I hereby decree, in my usual authoritarian and bossy manner, that today shall
forever be known as Magnus Manske day. Wikipedians of the distant future will
marvel at the day when the new software era dawned upon us.
Tonight at dinner, every Wikipedian should say a toast to Magnus and his many
On Wednesday 04 September 2002 10:38 am, Helga wrote:
> Hello, I am a little swamped with all the wiki list reading material and it
> seems my limited email is getting overloaded.
You might want to create an email filter to sort any emails with the string
"Helga" in the subject into a special folder (just use the help menu of
whatever email program you use and look up "filter").
Otherwise you may miss some emails that concern you.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On Saturday 24 August 2002 12:01 pm, Karen wrote:
> Something I wondered - how do you know who the new users to greet them?
> Do you just look for user names you haven't seen before or is there some
> way to identify them? I'd be happy to do the meet-and-greet but I don't
> know how to do it.
Well - I guess I do it the hard way and scan each edit in all Recent Changes
for a 24 hour period looking for edit link user names (a dead give-a-away)
and for user names I don't remember seeing before. This works for me since I
pretty good reading comprehension and memory.
What would be most useful is a listing of new users that can be accessed from
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Listusers. That way this job would be
BTW we really /do not/ have 3498 real users -- a good many of these "users"
logged in only to abuse our upload utility or for other nefarious or
non-contributing reasons (I don't greet any user who hasn't contributed at
all). Is there a way to get rid of many of these no-longer used user accounts
Lee (just the ones that have been inactive for months and whose user pages
are still edit links)?
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On Monday 19 August 2002 03:41 pm, you wrote:
> Can still be done later. The problem is the lack of time. If you wait to
> long there are to many links to the new location of the english
> wikipedia that can not be broken. If there is no fundamental objection
> to put the English wikipedia at en.wikipedia.org then that must be done.
> What to do whit www.wikipedia.org can wait (a littel.)
This is just silly -- we are building an encyclopedia here not an
organization. There is nothing at all wrong with having the English wikipedia
at wikipedia.org and have all the pages that are about the English language
project be in the wikipedia namespace (or in the other languages project
namespaces). As each language figures out what to call their wikipedia we can
buy them domain names for that and make sure the xx.wikipedia.com domain
names still work.
Other than being a one-page portal to all the different language wikipedias
(which the Main Page already does -- as do most of the other language main
pages) I don't see any logic in using wikipedia.org for anything other than
the English language wikipedia.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
IANAL, but in general we don't have as strong database type laws here in
the US. Database copyright rules get kind of distrubing because you start
getting into copyrighting information, instead of just expression.
Plus, everything is released under the GFDL and in a single
downloadable file, so I think the intention is that if someone wants to
they could mirror the whole thing.
And Kurts right, unless you sign over your copyright everything you do is
your own, so the contributors of wikipedia all own their work released
under the GFDL.
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Kurt Jansson jansson(a)gmx.net XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote:
> Hi Axel!
> > Just a quick clarification on collection copyrights: if you put
> > together a collection of materials, then you acquire a copyright in
> > your particular presentation of the collection, not in the materials
> > of the collection themselves.
> Okay, but my question is: Does Bomis put together a collection of the
> articles, actively? I mean, Jimbo doesn't say: Okay, we'll take this
> article, it's good quality, but I'll keep that one out because it's
> complete nonsense (like a Linux distributor does).
> You could perhaps say we all own the collection copyright (because
> everybody decides if an article is good or so bad that it should be
> edited/replaced/deleted). Or a collection copyright doesn't exist for
> Wikipedia, because it's just a source out of which people could create
> collections (e.g. printed encyclopedias).
> But that's more my sense of justice than a funded knowing of the legal
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
>This means that Bomis' collection copyright would be violated if
>somebody were to copy the website wholesale. If on the other hand the
>wiki sources of the articles are downloaded one by one, and a new web
>site created out of those, then Bomis' collection copyright won't be
>violated. If this new web site doesn't offer the articles under GFDL,
>then the individual article authors could sue of course.
