Reviving old topic...
On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Michel Clasquin clasqm(a)mweb.co.za XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote:
> > the [[/Government]] pages are the only ones that obsolesce quickly.
> > The rest (People, Communications, Military, Transportation, Economy,
> > History)--barring catastrophes or other newsworthy events that people
> > would really think of adding anyway--are fairly static. Maybe we
> > could just come up with a script to update the Government each year?
>
> But I spent quite some time wikifying [[South Africa/Government]] and if
> some damn script comes and wipes that out, I'll start an edit war with it!
> <g>
>
> Perhaps each country could have two sections - one for the latest raw CIA
> data and another properly mantained by wikipedians. Of course, then we
> might as well use an external link straight to the CIA site for the first
> one.
>
I think just linking to the CIA page from each country page makes the most
sense. If someone want to make a page about the South African government
they can refer to or copy in stuff from the CIA page if they wish. But I
do not believe that it does anyone much of any good to simply copy the CIA
pages into Wikipedia.
Some of the pages are not even in a paragraphs (like
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/United_States_of_America/Communications).
The idea of giving Wikipedia some database capablities is a good (if not
high priority) one, but the CIA does not need another mirror.
Ian Monroe [[Eean]]
http://mlug.missouri.edu/~eean
>> On the English Wikipedia we play by the "better safe than sorry"
>> rule: if an article appears to be a copyright violation, we remove it.
>
>Who are "we"? A non-formal group of core contributors, or Bomis staff?
>Is there a similar "we" for the non-English language Wikipediae?
I was refering to the former.
>It appears to me that Bomis actively "runs" the English Wikipedia, and
>almost don't care about the other languages. I think it would help
>greatly to assign the role of a responsible editor to some person for
>each language, perhaps Kurt Jansson or Stefan Rybo for the German, and
>Linus Tolke for the Swedish Wikipedia. This would make Wikipedia more
>like a franchising concept. The national wikipedias could be run on a
>separate site (like wiki.rozeta.com.pl) if the responsible editor
>("franchising owner") finds that useful. Bomis would own the name
>Wikipedia and the concept and terms under which it is franchised.
>
>I guess what I am saying is that the national Wikipedias need a Larry,
>and that there are people who can take on that role if they know the
>role exists.
>
>(No, I am not a candidate for editor of the Swedish Wikipedia.)
I wouldn't say that Bomis doesn't care about the other wikis, but simply
that the Bomis staff actively working on Wikipedia consists of Jimbo, Tim
and Larry, none of whom speak the required languages. But I do agree that
the international Wikipedias need some sort of formal leadership. Your
suggestion sounds pretty good to me.
Another problem with [[Home Page]] is that the new software is (was?}
going to convert leading lowercase to leading caps, so [[Home Page]]
would be the same as [[home page]], and our home page is not only not
an article, but also not even a representative sample. Please see
[[naming conventions]]. ;-)
KQ
You Wrote:
>Should the name of HomePage be changed, I would strongly argue for
"Main Page" over "Home Page". Most people
>think of "Home Page" as the place where the browser goes when you
start it up, and others use the term as in "personal
>home page", i.e. where you put the pictures of your kids.
>
>Axel
>
>[Wikipedia-l]
>To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>0
Just to let everybody know that I've made a start on the Afrikaans
wikipedia. AFAIK I'm the only South African wikipedian (if not, howzit
okes), but I'll try to rustle up a little community.
This may be of long-term interest to those working on the Dutch wikipedia
- translating between these two languages is fairly easy.
http://af.wikipedia.com
Sien julle,
clasqm
--
Michel Clasquin, D Litt et Phil (Unisa)
clasqm(a)mweb.co.za/unisa.ac.za http://www.geocities.com/clasqm
This message was posted from a Microsoft-free PC
f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n nx dmnstrtn
Hello everybody!
I also wrote this on Intlwiki-l, but nobody replied. Maybe I'll have
more luck here.
I don't know if this problem has been discussed before:
I wrote to the maintainers of a German Hardware-FAQ, which is
distributed under the Open Publication License, if we could use some of
their definitions. But there are two problems:
1. Is the Open Publication License compatible to the GNU Free
Documentation License which is used by Wikipedia?
2. The Open Publication License says that in the modified version the
original author has to be named and the modifications have to be dated.
I think at the moment this is not the case at Wikipedia.
Maybe it would be an idea to keep the original article on a subpage!?
And maybe there are other problems that I don't think of at the moment.
What do the license experts say about this?
You can see the answer of the FAQ maintainers further down.
Bye,
Kurt
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Simon Paquet <simon(a)netwarriors.org>
An: <hardware(a)netwarriors.org>
Cc: Kurt Jansson <kurt(a)jansson.de>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. November 2001 19:27
Betreff: Re: Lizenzfrage zur FAQ
In the distants of time, Kurt Jansson wished to say a word:
CC: Hardware-FAQ-ML
>Vielleicht hat der ein oder andere von Euch schon von dem
>Wikipedia-Projekt gehört. Wir versuchen da, ein Lexikon unter der GNU
>Free Documentation License zu schreiben. Das ganze funktioniert mit
>Hilfe eines Wikis, sprich: jeder kann sofort an den Texten mitarbeiten,
>ohne Anmeldung o.ä.
>Näheres unter http://de.wikipedia.com/
>
>Wenn ich das richtig verstehe habt Ihr die FAQ unter der Open Public
>Licence veröffentlicht.
Unter der Open Publication License 0.8 oder höher. Derzeit aktuell ist
Version 1.0
>Leider habe ich von Lizenzdingen keinen blassen Schimmer (und ehrlich
>gesagt auch wenig Motivation mich damit auseinander zu setzen). Darum
>die Frage an Euch: Wisst Ihr, ob die beiden Lizenzen kompatibel sind?
