriendelijke behulpzame
manier in een sociale context kan samenwerken, of vindt dat de
academische kwalificaties het recht geven om een beslissing door te
drukken, dan hebben we beiden een probleem. We zullen altijd complexe
afwegingen moeten maken hoe we hier mee omgaan.
There may be cases of PhDs who think that no one should edit their
expert articles, or who can't stand seeing their point of view
challenged, and has no patience for discussion. In these cases, their
expertise is of limited value; if someone is unable to work in a
friendly, helpful way in a social context, and feels that their
credentials entitle them to the last word on a subject; this is a
problem for them and for us. We will always have to make complex
judgments about how to handle such situations..
Ik sta 100% achter het doel van een traditionele encyclopedie of betere
kwaliteit voor Wikipedia, en alle sociale regels die daar voor nodig
zijn. Openheid en inclusiviteit zijn daarvoor essentieel, maar het zijn
onze radicale middelen voor ons radicale doel.
I'm 100% committed to a goal of a "traditional encylopedia or better"
quality for Wikipedia, and all of our social rules should revolve around
that. Openness and inclusiveness are indispensible for us, but these are
our *radical* means to our radical *ends*.