There's a little more to it than that: copyrights apply to "creative
expression", and "selection" of what to present is a creative act
specifically recognized (see Feist v. Rural). So it doesn't matter
how they acquire the whole collection, whether they copy the website
whole or download the articles one by one; if they present the same
collection of articles that we do, they have violated our copyright
on that creative choice of which articles to present.
> This is similar to a Linux distribution. If you create a
> distribution, you can claim collection copyright, and somebody
> who copies the CDROM image without permission is in violation.
> Everybody can however create their own distribution out of the
> exact same free software components that you used, without
> violating your collection copyright.
...but that's not true. You /can/ be sued for violating a
collection copyright for publishing the same collection of free
components as someone else, regardless of how you acquired them,
and even if you package them differently. Choice of what to
present is a creative act, and is protected.
Just a quick clarification on collection copyrights: if you put
together a collection of materials, then you acquire a copyright in
your particular presentation of the collection, not in the materials
of the collection themselves.
This means that Bomis' collection copyright would be violated if
somebody were to copy the website wholesale. If on the other hand the
wiki sources of the articles are downloaded one by one, and a new web
site created out of those, then Bomis' collection copyright won't be
violated. If this new web site doesn't offer the articles under GFDL,
then the individual article authors could sue of course.
This is similar to a Linux distribution. If you create a distribution,
you can claim collection copyright, and somebody who copies the CDROM
image without permission is in violation. Everybody can however create
their own distribution out of the exact same free software components
that you used, without violating your collection copyright.
From: "Eirik Bakke" <eirik_bakke(a)broadpark.no>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 04:24:01 +0200
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Duplicate pages.
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
I'm fairly new to wikipedia, and this mailinglist, so I don't really =
know if this is the appropriate forum for this, but here goes;
I'm attempting to flesh out the area of music genres, however I've ran =
into a problem I cannot seem to find a way to get around. When entering
artists of various musical genres, alot of the entries I want to make, =
already have alot of information on a totally different subject (Fish, =
Genesis,Delerium,Live, Emperor ect). The obvious solution would be to =
add it to the existing pages under a different meaning of the word, =
however I feel that would do more harm then good on alot of topics. =
(Writing about progressive rock under the entrance for "Fish") Is there
any workaroud for this? Ideally creating several pages for the same =
topic, that would both show up on a search, without the clutter of =
having elerything on the same page. This problem will only get more =
common as the numbers of articles increase.
I would apprechiate and insight you migth have to offer.
Hi Eirik -- Speaking of duplication, isn't it a good thing we have
User: Eirik Bakke to distinguish him from Eirik Bakke (the footballer)?
> Why does "Bomis hold a collection copyright on Wikipedia as a
> whole"? I think the contributors are the ones who form the
> collection (create the hypertext structure, "place the links").
> Where is the essential part that Bomis adds to Wikipedia (in an
> ideal way - I don't mean the server space)?
> Don't get me wrong, I'm very thankful to Jimbo/the Bomis people
> for making this possible. It's just something I don't understand
> (but I'm no lawyer) - could someone explain this to me?
It's purely a pragmatic matter of law: since copyright in the
individual articles is owned by individual authors, only they
have standing to sue for infringement. If someone were to use
one article or a few in a way incompatible with the GFDL, that's
probably OK--it would be up to the individual authors to take
action, if any. But if someone decided to copy all of Wikipedia
and sell it as proprietary product or something, all of the
authors would have to organize a class action, and document
authorship, etc., which is a pain in the ass. But if Bomis (or
some future non-profit foundation--we're thinking about that too)
makes sure to claim a collection copyright, Bomis would be able
to sue for non-compliant uses of the whole collection. And that
still wouldn't interfere with any rights the authors had in the