Ob sie kompatibel sind kann ich dir auch nicht genau sagen. Ich kann
dazu
nur mal von der Lizenzseite des GNU Projektes zitieren:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#TOCFreeDocumentationLicens
es
|This license can be used as a free documentation license. It is a
|copyleft free documentation license provided the copyright holder
|does not exercise any of the "LICENSE OPTIONS" listed in Section VI
|of the license. But if either of the options is invoked, the license
|becomes non-free.
Keiner der Punkte von Sektion VI ist von uns mit eingebunden worden.
>Können wir problemlos aus der FAQ Definitionen übernehmen?
Solange der Hinweis auf uns und die Lizenz erhalten bleibt.
>Ein kleines Problem bleibt: In der Wikipedia gibt es keine "Autoren"
>eines Artikels, da ständig jeder an jedem Artikel rumverbessert. Könnte
>das ein Problem sein? Muß bei den übernommenen Artikeln jeweils einer
>von Euch genannt sein (zumindest so lange, bis er signifikant verändert
>wurde)? Oder seht Ihr das nicht so eng?
Die Open Publication License sagt da folgendes zu (Zitat aus der
inoffiziellen deutschen Übersetzung):
|ERFORDERNISSE FÜR MODIFIZIERTE ARBEITEN
|Alle modifizierten Versionen, die durch diese Lizenz abgedeckt werden,
|einschließlich von Übersetzungen, Anthologien, Zusammenstellungen und
|Teildokumenten, müssen die folgenden Erfordernisse erfüllen:
|
|Die modifizierte Version muß als solche gekennzeichnet werden.
|
|Die Person, die die Modifikationen vornimmt, muß genannt und die
|Modifikationen müssen datiert werden.
|
|Danksagungen der Original-Autors und -Herausgebers - sofern
|vorhanden - müssen in Übereinstimmung mit der normalen akademischen
|Zitierungspraxis erhalten bleiben.
|
|Der Ort des originalen unmodifizierten Dokuments muß benannt werden.
|
|Die Namen der Original-Autoren dürfen nicht benutzt werden ohne die
|Erlaubnis des Original-Autors / der Original-Autoren.
Wenn ihr damit leben könnt, dann legt los, falls nicht, tut mir das
leid,
aber dann können wir nichts für dich tun.
Ciao
Simon, im Namen des Teams
--
Hardware-Gruppenberater: http://faq.babylonsounds.com/gruppen.html
Hinweise fuer Einsteiger: http://faq.babylonsounds.com/einsteiger.html
CPU+Mainboard FAQ: http://faq.babylonsounds.com
Hi,
I just noticed that our regular Wikipedia article pages don't mention
the word "Wikpedia" anywhere. That's not good. Especially if somebody
prints out an article, the word Wikipedia needs to appear somewhere.
I suggest that we change "You can edit this page right now!" in the
second line to "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia. Contribute right now!"
Also, "HomePage" should be changed to "Home page" or preferably "Main
page".
At the bottom, I would write "Search Wikipedia" instead of "Search".
Also, the double link to "Edit texto of this page" is superfluous.
Maybe just replace the "You can edit..." with the same slogan from
above "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia. Contribute right now!"
Axel
> Those only appear to be static pages, through the magic of
> apache's mod_rewrite.
So you're the one who did that? I tried to do that for my
personal Wiki <http://www.piclab.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl>, but I
couldn't get it right. Would you mind posting (or sending to
me) the actual lines from your httpd.conf?
I asked Clifford the same question, since I assumed he did it--
it also requires tweaking UseMod to get the links on the pages
in the new format--but he never got back to me. I've already
done a lot of hacking on UseMod, so I'm comfortable with that,
but mod_rewrite has so far eluded me.0
Well it has to be asked...
Do we have a timeframe for porting the Wikipedia to Magnus's new script? I'm personally all for it, the sooner the better.
Do we need to get an action plan for the migration? After all I think there will be a lot of housekeeping to take care of.
Manning
Has a final decision been made on exactly how Wikipedia content must
be attributed when used in derivative works? I am the collection
editor for the Linux Documentation Project, and I would like to write
some scripts that will pull selected documents out of Wikipedia to be
installed on users' machines along with the LDP documents. It
shouldn't be too hard of a job with perl or python, although polishing
it up might take some finesse, like removing links that go to
documents that aren't being included.
Eventually, when the Linux documentation database, ScrollKeeper,
supports online document registration, I will instead link directly to
Wikipedia. I will install the initial set but use the online version
if a network connection is available.
I would ask that you please do not require an html table but a plain
attribution. LDP documents are formatted so they display in a console
web browser (e.g., lynx and links). People who install server machines
often don't install a GUI, and lynx doesn't support tables.
What I would like to do ideally is format the document similar to
the way we credit FOLDOC on Wikipedia:
---EXAMPLE---
Foo
Wikipedia.com
Foo (19xx - 19xx) was a bar bazzer especially noted for his skill in
xyxxy. Blah blah. :-)
----
This document was created by Wikipedia.com
---EXAMPLE---
So Wikipedia.com is credited as the "author".
On top or at the bottom, I'm not sure how it will lay out until I
get to doing it and looking at it. If we think that's good enough for
crediting FOLDOC then we shouldn't ask more of *our* downstream users.
If I weren't a Wikipedia fan, I would probably want it at the bottom,
but I happen to know how powerful the community effort is. I want very
much to send Linux users to Wikipedia to help improve our
documentation by building that community.
Wikipedia.com would be a "live" link, of course.
Is there any particular reason you want to require a table? Just
because it looks nice?
--
Dr. David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project david(a)lupercalia.net
Collection Editor & Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org
There won't be anything we won't say to people to try and convince them that
our way is the way to go.
--Bill Gates