I notice there's no easy way to change a redirect on the PHP wikipedia ( or
I am missing something? There's no link back on the page you've been
redirected to, and I think this is somewhat dangerous, since somebody could
maliciously redirect page names. The possibilities are actually pretty bad,
imagine words people take very seriously like Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, being
redirected to racial epithets. If this kind of thing happened, it should
be relatively easy for any of us to fix so it doesn't stay around for
long...
Mark Christensen
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Manske [mailto:Magnus.Manske@epost.de]
The English tarball is up at
http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/fpw/wiki.phtml! It is a little out-of-date
(13.000 pages, ~8.000 articles), but it should give a realistic view of the
performance to be expected. Of course, I will continue improving speed, and
the sourceforge server seems a little slow (to me, anyway) compared to the
bomis server, so don't be scared if something takes a second to load,
especially the new special functions. "Orphans" is currently not working
because it blows the memory limit for scripts on the sourceforge server.
I'll try to fix it some time soon.
Note : All Foobar/Talk subpages have been automatically converted to
talk:Foobar! There should be a green link on every article page leading to
the talk namespace.
I hereby officially welcome The Cunctator to the test site! Found some bugs
already! :)
And, yes, the script will be "free software". It's at sourceforge, after
all...
Magnus
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> In my opinion, just an opinion as a user, I think you should restrict
> them from doing that. It will be too confusing. Lots of old users
> will drop back by, unaware of software changes, and we should try to
> make everything seamless for them.
> If they try /Talk, they surely just mean talk: in the new system. So
> we can make that transition for them, as transparently as possible?
> Other opinions?
I recommend not building in automatic technological restrictions if
we believe the combination of
a) social pressure and
b) automatic ease of doing the "preferred" thing
In other words, having the Talk namespace is great, I think (though
it does raise some confusing issues about hierarchies etc.) and we should,
if we implement it, automatically convert current /Talk pages to
the new system.
That way new people wouldn't have any motivation to create /Talk pages;
and old people, who will know what's going on, won't have any motivation
to create /Talk pages.
What we don't know, is that in the future, someone might actually have
a good reason for wanting a /Talk page. I can't think of one, but I'm
not arrogant enough to believe that I can think of every possibility.
Someone would need a pretty good justification, because the societal
regulations would prevent him from creating the page without good reason.
So I say this is a case in which its unnecessary to build in restrictions
in code as long as we make the preferred method the standard and easy to
use.
--
The Cunctator
cunctator(a)kband.com www.kband.comwww.wikipedia.com/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/In_Memoriam
> Message: 10
> From: "Magnus Manske" <Magnus.Manske(a)epost.de>
> To: "Wikipedia-L@Nupedia. Com" <wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com>
> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:16:16 +0100
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] PHP script with tarball from www.wikipedia.com
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com
>
> Note : All Foobar/Talk subpages have been automatically converted to
> talk:Foobar! There should be a green link on every article page leading to
> the talk namespace.
If a /Talk space doesn't exist, and you create one, is it still supposed
to map to a talk: space ? Currently, it doesn't. (Check out
architechure/Talk, which I just did)
-- Pat
--
This message does not represent the policies or positions
of the Mayo Foundation or its subsidiaries.
Patrick Spinler email: Spinler.Patrick(a)Mayo.EDU
Mayo Foundation phone: 507/284-9485
Please do. Think of all the [[/Talking past each other]] that would
happen then. ~8-<
kq
You Wrote:
>I didn't restrict page titles with "/", so you can still create
a /talk
>subpage to every page, even within the talk: namespace. Your
>Architecture/Talk page even has its own talk: namespace. I hope
people will
>not create /talk subpages when they have a talk: namespace, but I
don't
>think I could (or should) stop them.
>
>Or should I?
>
>Magnus
0
Larry wrote:
[An impassioned and earnest defense of linkbacks]
I agree wholeheartedly.
The only thing is that the GFDL already requires linkbacks
in pretty much every situation.
We don't need to add an invariant section unless we want to
determine the look-and-feel of the linkback.
What we need to do, at a minimum, is follow the nuances of
the GFDL and comply with it, and give our recommendations
on how we believe (without giving official legal advice)
you (Joe Q. Other) can use Wikipedia content in compliance.
We should frame it as "All you have to do to use our
stuff is follow the GFDL. If you do these things [list]
we (Wikipedia/Bomis/etc.) will consider that you are
successfully following the GFDL. But the list is only
a set of recommendations and is not legal advice."
Then we can say "This HTML table is the recommended way
to link back to Wikipedia. If you put it on your site,
you will not only be complying with the GFDL but also
helping grow Wikipedia."
etc. etc.
But first steps is actually understanding the GFDL,
which requires a close analysis. I recommend
doing it.
On another note, I think it's bad policy to leave the
HTML table page up as the official policy while
a) it's being discussed, and
b) the Wikipedia principals have unofficially distanced
themselves from the requirement.
--
The Cunctator
cunctator(a)kband.com www.kband.comwww.wikipedia.com/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/In_Memoriam
I would not feel comfortable with the idea that Microsoft or Yahoo
could take our content, make an encyclopedia out of it
(redistributable, of course), and *not* include an invariant section
amounting to a link back to us.
Do others share this sentiment?
--
*************************************************
* http://www.wikipedia.com/ *
* You can edit this page right now! *
*************************************************
I have a naive question re the FDL discussions. If Wikipedia is "open
content" under the GNU Free Documentation License (FDL) and special
Wikipedia add-on license, do you also provide a full specification of
the text format you use? For example, the specification that says
that ''this is italics'', that [[foo]] is a link to article Foo and
that [[foo|bar]] is a link to Foo that displays as "bar"? And the
specification that says ISBN:0-13-080360-X is to be interpreted as an
ISBN number with links to online bookstores.
In my own wiki website, I have modified the format and included new
rules. If I were to release my wiki-website's content under FDL,
would I also have to include a full specification of the format I use?
Does the GNU FDL require this? Sorry, I haven't read it.
One of my added rules is that sys:411 is to be interpreted as a link
to product number 411 in the catalog of the Swedish Alcohol Monopoly
System. (This is almost as useful as ISBN numbers. Everybody who
writes about wine or liqueur will use them as reference.) Another
rule is that linux:ls(1) is to be interpreted as a link to the Linux
manual page for the command "ls" in section 1 of the manual. I also
have an openbsd:ls(1) version, for fairness.
Contributors to my wiki learn some of these rules and use them. But
if I only release the content as is, it would be really hard to guess
exactly what is what. It would be fair to say that the content would
be useless without the format specification.
Will people volunteer their contributions to an open content project
that doesn't publish its full format specifications?
--
Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik
Teknikringen 1e, SE-583 30 Linköping, Sweden
tel +46-70-7891609
http://aronsson.se
>I would not feel comfortable with the idea that Microsoft or Yahoo
>could take our content, make an encyclopedia out of it
>(redistributable, of course), and *not* include an invariant section
>amounting to a link back to us.
>
>Do others share this sentiment?
I'll be the token dissenter here. I certainly don't care what
anyone else does with free content--that's why I made it free in
the first place, because my imagination for what uses it might
be put to is limited. Let any take it for any reason--for free
or for profit--as long as they don't commit outright fraud by
claiming that they created it and attach their own copyright
notice, it's still free.
In support of the general idea, though, I should point out that
making the requirement doesn't actually prevent any other uses,
it just makes them non-automatic. Bomis could still grant permission
for uses that violated the GFDL on an individual basis.
0
The GFDL states:
To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of
the
License in the document and put the following copyright and license
notices just after the title page:
Copyright (C) year your name.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with the Invariant Sections being list their titles, with the
Front-Cover Texts being list, and with the Back-Cover Texts being list.
A copy of the license is included in the section entitled ``GNU
Free Documentation License''.
----
The copyright and license notices are nowhere included on Wikipedia. Thus,
Wikipedia is not formally covered by the GFDL.
Is this an incorrect interpretation?
I haven't seen any counter-arguments.
Right now we're kind of in that "if you call a tail a leg, how many
legs does a horse have?" stage.
Do we have a timeline for including the necessary copyright and license
notice?
Should we workshop it?
Copyright (C) 2001 Free Software Foundation.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with
no Back-Cover Texts.
A copy of the license is included in the section entitled ``GNU
Free Documentation License''.
Another possibility:
Copyright (C) 2001 Free Software Foundation.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with the Invariant Sections being link.html, with no Front-Cover Texts,
and with no Back-Cover Texts.
A copy of the license is included in the section entitled ``GNU
Free Documentation License''.
link.html:
<a href="http://www.wikipedia.com">Wikipedia</a>
Some possibilities for the related necessary pieces for coverage under the
GFDL:
Acknowledgments:
Wikipedia is only possible through the collaborative effort of the
world community.
Title Page:
Welcome to Wikipedia, a collaborative project to produce a complete
encyclopedia from scratch. We started in January 2001 and already
have over 15,000 articles. We want to make over 100,000, so let's
get
to work--anyone can edit any page--copyedit, expand an article,
write
a little, write a lot. See the Wikipedia FAQ for information on how
to
edit pages and other questions.
The content of Wikipedia is covered by the GNU Free Documentation
License,
which means that it is free and will remain so forever. See open
content and [free content]? for background.
History:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia_Announcements
Endorsements:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Friends_of_Wikipedia
I'm also posting this to http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License/Talk
Note that this is another thing Project Sourceberg could serve as, a way
for us to collectively deal with Invariant Sections.
Note that Invariant Sections are only Invariant for people outside of
Wikipedia; they don't have to be invariant within Wikipedia.
--
The Cunctator
cunctator(a)kband.com www.kband.comwww.wikipedia.com/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/In_Memoriam
>
> I would not feel comfortable with the idea that Microsoft or Yahoo
> could take our content, make an encyclopedia out of it
> (redistributable, of course), and *not* include an invariant section
> amounting to a link back to us.
>
> Do others share this sentiment?
I feel less comfortable with the alternative.
Or another way of putting it, is, I'm comfortable with billions of people
taking our content, making an encyclopedia out of it (redistributable,
of course), and *not* including an invariant section amounting to a link
back to us. If that also means that Microsoft and Yahoo can do it as
well, then that's not so bad.
--
The Cunctator
cunctator(a)kband.com www.kband.comwww.wikipedia.com/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/In_Memoriam